Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would be inclined to rip their WS apart. That way, I doubt that VCS would wish to proceed to Court.  In paragraph 5 VCS claim they have full compliance with their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement and Private Land. Really? Can this be the same VCS that was issuing PCNs between 2013 and 2017 knowing that the signage there had not been agreed by Liverpool council and therefore the signage was illegal. Here is an open letter from the Parking Prank   Tuesday, 19 November 2013 An open letter to Simon Renshaw Smith of VCS parking regarding Liverpool John Lennon Airport   19/11/2013 Dear Mr Renshaw Smith,   I wish to draw your attention to the procedural impropriety in your operational activities on the approach roads within Liverpool John Lennon Airport.   You are actively operating under contract to issue civil penalty tickets (PCN’s) for traffic offences on the roads such as stopping at the roadside, whether for seconds, minutes or even longer, or for parking on the roadside verges.   You are doing so based on an allegation of contractual agreement for a breach of parking conditions and are actively sending out a notice to keeper in each case where you ask for the name and address of the driver. You are doing this under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.   As you are no doubt aware, due to your many years of experience in emptying people’s wallets, where land is governed by byelaws the remedy for any breach of conditions of those byelaws is through the criminal courts, such as a magistrates.   Not only that, since the byelaws set an amount of penalty for failure to comply with them; a further amount based on your own assessment is unlawful at best and perhaps even fraudulent.   A set of the byelaws for the Liverpool Airport have now been obtained from a reliable source, Liverpool City Council,  which sets out the airport’s stance on roadway use, or misuse. It also lays down a penalty upon summary conviction for a breach of the byelaws of £5 for the 1st offence and a further amount of 40 shillings for a continued daily breach.   I put it to you that these byelaws govern the airport’s penalty regime for the alleged contraventions you are enforcing. In fact there is no penalty for stopping at the roadside. There is no offence committed so there can be no penalty unless it can be proven in a magistrate’s court that this action amounted to a failure under para 14: “Driving or placing a vehicle carelessly or dangerously or without due consideration for persons using the airport”   Para 18 gives notice that a “failure by the driver of a vehicle to comply with any direction for the regulation of traffic given by a constable or any person acting on behalf of the council or a traffic sign” will be subject to the penalty regime of the aforementioned £5 plus 40 shillings per day afterwards.   The mention of the traffic signs and the council's part in the overall monitoring means that the signs must be compliant to the TSRGD which are those shown for the public highways; not the ones arbitrarily stuck at the roadside by yourself which are meaningless in the context of the legal status of the byelaws.   Furthermore, POFA 2012 3(1)(c) states that Schedule 4 only applies on land on which the parking of a vehicle is not subject to a statutory control. It further states (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.   The byelaws state at para 2.19 that the following act is prohibited. The penalty for this is a fine not exceeding five pounds.   POFA 2012 therefore does not apply, and you may therefore only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. Moreover, you may only pursue them for the sum of five pounds.   Knowingly pursuing the registered keeper when POFA 2012 is an offence which the DVLA take extremely seriously and may ban you from access. The BPA wrote to you in their electronic newsletter this month reiterating this.   I put it to you, Mr Renshaw Smith, that your company is operating unlawfully at the Liverpool Airport site and ask what you intend to do since this has now been brought to your notice.   May I remind you that since this is an unlawful operation, you may well be required at some later time to recompense the amounts of the PCN’s already paid by drivers, and perhaps face tough questions in a court of law, not just a civil court.           Happy Stopping Briefly At the Roadside   The Parking Prankster   The Prankster would like to thank his source for the above   I am sure that you will find other examples of VCS not complying with Code of Conduct or the Law.   And of course VCS do not have the ability to take you to Court because you were a trespasser and only the land owner can take a trespasser to Court.          
    • Yes ...you have it confirmed by the court above that they requested a copy of the Order/Consent on the 2/08/2019....and then requested judgment on 21/08/2019 .
    • blimey J&P   I wonder how many more solicitor firms UAE creditors will try and use as a cheaper alternative to IRDWW and their cohorts that appear to have cost them £1000's in fees for nothing in return.   if this is not a letter of claim  pers i'd ignore them unless you have previous UK addresses since coming to the UK?
    • Thats the idea.....any further flaws with the reconstituted agreement ? They will be able to rely on a recon given that the agreement is post April 2007 but it must be accurate and a true copy of the agreement used from that date.   Andy
    • We dont recommend any Solicitors on this forum....but you will get free advice from others in similar positions.   Welcome to CAG   Andy
  • Our picks

yaffsimone1

Disputes involving S.75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - By FOS 20 June 2007

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3731 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

disputes involving Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Each year, we receive a significant number of complaints that involve Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – under which, in certain circumstances, the provider of credit is equally liable with the provider of goods or services where there is a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

Up until now, almost all these complaints have involved credit card transactions (both at home and abroad). However, going forward we expect our work in this area to expand, reflecting our new consumer credit jurisdiction and the extension of our existing jurisdiction to include complaints about point-of-sale loans and store cards.

We often encounter some common misunderstandings when assessing these cases. The first is the belief among some lenders that consumers can only claim against them after they have first sued the provider of the goods or services. In fact, no such requirement exists and consumers can choose which party to claim against.

Where consumers come to us to check the position, we can point out the lender's mistake. But of course we cannot know how many consumers take the lender's assertion at face value and then spend time and effort trying to pursue a trader who may prove difficult to trace. If it seems to us that the lender has misled the consumer about the provisions of Section 75, and this has caused the consumer unnecessary expense or inconvenience, then this is likely to be reflected in any award we may make.

The second misunderstanding we frequently come across is the belief by some consumers that Section 75 entitles them to a refund on any purchase made with credit. Some consumers also confuse the rights given to them by Section 75 with the automatic insurance coverage that some credit card issuers provide.

For Section 75 to apply, in the first instance the following four conditions must all be satisfied:

  • The cash price of the goods or services bought by the consumer must be at least £100 and no more than £30,000.
  • The amount of credit provided to the consumer towards the purchase must not exceed £25,000, and must have been provided to an 'individual' (which includes sole traders, small partnerships and unincorporated businesses, as well as ordinary consumers).
  • The provider of credit must be in the business of lending money, and the credit agreement must have been made in the course of that business.
  • The credit must have been provided to the consumer under pre-existing arrangements between the provider of credit and the supplier of the goods and services.

If all these conditions are satisfied, there is a 'lender-borrower-supplier' chain and the lender will have equal liability for misrepresentation or breach of contract by the merchant. There is no automatic entitlement to a refund under Section 75 where, for example, the customer has simply changed their mind.

In April 2008, the current maximum financial limit of £25,000 for regulated credit agreements will be removed. The effect of this has not been entirely understood by some consumers and consumer advisers, who have asked us to deal with claims in respect of much larger cash value purchases in 'anticipation' of unlimited Section 75 coverage next year. In fact, the cash price limits within Section 75 will not be affected by the changes in April 2008 – so we will still be unable to consider claims about purchases costing more then £30,000.

The following selection of recent Section 75-related case studies illustrates some of the issues we have had to decide.

case studies

 

disputes involving Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

62/01

dispute over the return of a deposit for a car hire contract

Mr M hired a luxury car for the weekend. He said that when he booked the car, by phone, he was asked to pay a £1,000 'holding' deposit that would be refunded in full when the car was returned undamaged. He paid this with his credit card.

Mr M returned the car in good order at the end of the hire period, and said he was told the deposit would be refunded in full within a month. However, that did not happen and when he contacted the hirer he was told that his £1,000 was 'forfeit' because he had returned the car a day late.

Mr M disputed this. He pointed out to the hirer that even if he had returned the car late, under the contract he would be liable only for a further £115 daily charge – not £1,000. However, the hirer still refused to refund the £1,000 so Mr M contacted his credit card provider.

The credit card provider said it was unable to help. It told Mr M that it did not accept any liability under Section 75, and that, in any event, Mr M had not produced sufficient evidence to show he had returned the car on time. Mr M then referred the dispute to us.

complaint upheld

We looked at the written contract that Mr M had entered into with the hirer. This made no mention of the terms on which the £1,000 deposit had been paid. There was nothing to suggest the deposit would be forfeited if the car was returned late.

The contract did say that an extra £115 would be payable for each day or part day that Mr M delayed returning the car. However, Mr M provided credible information backing up his claim to have returned the car on time.

Mr M's evidence about what he had been told by the hirer when booking the hire was consistent and convincing, and we accepted that he had paid the deposit on the basis of an assurance that it would be refunded once he returned the car undamaged.

We found that the card provider was liable under Section 75 and we said it should refund Mr M the £1,000 deposit. We also told the card issuer to adjust the interest on Mr M's credit card account, so that he was not out-of-pocket because of the delay in returning the deposit.

 

62/02

consumer makes purchase of land in her sole name but using the additional card she was given on her husband's credit card account

Mrs L negotiated with a land-holding company to buy a plot of land. She said she agreed to buy the land on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that she would be able to obtain planning permission for the plot.

After completing the purchase, Mrs L discovered from the local authority that she was unlikely ever to get planning permission to develop the land. As she had used a credit card to pay the deposit, Mrs L considered that the credit card provider was liable to her under Section 75 for the cost of what she now considered to be 'worthless' land. However, the card provider disagreed, so Mrs L brought her complaint to us.

complaint rejected

Mrs L had bought the land in her sole name, intending to develop it as her own project. But she had paid the deposit by using a credit card account in her husband's sole name. Even though her husband had allowed her to have an additional card (carrying her own name) on the account – the account itself was in Mr L's name and it was Mr L – not his wife – who had had been provided with credit.

Because of that, the linked 'chain' of lender, borrower and supplier required for Section 75 to operate was not present, so we could not uphold Mrs L's claim against the credit card provider.

 

62/03

dispute involving the quality of workmanship in kitchen refurbishment paid for by credit card

Mr H was extremely disappointed with the expensive polished granite worktops he bought from a retailer who specialised in designer kitchens. He felt the worktops had been poorly cut and badly finished.

After trying unsuccessfully to get the retailer to put matters right, Mr H decided to make a claim to his credit card provider under Section 75. He had paid for the worktops – and for their installation – with his credit card.

The credit card provider told Mr H that it could not accept his claim, as it did not consider that poor workmanship constituted a breach of contract. Mr H then referred the dispute to us.

complaint upheld

Mr H sent us detailed photographs of the fitted worktops and we agreed that they were unsatisfactory. Not only did they not fit properly into the space they had been cut for, but they were not functional – since they were not level. They were also very clearly marked with grooves and scratches where the workmen had tried to force them into place.

In law, Mr H was entitled to assume that the terms of the contract included an agreement that the worktops would be supplied and fitted to a satisfactory standard, taking into account the price and description. So we were satisfied that – contrary to what the credit card provider believed – there had been a breach of contract.

Mr H said he had looked into the cost of putting right the problems with the worktops and had received a quotation of £1,200. He wanted his credit card provider to cover that cost, and we thought that was fair in the circumstances. When we explained our views to the credit card provider – in particular that there had indeed been a serious breach of contract – it agreed to meet the costs, once Mr H supplied the written quotation.

 

62/04

dispute involving electronic goods bought abroad using a credit card

At the start of his holiday in Spain, Mr J used his credit card to buy a digital camera with electronic accessories. He later told us that towards the end of his holiday he realised the camera was not as good as he had expected, and did not have all the features the retailer had described to him. He therefore returned to the shop and asked for his money back, but the retailer refused and became abusive.

Once Mr J got home, he wrote to his credit card provider and asked for a refund under Section 75 – saying he had bought the camera on the basis of a misrepresentation by the retailer. The card provider said it was unable to help, so Mr J referred the matter to us.

complaint rejected

Mr J was able to argue that Section 75 applied in this case because of a decision of the Court of Appeal in March 2006 that transactions made abroad are covered by Section 75. Pending a final decision on the matter by the House of Lords, this represents the current legal position.

During our investigation of the complaint, we asked Mr J some questions about his second visit to the retailer to return the camera. We had noticed from his credit card statement that on the same day he had made another – larger – purchase from the same retailer.

Initially, Mr J was reluctant to discuss that purchase. Eventually he told us that he had bought a more expensive digital camera. He was unable to explain why he had bought another camera from the same retailer he had accused of misleading him about the first camera, and of later becoming abusive.

After considering the evidence, we thought it unlikely the first camera had been sold on the basis of a misrepresentation. From what Mr J told us, it seemed more likely that having initially bought a cheaper camera, he had changed his mind and decided he would prefer the more expensive one. He had returned to the retailer hoping for a refund of the cost of his initial purchase when he bought the second camera. We rejected the complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better late than never. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol @ bookworm thats true...;)

 

I just wanted to point out to newbies that might be reading this thread the £100 to £25,000 guidlines have been removed from the consumer credit act.

 

Just in case they wonder why they can claim back a £30 direct debit charge.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would advise you to read the 2006 amedment act.

 

The regulated sums of money have been altered.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking through it .... good timing actually as I have just received a letter in the post from Egg refusing to dispute 2 transactions as they are for £32.25 and £50.00 and 'in isolation both under £100' and pointing out the act covers £100 - £30,000.

 

Are they wrong?


Help me to help others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are wrong.

 

Section 2: Removal of financial limits etc.

16. Section 2 removes the financial limit for the regulation of consumer credit and

consumer hire agreements under the 1974 Act. The 1974 Act currently applies only

to agreements where credit provided or the hire payments to be made do not exceed

£25,000. In future, all consumer credit and consumer hire agreements will be

regulated by the 1974 Act unless specifically exempted, regardless of the amount of

the credit or the amount of the hire payments. Section 2(3) extends the application of

the provisions regulating credit advertisements to advertisements offering credit

regardless of the sum involved, and regardless of whether the creditor requires

security.

 

Just realised should have started a new thread under Egg really. Cheers


Help me to help others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or are they? I have started a threat on the Egg forums but

 

Removal of financial limits etc.

(1) In section 8 of the 1974 Act

(a) in subsection (1) for “personal” substitute “consumer”;

(b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.

 

Then:

 

8 Consumer credit agreements

(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (“the debtor”) and any other person (“the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000.

 

 

I don't think it is talking about the S75 Liability bit?

 

Just reading through the Which? magazine and it points out that although CCA S75 doesn't apply to under £100, chargebacks do apply.

Edited by robert_harper_2000

Help me to help others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £100 and £30,000 limits for section 75 have NOT been changed by the 2006 Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no but I think the limit was 25k ? but I thought (mistakely that the 100 pound bit had gone too - that hasn't though


Help me to help others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me where in the act it says ther is still a £100 lower threshold?

 

Ive found this section with an exemption for business contracts with over a £25,000 value

 

Before section 17 of the 1974 Act insert—

 

 

 

 

“16B Exemption relating to businesses

 

(1) This Act does not regulate—

(a) a consumer credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit exceeding £25,000, or

(b) a consumer hire agreement that requires the hirer to make payments exceeding £25,000,

if the agreement is entered into by the debtor or hirer wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(2) If an agreement includes a declaration made by the debtor or hirer to the effect that the agreement is entered into by him wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him, the agreement shall be presumed to have been entered into by him wholly or predominantly for such purposes.

(3) But that presumption does not apply if, when the agreement is entered into—

(a) the creditor or owner, or

(b) any person who has acted on his behalf in connection with the entering into of the agreement,

knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the agreement is not entered into by the debtor or hirer wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the form, content and signing of declarations for the purposes of subsection (2).

(5) Where an agreement has two or more creditors or owners, in subsection (3) references to the creditor or owner are references to any one or more of them.

(6) Nothing in this section affects the application of sections 140A to 140C.”


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a trader who's not regulated by either the FSA or the FOS brokers a loan with a credit provider without performing an affordability check an without offering PPI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there not regulated and there suposed to be then there quite simply trading unlawfully.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can I find out if they're supposed to be regulated and by which organisation?

It's altogether a bit more complicated as the trader's company is owned by another company (calling itself a "holding company") operating on different premises. On the date the loan was brokered, the trader did not disclose this detail. I later found out that the trader did not hold a consumer credit license on the date the loan was brokered but its umbrella company did.

So, who's ultimately the responsibe party? The trader, its umbrella company or the credit provider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a look on the OFT website then it will tell you if they need to ply for a licence.

 

The OFT regulate the consumer credit act's.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone down that route and written to the OFT.

Apparently, the license the umrella company holds allows them to canvas oher premises.

Still, if they let a company they own (the trader) broker a loan, either they or the trader ought to be regulated by either the FSA or the FOS and they're certainly not regulated by either.

Now, the question is, who's responsible for misselling the loan? The broker, its umbrella company (after all, they've got the license), or the credit provider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread on CAG involving this wedding dress company.

 

The credit card company is this case refused to pay, but soon coughed up when a claim was brought against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...