Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act
andy
issues with the dealer and considered them to be in breach of
contract. The dealer didn't want to know so I have claimed against the
credit card company .
I paid a £100 deposit initially on my credit card and the balance on
my debit card .
The credit card company are rejecting my claim saying that the
agreement was between the dealer and my son and because he does not
have direct link to my credit card account.
My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
my son I would be making the total payment etc.
I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
How I should proceed from here ?
Thanks foe any help
Zaz
> The credit card company are rejecting my claim saying that the agreement
> was between the dealer and my son and because he does not have direct
> link to my credit card account.
I know someone who wanted to make a claim through their credit card
company for a car that went up in flames and they were told that the CC
protection "doesn't apply to cars or jewellery".
This was obviously bollocks and after putting a claim in writing quoting
the CCA, the CC company replied to say in order to make a claim they had
to have a written statement from the dealer admitting liability! I'm sure
you can imagine how well that would work.
It seems like credit card companies just want to wriggle out of their
legal liability obligation as much as possible, especially for cars.
zaax
You can claim on your debit card as well.
Anyway you brought the car and sold it to your son - sounds like money
claim on-line for you
--
---
zaax
Frustration casues accidents: allow faster traffic to overtake.
Peter Parry
>My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
>dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
>my son I would be making the total payment etc.
>I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
Was the car bought by you or by your son? If the contract was with
him (it was bought by your son with receipts in his name, negotiations
with the garage, test drive by him and transfer of registered keeper
directly to him but paid for by you) then the CC company are correct.
It doesn't matter who paid, it matters who made the contract.
If the car was bought by you and later transferred to your son they
are not correct.
Ste
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:37:26 GMT, andy <c...@wallop.com> wrote:
> >My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
> >dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
> >my son I would be making the total payment etc.
> >I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
>
> Was the car bought by you or by your son? If the contract was with
> him (it was bought by your son with receipts in his name, negotiations
> with the garage, test drive by him and transfer of registered keeper
> directly to him but paid for by you) then the CC company are correct.
It is none of the card issuer's business who the car ultimately went
to, or who ultimately paid for it. The OP paid for the car with his
own credit card, and the credit card company are liable.
Alternatively, if the card issuer suggests otherwise, then put it to
them that perhaps the card holder is not liable for the debt either,
since the contract was between the garage and his son.
> It doesn't matter who paid, it matters who made the contract.
Which, of course, is between the card holder and the retailer.
andy
wrote:
Thanks for your replies - it would seem that the credit card company
are trying to wriggle out of it.
I purchased the car - I paid the £100 deposit on my credit card and
the balance on my debit card - I have receipts in my name. I did the
negotiating , test drive and certain work was carried out at my
request unfortunately to an inferior standard. The only time my son
had to be involved in any of the transaction was to sign over his old
car which was taken in part exchange and obviously for the DVLA to
register in his name.
I drove the car away on my insurance .
Surely it is my business whether my son ever gave me any money for the
car later anyway ?
I
Alex Heney
wrote:
>andy wrote:
>
>> I purchased a used car from a dealer for my son . I had have had
>> issues with the dealer and considered them to be in breach of
>> contract. The dealer didn't want to know so I have claimed against the
>> credit card company .
>> I paid a £100 deposit initially on my credit card and the balance on
>> my debit card .
>> The credit card company are rejecting my claim saying that the
>> agreement was between the dealer and my son and because he does not
>> have direct link to my credit card account.
>> My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
>> dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
>> my son I would be making the total payment etc.
>> I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
>>
>> How I should proceed from here ?
>>
>> Thanks foe any help
>
>You can claim on your debit card as well.
Only if the payment makes you go overdrawn (or more so).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A yer ago I kudnt spel progremr now I are won.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
tim....
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:125996e4-7ea7-440b...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Mar, 22:35, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:37:26 GMT, andy <c...@wallop.com> wrote:
> >My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
> >dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
> >my son I would be making the total payment etc.
> >I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
>
> Was the car bought by you or by your son? If the contract was with
> him (it was bought by your son with receipts in his name, negotiations
> with the garage, test drive by him and transfer of registered keeper
> directly to him but paid for by you) then the CC company are correct.
It is none of the card issuer's business who the car ultimately went
to, or who ultimately paid for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes it is.
If a person pays for something on their CC for someone else, out of
convenience, then S75 protection doesn't apply.
Nor does it if a second cardholder pays for something for themself.
I agree that there could be protection if the card holder bought the item
for themselves and then gave it to the second party as a gift, but that is
not the point you disagreed with.
tim
tim....
"andy" <co...@wallop.com> wrote in message
news:dc2lp599d7bpm0k5h...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:46:29 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Mar, 22:35, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:37:26 GMT, andy <c...@wallop.com> wrote:
>>> >My son was with me when the purchase was made and I explained to the
>>> >dealer that although the cars reg docs would have to be transfered to
>>> >my son I would be making the total payment etc.
>>> >I have receipts/ bank statements etc. to prove this .
>>>
>>> Was the car bought by you or by your son? If the contract was with
>>> him (it was bought by your son with receipts in his name, negotiations
>>> with the garage, test drive by him and transfer of registered keeper
>>> directly to him but paid for by you) then the CC company are correct.
>>
>>It is none of the card issuer's business who the car ultimately went
>>to, or who ultimately paid for it. The OP paid for the car with his
>>own credit card, and the credit card company are liable.
>>Alternatively, if the card issuer suggests otherwise, then put it to
>>them that perhaps the card holder is not liable for the debt either,
>>since the contract was between the garage and his son.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It doesn't matter who paid, it matters who made the contract.
>>
>>Which, of course, is between the card holder and the retailer.
>
> Thanks for your replies - it would seem that the credit card company
> are trying to wriggle out of it.
They are, but Ste is wrong, their legal argument is correct. The only issue
is whether it applies here.
So the way that you can break this argument is to show that the card holder
bought the item for themself and then gifted the item to the second party,
and gifted their statutory protection at the same time. But you can't win
an arguement that their opinion is wrong, because it isn't.
tim
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 11 Mar, 22:35, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>It is none of the card issuer's business who the car ultimately went
>to, or who ultimately paid for it.
It is their concern as to who the contract was between. S75 applies
to a contract between the supplier and buyer. If the buyer was not
the credit card holder S75 does not apply.
>The OP paid for the car with his
>own credit card, and the credit card company are liable.
Far too simplistic, and wrong.
>Alternatively, if the card issuer suggests otherwise, then put it to
>them that perhaps the card holder is not liable for the debt either,
>since the contract was between the garage and his son.
The card holder is responsible for their promise - which was to pay
the garage. They had bought nothing if they handed over the money to
satisfy their son's debt.
If the son bought the car and the father at the end said "Don't worry,
I'll pay for it" and uses his card to buy the son's car that does not
create a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section
12(b) or (c) of S75 of the CCA 1974.
It is no different than if they had withdrawn the cash from a cash
machine and handed it to their son to pay the garage.
>> It doesn't matter who paid, it matters who made the contract.
>Which, of course, is between the card holder and the retailer.
There is no "of course" about it. Possibly the problem here is that
the OP confused the issue by saying he bought the car on behalf of his
son, rather than simply he bought the car.
Peter Parry
>
>Thanks for your replies - it would seem that the credit card company
>are trying to wriggle out of it.
Or you have confused them by saying you bought the car for your son.
>I purchased the car - I paid the £100 deposit on my credit card and
>the balance on my debit card - I have receipts in my name. I did the
>negotiating , test drive and certain work was carried out at my
>request unfortunately to an inferior standard. The only time my son
>had to be involved in any of the transaction was to sign over his old
>car which was taken in part exchange and obviously for the DVLA to
>register in his name.
If you claim you bought the car then transferring registered keeper
from the seller to your son may not have been the wisest move.
>I drove the car away on my insurance .
>Surely it is my business whether my son ever gave me any money for the
>car later anyway ?
It is no ones business what you did later. It is the credit card
companies business if you were not party to a debtor-creditor-supplier
agreement at the time of sale. You are covered if you buy something,
not merely by using your card to pay for something. They could (and
appear to be) arguing that your son bought a car and you paid for it.
In support of this is the fact it was immediately registered in your
sons name.
You claim you drove it on your own insurance - was this as an added
identified vehicle or using the general "any car not owned or rented
by me" provision in many policies?
andy
>
>There is no "of course" about it. Possibly the problem here is that
>the OP confused the issue by saying he bought the car on behalf of his
>son, rather than simply he bought the car.
It looks as though I will have to let the ombudsman decide who the
contract was between . It seems so unreasonable that just by my son
being with me and letting the seller knowing that the car was for him
( a present from me ) that the CC car company can wriggle out ......
As I said my son put his name on the new owner reg document if only
for the reason of not having yet another previous owner on the
document . Also as his car was taken in part exchange he had to sign a
receipt for this .
I also have a receipt , signed by ME , in which it states
*Contractural Work Agreed * also a letter from the dealer addressed
to me referring to the car which YOU PURCHASED so it is obvious who
the dealer considered the contract to be with !
Peter Parry
>It looks as though I will have to let the ombudsman decide who the
>contract was between . It seems so unreasonable that just by my son
>being with me and letting the seller knowing that the car was for him
>( a present from me ) that the CC car company can wriggle out ......
They are not wriggling out of anything, just obeying the law as they
see it. I presume you mentioned your son's ownership of the car at
some stage otherwise this situation would not have arisen?
There are two reasons why they may decline to accept a S75 liability
exists. The first is that they believe you bought the goods on behalf
of your son. You were never the owner of the car and therefore no S75
liability has ever existed. You seem to have some evidence to refute
this although there may be counters (such as driving it on your
insurance if you were relying upon the "vehicles not owned by me"
cover on some policies).
The second is that even if there was a S75 liability at purchase you
have now transferred ownership of the car to your son. It is no
longer your property and the transfer of ownership removed any S75
responsibility from the CC company and contractual liability to you
from the original supplier. It is no different from what the
situation would be if you had sold the car to any other person and
they had driven off in it.
You might be able to get around the latter if you gifted your son your
rights against the seller at the same time as you did the car but I
don't think you can do that with S75 responsibility.
As a matter of interest why did you chose to try to follow the S75
route rather than a claim against the seller?
andy
wrote:
Thanks Peter for your input
I chose to go the S75 route because I was getting zero response from
the dealer - they only replied to my letters after I had got in touch
with the CC company . Probably ultimately I will have to pursue
things in the small claims court
Ste
I notice you said you paid the balance on your debit card. If I
remember correctly there is no protection for debit card purchases -
but I'll let others confirm that.
Secondly, others have raised the issue of whether you were the buyer.
There are two scenarios here. One is that you've essentially said to
your son "I'll buy you a car for your 21st" (or other special
occasion), and obviously your son has had some prior input on the make
and model of the car, etc. In this situation, the car is clearly a
gift from you to your son, and you are the buyer.
The other scenario is that your son said "Dad, will you go and buy me
this car. Also, will you put it on your card, I'll give you the cash
when I can". In that situation, you are acting as agent for your son,
and he is the buyer.
Now I assume your circumstances fall comfortably into one or the other
of these scenarios, and that determines the card issuer's liability. I
have assumed from the start that the car was a gift from you, not that
you were acting as your son's agent.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On 13 Mar, 12:34, andy <c...@wallop.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:50:14 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>> wrote:
>I notice you said you paid the balance on your debit card. If I
>remember correctly there is no protection for debit card purchases -
>but I'll let others confirm that.
There isn't, but if any part of a purchase is made by credit card and
qualifies for S75 cover (as a deposit of �100 would) then the whole of
the purchase is covered by S75 even if the majority of the payment is
made by other means.
>Now I assume your circumstances fall comfortably into one or the other
>of these scenarios, and that determines the card issuer's liability.
Not altogether, even if the purchase was covered by S75 that cover
vanished when ownership of the car was passed to the son as the
purchaser no longer owns the car.