Contact us now on 0121 726 9026 or fill in our quick form below to receive a call back
[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”true”]
Consumer credit act 1974-Section 75 claims
The common misconception with section 75 claims is that the process is an automatic right of recourse. It is not the case. PPI claims were an automatic right of appeal due to a precedent set in the high court.
One of the biggest misconceptions around section 75 is that these rules only cover credit card and finance claims. Bank transfer payments are also protected, as long as the credit card payment forms part of the same purchase. For example; purchase of a Fractional Timeshare for £20,000—credit card deposit of £200 on a credit card, £19,800 by bank transfer. The credit card company is responsible for £20,000 under the rules of section 75.
Section 75 is a claims process that is based around a set of rules which become the foundation of a section 75 credit card claim. However, meeting these criteria does not guarantee that the credit company will refund you. According to a survey in 2017, credit card providers gave false or misleading information to customers calling to make a section 75 claim.
What is covered by the section 75 claims process?
- Purchases over £100 and up to £30,000 are covered
- Part payments, store cards, store instalment credit, car dealership loans, linked finance such as timeshare loans, taken out to purchase Diamond fractional and Club la costa fractional memberships.
- In 2007 the House of Lords decided that section 75 has no territorial limitations. The ruling means that consumers are also protected when making purchases abroad.
- There is no time limit for presenting a section 75 claim to your credit card provider. However, it becomes statute-barred after six years. This means that if the credit card company reject your section 75 claim, you won’t be able to pursue it in court.
- Fraudulent transactions. Such as fake timeshare claims companies in the UK and Spain.
- Mis-selling of goods and services
- Misrepresentations as to claims and promises made by the seller which are found to be untrue. Such as timeshare/fractional ownership sold as an investment.
- A retailer or seller that has gone out of business and is unable to provide the purchased services.
The section 75 claims process is often made very difficult by the financial institutions. Some are more consumer-focused than others. As such, you mustn’t get it wrong. We also specialise in ‘failed claims’. Claims that already been rejected by the credit card company. Having a specialist in your corner can be the difference between winning and losing.
Timeshare finance claims over £30,000 – Covered by section 75A.
Regulatory changes made in 2010 meant that purchases from £30.000 to £60,260 would be covered by section 75A. To be covered under section 75A, you will need to have taken out linked finance. Finance that is provided at the point of sale by the seller. Clydesdale financial services, Barclays partner finance and Shawbrook bank all fall into this category.
Finance that is expressly provided for the purchase of the product. Also known as the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement.
Timeshare Finance claims over £60,260 – Covered by section 140A.
Finance claims over the value of £60,260 are covered by section 104A of the cosumer credit act. This section of protection will apply to many Club La Costa owners that purchased a property in Turkey and Florida.
The unfair relationship test is set out in section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act.
It permits the court to make an order under section 140B if it determines that the relationship between a creditor, e.g. Barclays Partner Finance and debtor, e.g. you, arising out of the agreement (or related agreement) is unfair to the debtor based on one or more of the following:
- Any of the terms of the contract or any similar agreement
- How the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement
- Any other thing is done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor. (Either before or after making of the agreement or any related agreement).
Contrary to the normal position that ‘he who asserts must prove’, where the debtor alleges that the relationship is unfair, it is for the creditor to prove that it is not. 140B(9) of the Act puts the burden on lenders to prove that a relationship is not unfair.
The provisions apply to both regulated, and unregulated credit agreements and section 140A gives the court a broad discretion to “have regard to all matters it thinks relevant”.
The discretion applied by the court has proved the unfair relationship regime to have a broad-reaching effect.
The court will focus on the relationship as a whole and not whether the agreement itself was unfair. Accordingly, the court may review the relationship between the lender and borrower after the agreement has concluded, and the review could extend to consider the entire history of the banking or credit relationship.
In 2014, Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd established that the lender doesn’t need to have breached a duty to the borrower before the relationship could be found to be unfair. The Supreme Court revisited the issue of unfair relationships in relation to PPI mis-selling claims.
In particular, the court was concerned with the non-disclosure of commissions payable out of a PPI premium where the lender had committed no breach of the ICOB regulations. Prior to Plevin, the finding of an unfair relationship was based on the standard imposed by the regulatory authorities pursuant to their statutory duties.
Plevin viewed this basis in the broader context of the standard of commercial conduct reasonably to be expected of the creditor.
This wider context now allows the court to consider the fairness or unfairness of the banking relationship even in circumstances where the lender has complied with their duties to the borrower.
If you have purchased a Timeshare or Fractional ownership and paid for it by linked finance or credit card, then you may qualify for a refund and compensation.