Tweet
Two years ago, almost to the day, I had a hair transplant. Due to my financial situation at the time, my father acted as a guarantor for a credit agreement that was implemented to pay for the surgery, on a monthly basis.
The surgery was a failure; and it has since transpired that the company that provided the treatment has now gone bankrupt, following accusations of corruption and financial, as well as medical, mismanagement/malpractice. The illegal actions of this company has been highlighted by many national publications - The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc etc - as well as featuring in a segment for BBC News. I am currently taking legal action against the the company (or what's left of it) and my legal team expect success on this front.
My issue lies with the bank that provided the credit. Upon highlighting the legal status of the providers of the hair transplant to the bank, they initially accepted equal responsibility and put my monthly payments on hold while they investigated the issue. 3 months later they came back to me stating that as your father entered into a loan with the bank and because he was not the person who had the treatment, there is no debtor-credit-supplier relationship and therefore Shawbrook is not liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of the treatment provided and as such, I am required to continue making the payments (via my father) for my failed treatment.
Essentially, they are circumnavigating responsibility - stating that because the agreement is between my father and the bank they are not responsible.
Is there anyway around the banks claims of zero responsibility due to no debtor-credit-supplier under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
The surgery was a failure; and it has since transpired that the company that provided the treatment has now gone bankrupt, following accusations of corruption and financial, as well as medical, mismanagement/malpractice. The illegal actions of this company has been highlighted by many national publications - The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc etc - as well as featuring in a segment for BBC News. I am currently taking legal action against the the company (or what's left of it) and my legal team expect success on this front.
My issue lies with the bank that provided the credit. Upon highlighting the legal status of the providers of the hair transplant to the bank, they initially accepted equal responsibility and put my monthly payments on hold while they investigated the issue. 3 months later they came back to me stating that as your father entered into a loan with the bank and because he was not the person who had the treatment, there is no debtor-credit-supplier relationship and therefore Shawbrook is not liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of the treatment provided and as such, I am required to continue making the payments (via my father) for my failed treatment.
Essentially, they are circumnavigating responsibility - stating that because the agreement is between my father and the bank they are not responsible.
Is there anyway around the banks claims of zero responsibility due to no debtor-credit-supplier under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Comment