Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Also, the T&Cs state: "Fees for each Academic Year accrue separately and the fees payable in respect of an Academic Year fall due on the first day of the relevant Academic Year and will be included in an invoice sent to the Student. The fees must be paid in full either by cheque, by direct bank transfer or by credit card by the first day of the Academic Year to which the invoice relates."

Does this strengthen the argument that "each Academic Year" is a single item?

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Thanks.

I can see your predicament, it's not very clear cut is it?

Given that this is a lot of money I think you should consider getting some formal advice from a solicitor who specialises in CCA, not just on the £30k issue but whether you have a valid claim in respect of the misrepresentation and standard of the course in any event.

The CMA has produce a publication in mid 2015 to detail customer rights in relation to such academic programmes - https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nsumer_law.pdf

[EXC]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

At what point did you cancel year 2? Was it before or after you'd been invoiced for it?

[charitynjw]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Thanks. I am aware that the key aspect of the CCA Section 75 is "so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [F2£100] or more than [F3£30,000][F4, or]"

The academic institution has invoiced in two parts:

The first year (with first year fees under £30k) during the first year and a separate invoice at a subsequent date for the second year (with second year fees under £30k). Combined, these are clearly over £30k in total.

It is obviously true that one cannot do the second year without having done the first year. This is perhaps analogous to a return journey ticket vs two singles: going from A to B and then B to A, with no alternative way of getting from A to B in order to use the B to A part.

My claim under Section 75 relates only to the 1st year, for fees paid totalling under £30k. Due to the misrepresentation and breaches by the academic institution, I ceased payment and therefore did not pay the 2nd year fees.

Therefore, the total monetary amount paid to the academic institution is under £30k, and the section 75 claim relates only to this 1st year (I am not trying to claim a refund on the 2nd year which was unpaid for anyway).

Does this help the basis of the claim?

Imho, you could do the first year, but not the second.
& I'll bet that you would be billed for year 1 only.
Ergo, 2 separate invoices, 2 separate transactions.

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

At what point did you cancel year 2? Was it before or after you'd been invoiced for it?

Cancelled the second year after it was invoiced.

- - - Updated - - -

Imho, you could do the first year, but not the second.
& I'll bet that you would be billed for year 1 only.
Ergo, 2 separate invoices, 2 separate transactions.

Does the fact that I have not done the second year, nor paid for the second year, help to strengthen the claim? The Section 75 claim was purely in relation to the first year (for which I have paid in full). Given the breaches and misrepresentation of the 1st year, there was no reason to believe that the second year would have been any different.

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Also, what "consequential loss" is covered under a Section 75 claim? Would it, in this instance, be the costs of taking the equivalent academic course elsewhere (i.e. the fees that elsewhere would charge for the same course)?

[EXC]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Does the fact that I have not done the second year, nor paid for the second year, help to strengthen the claim?

It's very difficult to say. There could be an argument that as you got to the point of being invoiced for the second term that should be included in the 'total cost'. I really think you should try and find some formal advice on not just the £30k issue but whether you have a valid claim for misrepresentation/quality of service.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Might I ask why 75A hasn't been considered?! I do agree though, it is unlikely you would be able to claim under s75 arguing they are separate.

Why do you think you have been mis-represented? and if you feel there has been a poor standard of service that would fall under negligence.

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Might I ask why 75A hasn't been considered?! I do agree though, it is unlikely you would be able to claim under s75 arguing they are separate.

Why do you think you have been mis-represented? and if you feel there has been a poor standard of service that would fall under negligence.

I do not see how this falls within the scope of Section 75A, as the credit was not specifically arranged for the purpose (it was merely a regular transaction for a service put on my Amex credit card).

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

I do not see how this falls within the scope of Section 75A, as the credit was not specifically arranged for the purpose (it was merely a regular transaction for a service put on my Amex credit card).

Sure, I understand your point, s75A was supposed to supplement s75 and now seems to be at odds with the meaning of debtor-creditor-supplier. There are a couple of books I've looked at which say that it should still apply. Here's one example taken from the text.



Having said that, after a re-read, s75A doesn't apply to misrepresentation but only breach of contract.

The directive does say the following:

Member States could also apply the provisionsof this Directive to linked credit which does not fallwithin the definition of a linked credit agreement ascontained in this Directive. Thus, the provisions on linkedcredit agreements could be applied to credit agreementsthat serve only partially to finance a contract for the supplyof goods or provision of a service

[mystery1]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

When you book year 1, is year 2 optional ? Did you start year 2 and what cancellation right was in place for year 2 ? Are they asking for the full amount after you cancelled ?

M1

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Sure, I understand your point, s75A was supposed to supplement s75 and now seems to be at odds with the meaning of debtor-creditor-supplier. There are a couple of books I've looked at which say that it should still apply. Here's one example taken from the text.



Having said that, after a re-read, s75A doesn't apply to misrepresentation but only breach of contract.

The directive does say the following:

Thanks - but unless I misunderstood Section 75A specifically applies only to specifically-arranged credit (e.g. a car loan), and would not cover a general service purchase on a credit card? Unless I have misunderstood how this is applied?

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Sorry you are right, I seem to have overlooked your post about 3 payments in one year so S75A won't apply.

So back to S75 then, as some have said here, could be a difficult argument especially if the 2 years are listed under 1 agreement as a whole and are not separate. The only way I can think of you having a valid claim would be to have two separate contracts for each year. I don't think the way payments are made make any difference if it's a 2 year term.

[dossier]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Sorry you are right, I seem to have overlooked your post about 3 payments in one year so S75A won't apply.

So back to S75 then, as some have said here, could be a difficult argument especially if the 2 years are listed under 1 agreement as a whole and are not separate. The only way I can think of you having a valid claim would be to have two separate contracts for each year. I don't think the way payments are made make any difference if it's a 2 year term.

Thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: Section 75 Claim - Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

Just a thought.

If it is considered to be one agreement spanning 2 years, then it would require 6 payments (3 per year).

Would that then bring it within the scope of CCA 1974?

@R0b