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

[dossier]

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

Thanks - the AI have closed the matter; although are also now having to deal with the FOS behind the scenes presumably (re the FOS Ombudsman looking into the CCA regulated nature (or otherwise) of the FIRST and SECOND contract.

Have I missed something here? My general presumption is that even if the AI were to decide to launch a County Court claim against me, having a sufficiently established s. 75 claim (and the basis for that claim) would work a suitable defence against such a County Court claim (or better still; if a successful s. 75 is completed, rights and claims have been transferred to the credit card company).

[dossier]

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

I am not surprised that the CC Co. are relying on the fact that the Programme spans two years and therefore exceeds the limit under section 75. However, emphasis should be on the meaning of "single item" under s.75:



Now, I don't actually think the meaning of single item has been tested in the courts, although the Ombudsman appears to have on their website but in a different context. I don't think it is disputed that the agreement spans two years, however it is the payment terms which is what should be focused on.

The payments have been split into two invoices i.e. Year 1 and Year 2 which are to be paid separately and not as one large invoice. Therefore the argument is that by paying the Year 1 invoice which costs X, this is a "single item" in which the institution has attached a cash price between £100 and £30,000. In order for the claim to fall outside of s.75 the invoice would have needed to exceed £30,000 but it doesn't.

Ultimately, the wording of s.75 doesn't specify exceeding the total amount of the agreement but a single item. In the context of services, it would be sensible to say that each separate invoice would be deemed as a single item for the purposes of s.75.

As for the 1st contract and 2nd contract being for Years 1 &2, that would be stretching it if they are almost identical and do not specifically state the contract is for each separate year.

R0b. Thank you for this. It is much appreciated. I am due to speak with the CC Co. tomorrow to discuss this further; although I suspect their position will be unchanged and they want to stick to their argument that the "single item" in s. 75 in this instance refers to the "Programme" and the contract refers to the "Programme" and the "Programme" refers to it being a c. 2 year course. I agree with you that it is not surprising as a stance by the CC Co., as it is the "first line of attack" that I anticipated they would take (see back to the first few posts in this thread!).

In discussions over the phone with the CC Co. contact person, I have stressed the points you raised about the "single item" here being the Year 1 and Year 2 separately, and pointed to the invoices accordingly. The discussions over the phone are becoming a bit "stuck", as they repeat their position on single item and I repeat mine! My concern is where do we go from here?

Unless the CC Co. change their view this week, they will be writing to me to refuse this claim by the end of the week. I presume from there this is onto a complaint to the CC Co. and then onto the FOS for a complaint against the CC Co. However, I really would rather not have to take this to the FOS, as I suspect the FOS will (1) take a long time and (2) likely not be favourable at the FOS (or am I being too cynical?).

I'm open to any other suggestions as to how to otherwise solve the deadlock with the CC Co.

About the 1st contract and the 2nd contract being for Years 1 and 2, I do agree this is stretching it. Each contract makes no specific reference to which years: both just refer to a "Programme".

Any other tips on how to take this process forward are most welcome!

[charitynjw]

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

Thanks - the AI have closed the matter;
I must have missed that!
although are also now having to deal with the FOS behind the scenes presumably (re the FOS Ombudsman looking into the CCA regulated nature (or otherwise) of the FIRST and SECOND contract.

Have I missed something here? My general presumption is that even if the AI were to decide to launch a County Court claim against me, having a sufficiently established s. 75 claim (and the basis for that claim) would work a suitable defence against such a County Court claim (or better still; if a successful s. 75 is completed, rights and claims have been transferred to the credit card company).

Lot's of 'if's' in there.
It would be for the judge to decide, & it would probably be out of Small Claims territory & into the big bad world of potential costs.

[R0b]

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

I don't think you will get any further forward with them, I can see both sides of the argument but until there is a binding court decision it will be difficult to interpret. If they send out the rejection letter I would see that as their final response and no need to wait another 8 weeks to go to the FOS.

If you look at it another way, say this contract was for 2 years with goods to be paid at intervals. The cost of those goods is <£100, in my personal opinion there could be no claim under s.75 as the "single item" costs under the contract is <£100, and you can't take into account the total cost of the goods over the term of the contract. Although there could be an argument that you could and so the former is not correct but the latter is.

As this is a services contract, a single item could be a document or an article or something else and I would therefore see an invoice document with an amount included in it, is therefore a single document. It would seem illogical if the two separate documents would constitute one single item under s.75 but as there is no real definition, everyone's opinion will be different.

The only way forward is a complaint to the FOS, putting in a strong argument that it is two separate years and falls within s.75 and include the initial opinion of the FOS as evidence. Even if you do not win at the first hurdle you could ask for a review of the initial decision. Perhaps worth also inserting there that if the agreement does not fall within s.75 then there has been a misrep by the institution holding out that the agreement was not regulated by the CCA and so you should be entitled to the refund of the amount paid, your first year fees.

If you could get a decision in your favour, I think that would be a massive win but its 50/50 I reckon, although the only good thing in your favour is that the FOS has already sort of decided it does not fall within the CCA and is two separate years possibly giving an early indication of what to expect. Just make sure to write to them and inform them that you want to accept to make it binding, but lets not get too excited.

[dossier]

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

Could I argue that the FIRST contract (not CCA exemption complaint) relates to the 1st year only; and the SECOND contract (CCA compliant) relates to the 2nd year only?

It is worth me re-stating that there are TWO separate invoices; one for a 1st academic year and one for the 2nd academic year. There are also TWO separate contracts (the FIRST contract and the SECOND contract).

I also have written confirmation from the AI previously that: "Your invoice is correct. All invoices are raised showing the total programme fee, and instalment due dates.".

Each of the TWO separate invoices shows a total fee of c. £28k on it; there are no written references to a larger single amount of c. £58k (and the sales brochure nor the contracts have a price written in it)

About the TWO separate invoices, it is probably worth me saying that:

1) Each invoice is entirely separate and was issued at different times (the FIRST invoice at the start of the 1st Year; the SECOND towards the end of the 1st Year in relation to the 2nd year; but well before the start of the 2nd year by c. 4 months)

2) Each invoice has different Invoice Numbers, Invoice Dates, Due Dates, Invoice description

3) The Total on each invoice is just under £29k; no VAT is applicable (0% rated) - the total is the same for both the FIRST and SECOND invoice [so no risk of VAT impacting the single year price]

4) The description on the FIRST invoice is for "Tuition Fees - FT - 1st Year Fees" and the description on the SECOND invoice is "Tuition Fees - FT - SECOND YEAR"

5) Each then has a breakdown of 3 instalment amounts and 3 instalment dates (all within 1 year of the invoice date) - i.e. presumably to be CCA 1974 exemption compliant

6) Both invoices are addressed to me (name and Customer Code); and are clearly labelled as being from the AI; letter headed paper; etc. AI VAT number, AI bank details; there is no other content on the invoices (no small print etc.)

7) In all of the AI material (the invoices, the sales brochure, the correspondence etc.) there is no single instance where there is a statement that "fees are c. £58k". None of the invoices makes reference to fees of c. £58k. Each invoice only refers to the individual year of c. £29k. Indeed, none of the supporting material I have provided to the CC Co. / FOS has any statement saying "fees are c. £58k".

8) Neither the FIRST nor SECOND contract refer to the amounts of the fees.

9) The FIRST invoice has a price of c. £29k, but a discount of £10k was applied, reducing the cash price to c. £19k. The SECOND invoice has no discount and so has a cash price of c. £29k. I.e. the "cash price" for the 1st year is not the same as "cash price" for the 2nd year. [perhaps underscoring even more that the 1st year and 2nd year are separate single items; even with different prices]

I assumed I had already explained the above, but just to clarify if I had not!

Thanks for all of your on-going help

[dossier]

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

Lot's of 'if's' in there.
It would be for the judge to decide, & it would probably be out of Small Claims territory & into the big bad world of potential costs.

Thanks charitynjw. In terms of the AI: the AI has written to me earlier in the year to officially "close the case"; and in subsequent correspondence has stuck to their position that they effectively want to "close this matter".

On balance, it seems unlikely that the AI themselves will take any further action, although clearly there is nothing (other than the cost it would incur to the AI and the appetite for someone doing so at the AI) for the AI to make a County Court claim against me for outstanding 2nd year fees, which they could argue are due. I have a clear defence concerning this and am briefed on the necessary steps to take in the event of a County Court Claim (acknowledgement of service; procedures; defence submission etc.). The size of any such claim by the AI is definitely beyond Small Claims Track, and into "Multi Track".

Whilst I do not have a formal written statement from the AI saying 'we will not pursue a claim against you', any such action by the AI remains highly unlikely in my opinion at this time - but I will obviously react properly and swiftly if I do receive an official County Court Claim by post. All previous efforts by the DCA appointed by the AI and the DCA's Solicitor previously, ceased last year, after acknowledging that I disputed the service provided by the AI and had referred the matter to the CC Co. for a s. 75 claim.

Furthermore, as we have discussed and have subsequently discovered concerning the FIRST and SECOND contracts, there are some serious questions about whether the contract is even valid (or is a misrepresentation by the AI), concerning whether it is CCA 1974 regulated or not.

[dossier]

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

I don't think you will get any further forward with them, I can see both sides of the argument but until there is a binding court decision it will be difficult to interpret. If they send out the rejection letter I would see that as their final response and no need to wait another 8 weeks to go to the FOS.

If you look at it another way, say this contract was for 2 years with goods to be paid at intervals. The cost of those goods is <£100, in my personal opinion there could be no claim under s.75 as the "single item" costs under the contract is <£100, and you can't take into account the total cost of the goods over the term of the contract. Although there could be an argument that you could and so the former is not correct but the latter is.

As this is a services contract, a single item could be a document or an article or something else and I would therefore see an invoice document with an amount included in it, is therefore a single document. It would seem illogical if the two separate documents would constitute one single item under s.75 but as there is no real definition, everyone's opinion will be different.

The only way forward is a complaint to the FOS, putting in a strong argument that it is two separate years and falls within s.75 and include the initial opinion of the FOS as evidence. Even if you do not win at the first hurdle you could ask for a review of the initial decision. Perhaps worth also inserting there that if the agreement does not fall within s.75 then there has been a misrep by the institution holding out that the agreement was not regulated by the CCA and so you should be entitled to the refund of the amount paid, your first year fees.

If you could get a decision in your favour, I think that would be a massive win but its 50/50 I reckon, although the only good thing in your favour is that the FOS has already sort of decided it does not fall within the CCA and is two separate years possibly giving an early indication of what to expect. Just make sure to write to them and inform them that you want to accept to make it binding, but lets not get too excited.

Regarding raising a complaint to the FOS regarding the CC Co's refusal of the s. 75 CCA claim, the possible FOS outcomes are:

Single item

- FOS rules that the "single item" is an individual year of the academic programme (i.e. 1st year; 2nd year) based on two separate invoices; two separate descriptions; two separate charges; and the charge for each being between £100 - £30k. Therefore claim for the 1st year fits the criteria of s. 75 CCA 1974, and can consider breach of contract / misrepresentation by the AI, with liability upon the CC Co.

- FOS rules that the "single item" is the entire programme; contract is for a programme; the programme has fees over £30k; therefore does not qualify under s. 75 of the CCA 1974

CCA 1974 payment exemption

- FOS rules that the contract is exempt from the CCA 1974, as it fits the payment exemption, as the payments are structured as two separate invoices for two separate years; each of which is a separate agreement. Therefore not a CCA 1974 regulated agreement. The AI's position is that it is not a CCA 1974 regulated agreement. Therefore the FOS cannot consider complaints about the AI.

- FOS rules that the contract is actually governed by the CCA 1974 (despite the AI arguing to the contrary), as the payments do not meet the exemption requirement (as it is 6 payments over c. 22 months), and therefore it is a regulated agreement, about which the FOS can then consider complaints about the AI.

I am concerned as to whether the above issues are synonymous ("single item" vs. "CCA 1974 payment exemption) (I know we are trying to make them, but I am concerned there are still two separate issues where both could be unfavourable to me):

(1) Could the FOS decide that the "single item" is the whole Programme, and therefore does not meet s. 75 criteria, whilst still meeting the CCA 1974 payment exemption criteria, because of the way the payment are structured: i.e. does not qualify under s. 75 and is not a regulated agreement? Therefore there would be no basis for a s. 75 claim against the CC Co. and no basis for the FOS to consider complaints against the AI (as it is not a regulated agreement).

(2) Obviously it would be ideal if the "choice" presented to the FOS forced them to decide between liability imposed upon the AI vs liability imposed upon the CC Co. [i.e. putting the FOS Ombudsman between a rock and a hard place!] (i.e. because either 'single item' is each academic year, and therefore does fit s. 75 CCA 1974 for a claim against the CC Co.; or otherwise 'single item' is the whole programme which does not meet s. 75, but the T&Cs violate the CCA 1974 payment exemption, so it IS a regulated agreement that the FOS can consider complaints about the AI)

If we get over the above hurdle, the next hurdle is then the misrepresentation itself (and we have not covered this in detail yet in this thread!).

It is always possible for the FOS to rule it does fit s. 75, but that it regards there as being no misrepresentation! (i.e. it does qualify as a s. 75 claim, but the FOS regard there to be no misrepresentation by the AI based on the written and verbal evidence).

Thoughts welcome, or am I overcomplicating / overthinking this one!

It is worth mentioning that, so far, the CC Co. has made no comments on the merits of the misrepresentation claim (i.e. they are just using standard procedure to find ways to disqualify the claim first; i.e. £100 - £30k criteria, DCS link criteria, etc.)

[dossier]

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

I don't think you will get any further forward with them, I can see both sides of the argument but until there is a binding court decision it will be difficult to interpret. If they send out the rejection letter I would see that as their final response and no need to wait another 8 weeks to go to the FOS.

If you look at it another way, say this contract was for 2 years with goods to be paid at intervals. The cost of those goods is <£100, in my personal opinion there could be no claim under s.75 as the "single item" costs under the contract is <£100, and you can't take into account the total cost of the goods over the term of the contract. Although there could be an argument that you could and so the former is not correct but the latter is.

As this is a services contract, a single item could be a document or an article or something else and I would therefore see an invoice document with an amount included in it, is therefore a single document. It would seem illogical if the two separate documents would constitute one single item under s.75 but as there is no real definition, everyone's opinion will be different.

The only way forward is a complaint to the FOS, putting in a strong argument that it is two separate years and falls within s.75 and include the initial opinion of the FOS as evidence. Even if you do not win at the first hurdle you could ask for a review of the initial decision. Perhaps worth also inserting there that if the agreement does not fall within s.75 then there has been a misrep by the institution holding out that the agreement was not regulated by the CCA and so you should be entitled to the refund of the amount paid, your first year fees.

If you could get a decision in your favour, I think that would be a massive win but its 50/50 I reckon, although the only good thing in your favour is that the FOS has already sort of decided it does not fall within the CCA and is two separate years possibly giving an early indication of what to expect. Just make sure to write to them and inform them that you want to accept to make it binding, but lets not get too excited.

"I don't think you will get any further forward with them"

Yes I agree with you R0b; I have, however, written to the CC Co. to underscore the arguments for the "single item", and raised the followwing points, to try to get a last minute change of heart by the CC Co.:

(1) Highlighted again that s. 75 states "so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000"

(2) Acknowledged that it is a Programme by the AI that spans 21 months and has a total price over £30k

(3) Pointed to the fact that each year (Y1 and Y2) has its own reference, relates to separate periods of time that are separate, is invoiced separately and invoiced on separate occasions, separate invoice reference numbers, Y1 and Y2 have different cash prices

(4) I have also shared the following FOS precedents with the CC Co; all concerning misrepresentation on plots of land; where the total purchase is over £30k, but individual plots are below £30k; where the credit card declined the claim, but the FOS upheld and imposed 8% penalty interest. (the FOS identified the plots of land as separate; separate references; separate plots etc.)

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=69861
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=83968
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=70583

(5) Told the CC Co. I will take this to the FOS if they refuse the s. 75 Claim; and reminded them of the FOS's precedent of 8% interest penalties on cases it upholds.

Overall though, I agree the CC Co's position will be to refuse the s. 75 claim due to the argument that the 'single item' is the whole "Programme" and the "Programme" is over £30k.

In which case, the next step is, as you suggested, to take this to the FOS (assuming there is no technicality where I need to go through an CC Co. complaints process + 8 weeks first; before raising it to the FOS).

[dossier]

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

I don't think you will get any further forward with them, I can see both sides of the argument but until there is a binding court decision it will be difficult to interpret. If they send out the rejection letter I would see that as their final response and no need to wait another 8 weeks to go to the FOS.

If you look at it another way, say this contract was for 2 years with goods to be paid at intervals. The cost of those goods is <£100, in my personal opinion there could be no claim under s.75 as the "single item" costs under the contract is <£100, and you can't take into account the total cost of the goods over the term of the contract. Although there could be an argument that you could and so the former is not correct but the latter is.

As this is a services contract, a single item could be a document or an article or something else and I would therefore see an invoice document with an amount included in it, is therefore a single document. It would seem illogical if the two separate documents would constitute one single item under s.75 but as there is no real definition, everyone's opinion will be different.

The only way forward is a complaint to the FOS, putting in a strong argument that it is two separate years and falls within s.75 and include the initial opinion of the FOS as evidence. Even if you do not win at the first hurdle you could ask for a review of the initial decision. Perhaps worth also inserting there that if the agreement does not fall within s.75 then there has been a misrep by the institution holding out that the agreement was not regulated by the CCA and so you should be entitled to the refund of the amount paid, your first year fees.

If you could get a decision in your favour, I think that would be a massive win but its 50/50 I reckon, although the only good thing in your favour is that the FOS has already sort of decided it does not fall within the CCA and is two separate years possibly giving an early indication of what to expect. Just make sure to write to them and inform them that you want to accept to make it binding, but lets not get too excited.

R0b: I got a call back from a different person at the s. 75 CC Co. team, who was playing the "I've been away on holiday and am not really sure what is going on" card, but then proceeds to seem to remember the details pretty well (!) and tries to engage me in more discussion on the merits of arguments against my case (I am wondering if it is a bit of a ruse to either help the s. 75 CC Co. team to find more arguments against my claim in terms of the single item issues; or could it be a 'let's generate more tape recorded calls to supply the FOS' in the event this is taken to them as a complaint?)

The gist of the arguments against being made by the CC Co. team are:

- It's a programme and it is over £30k
- It's a programme for a qualification at the end; which you only get by doing the 1st and 2nd year
- How can the 1st year and 2nd year be separate single items? Can you chose to buy and only do the 2nd year? [i.e. trying to undermine the single item argument]
- We know the FOS said there are two separate agreements (re the CCA 1974 payment exemption), but we don't agree with the FOS that it would be two separate agreements

I've been told they will discuss it further with internal legal counsel tomorrow (Thursday) and revert over the phone.

I'm not sure if, like in some other s. 75 legalbeagles threads, I need to avoid talking to the CC Co. over the phone, as the discussions seem to revolve around trying to convince me why I am wrong or to help them come up with more / better arguments as to why I am wrong etc.; which obviously is tactically helpful to them! (either for writing a refusal letter; or for their future use in FOS arguments). Thought are welcome on just "sticking to my guns on this" and opting for writing letters / doing things in writing? I understand that in general, a lot of s. 75 CC Co. teams do these conversations over the phone, but often use it as a means of deflecting claims by either (1) confusing matters (2) misinforming the cardholder (3) just trying to argue the cardholder into giving up, or (4) as a means of getting more reasons to refute the claim!

I have sent them a lot of information and clear explanations in writing previously.

[R0b]

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

Conversations are fine but always best to follow up in writing with a summary of what was discussed.

The fact is that there are two separate invoices with two separate cash prices and s.75 concerns itself with a single cash item not the combined cash price of the programme. Who cares if they don't agree with the FOS if they decide that it is a separate agreement and you accept that agreement then its legally binding. The only way they would get a sniff of overturning it would be through a Judicial Review if they wanted to go down that route.

There's no point getting into the details of things and arguing back and forth, just explain to them that they have your reasons, backed up by the FOS and if they reject the claim then you will pursue it further with the FOS for a decision.

Make notes of the call and follow it up by letter/email and go from there.

[dossier]

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

Conversations are fine but always best to follow up in writing with a summary of what was discussed.

The fact is that there are two separate invoices with two separate cash prices and s.75 concerns itself with a single cash item not the combined cash price of the programme. Who cares if they don't agree with the FOS if they decide that it is a separate agreement and you accept that agreement then its legally binding. The only way they would get a sniff of overturning it would be through a Judicial Review if they wanted to go down that route.

There's no point getting into the details of things and arguing back and forth, just explain to them that they have your reasons, backed up by the FOS and if they reject the claim then you will pursue it further with the FOS for a decision.

Make notes of the call and follow it up by letter/email and go from there.

Thanks R0b: I completely agree and do very much appreciate the thoughts and swift replies; it is very helpful indeed with this process. I am trying to balance being friendly and helpful with the CC Co. vs just underscoring their joint liability and threats of taking this to the FOS.

I have sent out an e-mail back to the s. 75 CC Co. team and will wait to hear back from them on next steps. They are having a further routine internal legal counsel meeting to discuss cases, and should be coming back to me with their view on next steps (if any!).

It seems unlikely they will be changing their view, so I think we can assume their stance is:

- The contract is for a "Programme"
- It's a "Programme" as a single item; and
- The "Programme" costs over £30k; so
- It does not qualify under s. 75 CCA
- Because their position is that it does not qualify under s. 75, they have not considered the question of breach of contract / misrepresentation; hence they have no position on this for now (otherwise I am sure I would have had some arguments about why it was not breached / not misrepresented etc.).

Let's see if the CC Co. have any change of position: otherwise, I presume it is then a "closed case" at the CC Co.; I wait for a refusal letter; and then it is up to me to submit a complaint to the FOS regarding the CC Co.'s refusal to accept the s. 75 claim?

Assuming the CC Co. are refusing: is there any reason not to raise this complaint to the FOS next week? The FOS Ombudsman is still working away on the original complaint concerning the AI and the T&Cs being CCA 1974 regulated; I am yet to get a final response from the Ombudsman on this (and have not had any material contact from the FOS on this).

[dossier]

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

Conversations are fine but always best to follow up in writing with a summary of what was discussed.

The fact is that there are two separate invoices with two separate cash prices and s.75 concerns itself with a single cash item not the combined cash price of the programme. Who cares if they don't agree with the FOS if they decide that it is a separate agreement and you accept that agreement then its legally binding. The only way they would get a sniff of overturning it would be through a Judicial Review if they wanted to go down that route.

There's no point getting into the details of things and arguing back and forth, just explain to them that they have your reasons, backed up by the FOS and if they reject the claim then you will pursue it further with the FOS for a decision.

Make notes of the call and follow it up by letter/email and go from there.

Thanks R0b. Is there any other action you recommend at this time?

For example: is this a good time to send out a formal complaint the CC Co. about the s. 75 team, in order to get the complaints process in motion (whether needed or not for the FOS).

The FOS have come back to me regarding queries about any complaint about the CC Co: which would have to be done separately.

[dossier]

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

Conversations are fine but always best to follow up in writing with a summary of what was discussed.

The fact is that there are two separate invoices with two separate cash prices and s.75 concerns itself with a single cash item not the combined cash price of the programme. Who cares if they don't agree with the FOS if they decide that it is a separate agreement and you accept that agreement then its legally binding. The only way they would get a sniff of overturning it would be through a Judicial Review if they wanted to go down that route.

There's no point getting into the details of things and arguing back and forth, just explain to them that they have your reasons, backed up by the FOS and if they reject the claim then you will pursue it further with the FOS for a decision.

Make notes of the call and follow it up by letter/email and go from there.

So unsurprisingly, the CC Co. have refused the s. 75 on the grounds that it does not meet the s. 75 criteria.

The question is: does this go off to the FOS straight away? Or is it better to wait on the FOS for the Ombudsman final decision that is underway re the AI and the CCA 1974 exemption issue?

It is possible to pursue the CC Co. complaint route, and wait for that first for that, before going to the FOS.

My concern about the FOS is they can "do whatever they please" in general, and the FOS will likely "combine" the two complaints (as precedent has shown) if they please. I can also guarantee that based on precedent and my own interaction with the FOS, they will try to be as unhelpful and obstructive as possible! (so strategies that box them into a rock and a hard place on choices would be best: e.g. between ruling against the CC Co. that it meets s. 75; or ruling against the AI that it is a CCA 1974 regulated agreement - although somehow I suspect the FOS will find a third way to neither uphold that it meets s. 75 for a claim and it is not a CCA 1974 regulated agreement; oh and that there was no misrepresentation etc etc)

[R0b]

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

Perhaps it might be best to wait for the final decision of the other FOS decision so you are in a better position. The refusal of the CC co. paying out under s.75 and the investigation into the AI are two separate matters and should not be combined.

I can't see any reason why you can't complain to the FOS now but ultimately it is up to you really - having two things ongoing can be confusing and could cause problems.

[dossier]

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

Perhaps it might be best to wait for the final decision of the other FOS decision so you are in a better position. The refusal of the CC co. paying out under s.75 and the investigation into the AI are two separate matters and should not be combined.

I can't see any reason why you can't complain to the FOS now but ultimately it is up to you really - having two things ongoing can be confusing and could cause problems.

R0b: Thanks - I will leave it for a few weeks and see what update I get on the existing FOS complaint re the CCA 1974 exemption issue.

Here is a summary of the arguments used in the formal refusal by the CC Co. of the s. 75 claim:

(1) s. 75 claim must be between £100 and £30,000
(2) "Course" you signed up for has a total cost of >£30k; therefore outside s. 75 scope
(3) You claim it should be eligible under the act because it is invoiced in two separate amounts, but it is clear to us that it was sold as a 21 month course and cannot be completed by only paying for one year's tuition
(4) [Politely]: therefore please go away and try suing the AI

Comments welcome!