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

[dossier]

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

Well from a legal point of view, a half-truth can amount to a misrepresentation but the FOS does not necessarily need to look at what the courts have said. A misrepresentation is similar to a misleading omission except under a misrepresentation, you relied on the false statement and induced you to enter into the agreement to your detriment. An omission is the omitting of some information which would otherwise cause a person who had the full facts to take a different decision.

They are similar but have two very different remedies

Hi R0b. Merry Christmas. Thanks for this. I will keep the arguments in mind if I get some push-back from the Adjuciator / Ombudsman on the "misleading omission" point.

The complaint with the FOS is now with an Adjuciator who has started looking at it, and has requested the files from the CC Co. In due course, they may (or may not) also contact the AI for information.

The last time I had a call from a different FOS Adjuciator (earlier in the year concerning the FOS complaint directly about the AI), I received a really contemptious call from that Adjuciator, who basically wanted to shut down / bin the complaint as quickly as possible (i.e. out of FOS jurisdiction; not one for us; please go elsewhere was the bottom line).

I'm therefore understandably cautious about how a different Adjuciator will look at this s. 75 CC Co. complaint.

[dossier]

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

Well from a legal point of view, a half-truth can amount to a misrepresentation but the FOS does not necessarily need to look at what the courts have said. A misrepresentation is similar to a misleading omission except under a misrepresentation, you relied on the false statement and induced you to enter into the agreement to your detriment. An omission is the omitting of some information which would otherwise cause a person who had the full facts to take a different decision.

They are similar but have two very different remedies

R0b: Happy New Year to you. The case was assigned 2 weeks ago at the FOS to an Adjudicator; who has started to look at the case and request the files from the CC Co. I expect to hear from the Adjudicator in the next month or so; presumably with an initial phone call to discuss the s. 75 claim.

Do you have any recommendations on this process and the initial call?

Thank you.

[R0b]

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

The adjuciator will generally review the documentation and the complaint and if he/she calls you then it will probably be in relation to further information required or that they will discuss with you their initial conclusion and explain why with a more formal response put in writing at some point afterwards

[dossier]

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

The adjuciator will generally review the documentation and the complaint and if he/she calls you then it will probably be in relation to further information required or that they will discuss with you their initial conclusion and explain why with a more formal response put in writing at some point afterwards

Thanks. The Adjudicator has touched base to confirm they have started looking at it and requested information from the CC Co. Presumably, the next step is I will get a call from the Adjudicator to either ask more about the complaint, or tell me why the complaint is unsuccessful (single item, misrepresentation, etc.)

[dossier]

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

The adjuciator will generally review the documentation and the complaint and if he/she calls you then it will probably be in relation to further information required or that they will discuss with you their initial conclusion and explain why with a more formal response put in writing at some point afterwards

I have received a response from the Investigator: stating that the s. 75 Claim is outside of the £100 - £30k range. The Investigator did not contact me and there was no call to discuss.

A copy is below. I remain highly sceptical of any positive outcome here, but comments / suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

Summary of Mrs X’s complaint about [CC Co.]

Mrs X brought her complaint to us because she is unhappy [CC Co.] has rejected her claim under the s. 75 CCA 1974. Mrs X has asked us to review whether her claim has been correctly rejected or not.

On [date], [CC Co.] wrote to Mrs X in their final response and stated the following:

“…The course ran for a 21 month period and for an amount of £5X,XXX which you received a £XX,000 discount which brought the total down to £4X,XXX, and you were to pay by instalments. To claim under Section 75, the maximum claim threshold amount is £30,000. I realise you paid £18,XXX in instalments in your first twelve months of tuition, however, regardless of how the payments were split, only one item was purchased from the AI, this being the 24 month course. As the 24 month course was for a total of £4X,XXX, the claim was over the S. 75 CCA threshold amount and we were unable to uphold your claim.”

The s. 75 CCA 1974 consumer credit act exists to provide consumers a ridged protection on credit card purchases.

[CC Co.] is correct when they say the maximum threshold amount is £30,000 for a claim. This is based on the cash value of the product you are buying and is not subject to deposits or paying in instalments.

Unfortunately, in this case Mrs X’s total cost is outside of that threshold so ultimately she cannot claim under section 75 of the CCA 1974. Therefore, I cannot ask the [CC Co.] to take any further action.

What happens next

I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I have explained. If you decide that you do not accept my view, then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a final decision."

[dossier]

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

The adjuciator will generally review the documentation and the complaint and if he/she calls you then it will probably be in relation to further information required or that they will discuss with you their initial conclusion and explain why with a more formal response put in writing at some point afterwards

Hi R0b

Do you have any thoughts on the preliminary FOS Investigator response?

Thanks

[R0b]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

[dossier]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

Good point thanks.

[dossier]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

I have put this to the Investigator; he refuses to answer this and indicates that the previous FOS complaint concerned a decision that the T&Cs are not under the jurisdiction of the FOS; and therefore will not comment further.

[dossier]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

It is now with an Ombudsman, but all preliminary indications are that the FOS wish to "get rid of this" unsuccessfully as quickly as possible I am afraid!

[dossier]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

R0b: this is now with an Ombudsman. Can you think of any other comments, or approach tactics, that could help to pressure the Ombudsman favourably? The current trajectory is the Ombudsman will rule against me on the grounds of fairness regardless of the law. Thanks

[dossier]

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

FOS Ombudsman has rejected the claim in the FOS Final Decision. Ombudsman position is that it is a "course" and it is in excess of £30k.

The result was as expected; it seems from multiple information sources that the FOS now wish to reject the majority of claims, and will usually take a position / pathway to do so.

[dossier]

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

Nothing much more than I can add, though they have said it is based on the cash value which is correct however the cash value of a 'single item'. So is the FOS saying that the 24 month is a single item? If so then wouldn't that indicate that the institution fell within the jurisdiction of the CCA?

Perhaps that needs clarifying. The whole basis is that the initial investigation indicated that the institution were not liable because the 24 month period were separate invoices/agreements correct? If so, then regardless of the length of the service provided they are two single items, not one.

You can opt for an Ombudsman to to make a final decision and perhaps make reference to that and require an answer to that point?

Should I formally sign and reject the FOS Ombudsman decision?

[dossier]

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

Should I formally sign and reject the FOS Ombudsman decision?

I have formally refused the FOS Ombudsman final decision. How do I now proceed to take this to multi-track in County Court?

Thanks

[R0b]

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

Hi Dossier,

I would suggest you seek some formal advice before you consider issuing a claim in court. We are not talking a small sum of money and the costs you may incur as a result of losing could be quite substantial so it would be prudent to at least try and get some initial advice from someone who will be able to give you a perspective on how successful your claim may be - if they think it is worth their while, they may even offer to take your case on a no win no fee basis.