Hannah contacted us after her bank rejected her Section 75 claim. She explained that, when looking for part-time work, she’d responded to an online ad posted by a modelling company and made a payment on her credit card for a photoshoot and modelling contract.
What happened
Hannah contacted us after her bank rejected her Section 75 claim. She explained that, when looking for part-time work, she’d responded to an online ad posted by a modelling company. After attending a photoshoot, she’d ended up paying £7,500 on her credit card for a professional photoshoot and modelling contract – which she said she’d only done as she’d been told she would get paid modelling work within weeks.
Hannah explained that she’d tried to resolve the issue directly with the modelling company, but without success. She’d since done some research online, and had found several news stories and messages on forums about people who’d also received offers of work that hadn’t happened.
Hannah said she’d contacted her credit card provider – her bank – to try to get her money back. But they’d told her that there wasn’t enough evidence of a “breach of contract”, as the contract she signed didn’t mention any guarantees of work.
Hannah didn’t agree with this decision, so she asked us to investigate.
What we said
We asked Hannah to explain more about what had happened with the modelling company. She said she was told she’d be suitable for work for some department stores the company had links to. She remembered being advised to buy the “platinum” package, and that the company had said this would guarantee her at least eight modelling jobs per month which would earn her back the money she had spent on the package. She explained that without this guarantee, she wouldn’t have signed up – as the package would have been unaffordable for her.
Hannah told us she’d been interested in the work, but had wanted more time to think due to the cost of the package – and she’d also been tired following the lengthy photo shoot. But she said the company had told her that she had to make the decision on the day, as they couldn’t retain photos of all their applicants. So despite her reservations, she’d signed the documents and paid £7,500 on her credit card. However, the work she had been guaranteed had never materialised.
We looked at the contract Hannah signed and considered her account of what the company told her.
The written contract didn’t mention guaranteed work. However, we noted Hannah’s very detailed account, and the efforts she’d gone to in order to resolve the issue with the supplier (demonstrated by the emails and letters she had sent). Her follow-up actions supported what she had said she was told about getting guaranteed paid jobs with well-known brands. She’d also experienced financial difficulties as a result of what had happened. We thought it unlikely she’d have spent such a significant amount of money, putting herself into debt, if she hadn’t been guaranteed work that would make the money back.
Hannah’s experience was also consistent with other complaints we’d received about the same supplier. And Action Fraud had a publicly-available webpage dedicated to similar stories.
In light of everything we’d seen, we thought the modelling company had likely breached its contract with Hannah. So we didn’t agree it was fair for the bank to reject Hannah’s Section 75 claim. We decided a full refund was appropriate in Hannah’s case – she had no use for the photos she’d received and was willing to return them.
We told the bank to reconstruct Hannah’s credit card account as if she hadn’t paid the £7,500 for the package, refunding any interest and charges, and adding 8% simple yearly interest to any credit balance refunded. We also told the bank to remove any adverse information it had added to her credit file in relation to this amount.