Airport tax refund rip off?

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

Yes, why not? - It's the principle of the matter.



True. But I hope you knew what I was getting at.

I don't agree that it is factually incorrect for reasons I have outlined above. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but this is all contrary to what I have read before.

The statements that you are making are your opinion. Clearly there is a difference between opinion and fact. Whilst your comments are quite valid as an opinion (we are all entitled to them!), they are factually incorrect.

If you refer to Martin's statements on the subject, you will fact that Tozer is factually accurate.

Thailand

dmg24 wrote: »

The bank charges case did not found that bank charges are unlawful, but rather that they are subject to a test of fairness. There is a huge difference between the two.

No, I can't explain what costs an airline may incur in refunding costs. I don't work for an airline! However, the prime difference here is that the cost that the OP is referring to is an administration fee, not a penalty.

I think that your understanding of the current bank charges discussion is flawed (though your misconceptions are extremely common). If you refer to Martin's explanations, it may become clearer.

Edit: Tozer beat me to it! x

I know exactly what the situation is with the banks, and what it all amounts too - I have lived and breathed it all from the start, but yes, my choice of words wasn't correct - hopefully you knew what I was getting at, though. I have every respect for Martin, but it was he that decided it was a good idea to accept less than what the bank owed! I know exactly whats going on with the banks, and I assure you, I'm not suffering with any misconceptions in that department!

I went through the motions with Ryanair, but decided against it as thier HO was not in the UK, to serve them, but I agree with Richard..It's a challengable penalty.

Tozer

Thailand wrote: »

Yes, why not? - It's the principle of the matter.



True. But I hope you knew what I was getting at.

I don't agree that it is factually incorrect for reasons I have outlined above. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but this is all contrary to what I have read before.

Principles of the matter? Don't do it. Airlines would not want to set a precedent and will fight it.

Yes, you are wrong. Penalties under English law are, per se, unlawful. The bank charges argument is that they are unlawful as they are not a "genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered in the event of a breach of contract". That's the legal position.

As there is no breach of contract, the airline is not seeking to penalise but rather to render a service. Therefore it is entirely different.

Thailand

Can you point me in the direction of Martin's statement.

Cheers.

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

I know exactly what the situation is with the banks, and what it all amounts too - I have lived and breathed it all from the start, but yes, my choice of words wasn't correct - hopefully you knew what I was getting at, though. I have every respect for Martin, but it was he that decided it was a good idea to accept less than what the bank owed! I know exactly whats going on with the banks, and I assure you, I'm not suffering with any misconceptions in that department!

I went through the motions with Ryanair, but decided against it as thier HO was not in the UK, to serve them, but I agree with Richard..It's a challengable penalty.

I understand your viewpoint (though I do not agree with it), but you are still confusing opinion with fact. In a courtroom, your opinion counts for nothing.

Tozer

Thailand wrote: »

I know exactly what the situation is with the banks, and what it all amounts too - I have lived and breathed it all from the start, but yes, my choice of words wasn't correct - hopefully you knew what I was getting at, though. I have every respect for Martin, but it was he that decided it was a good idea to accept less than what the bank owed! I know exactly whats going on with the banks, and I assure you, I'm not suffering with any misconceptions in that department!

I went through the motions with Ryanair, but decided against it as thier HO was not in the UK, to serve them, but I agree with Richard..It's a challengable penalty.

Please don't provide false legal advice to the OP. It is not a penalty AS THERE IS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF OP.

Want me to start quoting case law?

OP - just go with the approach of asking your travel insurers to pick up the £20 admin charge as it is all part of the cost of cancellation.

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

Can you point me in the direction of Martin's statement.

Cheers.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges

Tozer

On a separate topic, I do find this thread slightly scary. Do people expect that all charges for any service can be challenged on the basis of being "penalties"?

Thailand

Tozer wrote: »

Please don't provide false legal advice to the OP. It is not a penalty AS THERE IS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF OP.

Want me to start quoting case law?

OP - just go with the approach of asking your travel insurers to pick up the £20 admin charge as it is all part of the cost of cancellation.

Fair do's. There does appear to be something in this breach of contract stuff, and maybe loss of profits, which would be different to the banks, apparantly.

Can I assure you, I wasn't intending to give false information.. it was what I whole-heartedly believed, and I'm still not sure I'm wrong. I will of course digest everything I hearing, because I wouldn't want to give out bad advice.

Can I show you my thread on CAG, because right or wrong, this is what I was led to believe.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/holiday-companies/52879-ryanair-getting-your-taxes.html

All that said, wether challengable or not, I would still believe they withold taxes with the sole intention of profiteering out of them!

Thailand

Tozer wrote: »

On a separate topic, I do find this thread slightly scary. Do people expect that all charges for any service can be challenged on the basis of being "penalties"?

Service, no.. cloaked as a service, yes.