Airport tax refund rip off?

Thailand

I've a funny feeling what I read was along the lines of 'I did it'. I hope someone does take it on so that there is someone, for definate, who has challenged it. Maybe you DMG!... from tiny acorns and all that.

Thank god someone took on the banks.

stoneman

dmg24 wrote: »

One thing I always consider when looking at potentially unfair situations, is whether anybody has previously challenged it. If there is any legal basis for challenge, you will practically always get someone who will have done it just for fun, usually someone like me!

Whilst I am not saying that it applies to all situations, where the practice is well established (as this one is), I would use this as a benchmark as to whether it is worth proceeding with a complaint or not.

Again, if you are able to provide the cases where it has already been challenged, I would be happy (and quite intrigued) to read them.

I think Thailand already has in their link. Why don't you stop being so patronising to people by saying such things as " I would be careful of using terms that you don't understand". No one like s a smart a**e.

dmg24

stoneman wrote: »

I think Thailand already has in their link. Why don't you stop being so patronising to people by saying such things as " I would be careful of using terms that you don't understand". No one like s a smart a**e.

The words POT KETTLE and BLACK spring to mind? :rolleyes:

Thailand admitted that they did not know where they had seen the cases, so perhaps you could provide the relevant case names for us?

dmg24

Thailand wrote: »

I've a funny feeling what I read was along the lines of 'I did it'. I hope someone does take it on so that there is someone, for definate, who has challenged it. Maybe you DMG!... from tiny acorns and all that.

Thank god someone took on the banks.

The difficulty with people just saying that they have successfully made a legal challenge is getting the specifics of the case i.e. is the same principle in question, at what court was it decided, did it even go to court etc.

If I thought that I would get anywhere, I would happily challenge the airlines. I'm sure that you can guess that I don't back down when I know that something is not right, and I'm (usually) v successful!

PS My lady acorns certainly aren't tiny!

Tozer

Thailand wrote: »

Lol! I will... It's going to take time to read up on UTTCR 99 5/5 schedule 2, the new CPUT regs and my dickie bird tells me there is possibly something in the penalties argument after all, 'if levied in terrorem'.

:j

But there is no breach of contract!!!

Thailand

dmg24 wrote: »

Thailand admitted that they

It's a he. And I am impressed wih your lady Acorns.

As I have said I don't really know what all the legalese means, especially how there being no breach of contract makes this unchallengable. Tozer's one-liners have done nothing to change my mind tbh. I can't be arsed to read and digest all Ryanairs T&C's and all the laws an regs pointed out, so I'm going to let this drop. If I find myself tanned by an airline - I will go for it in the same way one would a catalogue company. It wouldn't take me long to find a POC for that (and no-one has offered a difference in the two yet)

I most certainly have read of victories, yet not only can I not find them (they could have been posts within a thread) there would have been no proof anyway - and we won't get a precedent - small claims and all that. So lets realise we can never quote the facts because the airlines, in this respect, are slippery little buggars, and are feasting on unpaid Duty.

My opinion on that will never be shaken! The banks tried to do that - the fools! (7 down 1 to go).

dzug1

Thailand wrote: »

As I have said I don't really know what all the legalese means, especially how there being no breach of contract makes this unchallengable.

English common law says that penalty clauses for breach of contract are unenforceable.

There has been no breach of contract here.

Therefore it cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is a penalty clause for breach of contract.

There may (or may not) be other grounds for challenge. Does it come under the consumer protection acts and fairness rules? No idea.

The banks are that that good a comparison - it's been ruled that the charges (as currently expressed) are NOT penalties. As previously expressed (when some banks actually described them as penalties) it's as yet undecided whether thay actually were penalties.

Tongue in cheek suggestion - maybe we should adopt the system used in some overseas countries. Pay your departure tax in cash to a customs/revenue official before you are allowed to check in. Save all this argument??

Thailand

dzug1 wrote: »

English common law says that penalty clauses for breach of contract are unenforceable.

There has been no breach of contract here.

Therefore it cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is a penalty clause.

There may (or may not) be other grounds for challenge. Does it come under the consumer protection acts and fairness rules? No idea.

The banks are that that good a comparison - it's been ruled that the charges (as currently expressed) are NOT penalties. As previously expressed (when some banks actually described them as penalties) it's as yet undecided whether thay actually were penalties.

Tongue in cheek suggestion - maybe we should adopt the system used in some overseas countries. Pay your departure tax in cash to a customs/revenue official before you are allowed to check in. Save all this argument??

It used to be like that in Thailand, I believe that has changed. That would be a great idea (yet that did cause my mate to be stuck at Don Muang for days!!!)

Re the banks, what I meant was they will tell you allsorts - but it doesn't change the fact they are full of BS. I wasn't comparing it legally.

The Dunlop case, if applicable, could negate the penalty argument.

Tozer

dzug1 wrote: »

English common law says that penalty clauses for breach of contract are unenforceable.

There has been no breach of contract here.

Therefore it cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is a penalty clause for breach of contract.

There may (or may not) be other grounds for challenge. Does it come under the consumer protection acts and fairness rules? No idea.

The banks are that that good a comparison - it's been ruled that the charges (as currently expressed) are NOT penalties. As previously expressed (when some banks actually described them as penalties) it's as yet undecided whether thay actually were penalties.

Tongue in cheek suggestion - maybe we should adopt the system used in some overseas countries. Pay your departure tax in cash to a customs/revenue official before you are allowed to check in. Save all this argument??

Spot on. Thank you!

Thailand

Tozer, could I ask how you interpret the Dunlop case - I only ask as a few of us are a tad stuck on it (trying our best to get to the bottom of this), and I reckon you may be the man/woman that has an opinion on it.

I/we appreciate you may not agree with challenging it, but we'd be sure grateful of your proffesional opinion.

Thanks.