Section 75 - can i claim for this?

Fiddlestick

moonrakerz wrote: »

"The claim is not limited to the amount of the credit card transaction. Customers can claim for all losses caused by the breach of contract or misrepresentation. And this applies even if all they paid by credit card was the deposit."

Yes, but the hotel was not part of the contract.

The contract was a return flight to the USA. What the friend done whilst in the USA is of no consequence and no connection to the contract.

The card issuer is in no way liable for the hotel booking.

mo786uk

Under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Zoom have breached their contract. They are therefore liable for condequential losses.

One consequential loss is the fact the Op has lost £500 due to Zoom failing to honour their own contract.

Therefore the Op could take Zoo mto court in order to get their money back for the flights and for the loss of hotel booking.

Under S75 of the CCA they can also take the credit company to court exactly as they could have done Zoom.

chattychappy

The cost of the hotel booking is not a consequential loss. The failure to enjoy the hotel booked is the consequential loss. (Perhaps that's what you meant.) The value of that might be more or less than the cost of the booking. Buying an alternative ticket might have avoided that loss. You have a duty to mitigate losses.

Assessing losses is complicated - hence the Hadley v Baxendale (1854) case I mentioned before. It's even on wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale

mo786uk

Practically speaking if you airline has just gone bust is it wise to buy another ticket to go abroad when you MAY OR MAY NOT get the momeny back from the original ticket?

I wouldnt necessarily risk it - especially when it may take months to actually get the money back.

The person may not have had the funds or credit left to buy another ticket for a start.

bengal-stripe

Goodness!!! - The OP had these problems almost three years ago. One presumes, the issue has been solved by now.

As far as resurrections go, this one beats Lazarus!

chattychappy

Oh that's nothing! Limitation gives you 6 years. I'm slightly involved in a personal injury case where Limitation is normally 3 years and it's coming up to 60 years!!!

moonrakerz

loates123 wrote: »

http://www.choose.net/money/guide/articles/credit-cards/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-guide.html

does not say anythink about using the same card/company to pay for the new flight home does anyone know :>

No, you don't have to - it just makes it much simpler when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.
Dealing with one card issuer who is being b****y awkward is easier than dealing with two ..................

loates123

just a update

cc company are me asking to contact atol and my insurance about paying me the [FONT=&quot]consequential losses [/FONT]they also said they wont pay these

atol and my insurance say you claim from cc for [FONT=&quot]consequential losses[/FONT]

any advice?

jonesMUFCforever

loates123 wrote: »

just a update

cc company are me asking to contact atol and my insurance about paying me the [FONT=&quot]consequential losses [/FONT]they also said they wont pay these

atol and my insurance say you claim from cc for [FONT=&quot]consequential losses[/FONT]

any advice?

Complain formally and if you are not happy take the insurance company to the ombudsman.

loates123

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Complain formally and if you are not happy take the insurance company to the ombudsman.

dont you mean the cc company?