Section 75 - can i claim for this?

jonesMUFCforever

loates123 wrote: »

dont you mean the cc company?

No I meant the insurance company.
This would then crystalise the situation for OP either ombudsman tells insurance company to pay up or it says NO insurance should not pay.
This leads to a definite answer which the credit card company require.

chattychappy

It's a good theory, but I'm not sure it would work. The types of loss that are or are not insured may differ from what damages you are entitled to under breach of contract. Under s75 the CC is jointly liable for the breach. Not for the CC to tell you to claim off the insurance. In fact you might not be insured for a "loss" if it's not really a loss because the CC is in a position to pay.

I would use the FOS but go against the CC first.

loates123

ok thanks all but getting a little confused here

Hi

I am claiming extra flights back which i had to pay for to get home from turkey

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/sho...your-purchases

dont i claim on cc

can I claim costs?

The law allows you to claim for ‘consequential losses' arising from the problem. In other words, if what went wrong forced you to shell out, the credit card company is liable just like the retailer would be. Obviously it's more difficult to do, but it's still legal.
A couple of examples should help…

Luke Malchance booked return flights under Section 75 rules. Sadly the airline went bust while he was away and he had to buy a flight home. The cost of the flight home should count as a consequential loss and can be claimed for.

Deidre Darling booked a weekend away in a holiday home by credit card. When she arrived, the home was already occupied, she had to drive home, was upset and disappointed, and had wasted her week's holiday. Legally she could even claim the emotional distress is a consequential loss, although this doesn't mean it'd be awarded, but it's certainly arguable.

chattychappy

Yes, you are correct. There are limits to consequential losses, in particular they mustn't be too "remote". But not relevant here.