Section 75 Credit Consumer Act

edinburgher

Moonrakerz - the legislation you've quoted would still imply that the OP would have had to pay the balance of the flight elsewhere to qualify for full protection.

While your quote re. money back in full is accurate, it's supported with an example that clearly indicates that the goods have been paid for in full.

Have to say that I'm the camp that says you get back what you've lost - can't see the op getting back monies that weren't paid. Not going on holiday is a wrench, but I can't see how this classes as consequential loss.

moonrakerz

edinburgher wrote: »

Moonrakerz - the legislation you've quoted would still imply that the OP would have had to pay the balance of the flight elsewhere to qualify for full protection.

While your quote re. money back in full is accurate, it's supported with an example that clearly indicates that the goods have been paid for in full.

Have to say that I'm the camp that says you get back what you've lost - can't see the op getting back monies that weren't paid. Not going on holiday is a wrench, but I can't see how this classes as consequential loss.

You are quite correct, my apologies. I misread/misunderstood the OP, you can only reclaim what you paid - otherwise you are committing fraud.

The definition of "consequential loss" can be difficult. Earlier this year I successfully claimed back £1000 more than I paid (from Morgan Stanley) to cover the extra cost of seats on BA when Maxjet went bust.

edinburgher

moonrakerz wrote: »

You are quite correct, my apologies. I misread/misunderstood the OP, you can only reclaim what you paid - otherwise you are committing fraud.

The definition of "consequential loss" can be difficult. Earlier this year I successfully claimed back £1000 more than I paid (from Morgan Stanley) to cover the extra cost of seats on BA when Maxjet went bust.

Quite alright mate! Congrats for trying to bring some clarity to another thread on this board that was starting to look a little silly :rotfl:

I was just about to say that consequential loss would be a very difficult one to offer advice on, as one lawyer/judge would probably argue a totally different point from the next.

I see this in my job on a daily basis - where writing up case history/appeals case etc. etc. you often see some very odd opinions from the bench. That said, precedent is always useful when trying to make the point stick