Holiday dispute

HardSpend

poet123 wrote: »

They could say that you had a relationship which had irretrievably broken down and that you simply didn't want to go, and so had given them carte blanche to get another person to go. That in the intervening period you have now decided you want your money back, and as the departure date loomed decided to contact them to achieve this.

This is what I expect them to say.

I have nothing to prove the other person has been intending to go for two months. I think my friend will quite likely admit this though without thinking about how lying about it could benefit them.

I did notice yesterday evening my friend posted a comment on a 3rd party's social networking page to say their new friend was coming on holiday with them. This comment was posted at least a month ago.

poet123

Your problem is that you cannot prove you made repayment from a 3rd party, part of the contract between you when you backed out of the holiday.

The other issue is why you had no contact for 6 weeks after that date, that supports the irretrievably broken down relationship defence.

Also, as has been been said above a court would not regard your demand for payment, or threat of legal proceedings to be within a reasonable timescale, if the other party contend this request came out of the blue, which you have no proof it didnt.

If you use the social network site as an indicator that the other person was booked to go much earlier, then be prepared for the other party to use detail from it that she has posted re the reasons for your not going, which may, or may not be true.

You really should not have let this go on for 6 weeks without making some provable attempt to see where the situation was up to.

Smiley82

Just a thought......can you not call the holiday company and ask them what they would advise? I know the 'lead passenger' has all the control over the booking, but maybe they have had dealings with this before and could offer advice. Perhaps if they knew that your name change was in dispute, they could do something about it?

**Probably just wishful thinking on my part that a company would be 'reasonable' and help sort things out......** - still worth a shot though!

Tozer

Poet123 - I think you are right about there being not much proof either way. But I do also think that a judge would be sympathetic to the view that it is probably the case that there was some sort of understanding that stepping down from the holiday in the event that someone else could be found would entail a refund of some sort.

poet123

Maybe, who knows which way it would go? I have found it often very much depends on who is the most credible witness, as well as actual evidence, or even balance of probabilities.

It would be much better to reach an amicable settlement without court involvement, because neither side can be sure which way it will go. So accepting a reduced amount from the other party may be the way for the OP to go. If they will play ball.

Tozer

poet123 wrote: »

Maybe, who knows which way it would go? I have found it often very much depends on who is the most credible witness, as well as actual evidence, or even balance of probabilities.

It would be much better to reach an amicable settlement without court involvement, because neither side can be sure which way it will go. So accepting a reduced amount from the other party may be the way for the OP to go. If they will play ball.

Completely agree that a compromised settlement on this is the quickest and easiest way forward.

HardSpend

the case is next week, the defender is the father of my friend as that is the person I paid the money to, I put the claim down as the same amount I paid less name change cost

OnceUponADream

Good luck with the court case x

poet123

Yes, good luck. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to appear to be the reasonable party. Shake the hand of the other party as you enter, in view of the judge.

Tell the truth and do not raise your voice or get rattled, even if they tel lies. Be calm and, take copious notes as they present their case, when you question them, be polite and respectful, but make sure you mention any discrepancies, and anything which discredits them. It is not what you say, but how you say it, and who is the most credible witness.

A point in your favour is that it is the friends father who is the opposition, and not your friend, although he may be the one who you paid, he is not the one with whom you made the arrangement, and so cannot really know what was actually said. Question him on this point, but be really respectful, and put it to him that although he did pay, he cannot really know the detail of the agreement, as he was not party to it.

HardSpend

Yes the defender (my friend's father) did not know the detail and just referred back to what my friend had told him, he said he shouldn't even be there since because all he did was receive my money and pay for the holiday.

The judge asked me should I not retrieve the money from the person who took my place, I said no because it was the defender I paid the money to and the defender that subsequently changed my name for the holiday, I do not not even know the name of the person who took my place and have never spoke to them or made any agreement.

The judge seemed to agree because it was not mentioned again. The judge said there will be a second full hearing where my friend will have to be the defender to voice their side of the story which is I said I did not want to go full stop and did not care about getting my money back. My argument is I offered my place up if I could get my money back, if not I would go. They deny I asked for any money back.

IMO
I'm quite suprised the judge even considered that this is true because it is completely unreasonable to expect me to be ok with paying for someone else I don't even know to go on holiday! It will be the same argument in the full hearing so I guess it will come down to who they believe. I was speaking to my friend's father outside the court and he said I wasn't getting a penny from him but without actually saying it it's pretty clear he believes what I say. His problem is my friend tells him different and he thinks I should be getting it from the person whose place I took.

I don't see how I can possibly take to court the person who took my place - I've never made any agreement with them and don't even know who they are. So if the judge agrees with the defender that is who I should sue then I have no hope. Hopefully he won't say this because why bother going through it all with my friend just to be told I need to go through it all again with someone else.:undecided

who knows, as I said I'm suprised their argument was even considered:(

There were 3 lies. The first the major one about not wanting money back. A second irrelevant one where the judge told him to stick to the case. And a third that I was supposedly welcome to come on holiday up until the week before. It's such BS because I know for a fact it was arranged with my friend's new friend I just can't prove it:(