Flights Paid For - Human Error Involved - Cancel Card Payment?

PZH

Glynnar wrote: »

The search criteria was "Birmingham only" and "no flexibility in dates"

In smallprint - The outbound was Birmingham to Malaga (3 days before the search criteria)
The inbound was Malaga to East Mids (3 days before the search criteria)

If you have a little bit of time, check out onthebeach website and attempt a rigid search.

Yes, it's not Headline Font - but hardly "smallprint"

And it is directly below the flight times - so surely you would have checked those as well ??

See below for example - two flights back on Monday 5th August - one at 23:35 to Birmingham and one at 19:25 to East Mids...




But, to answer your specific point, as pointed out already, even if you cancel a payment method (e.g. Credit Card) you would still be liable for the cost of the flights or any cancellation costs as per any T&C's that you agreed to when booking.

Glynnar

jacques_chirac wrote: »

And you have been told them here:

We have conflicting answers Jacques and when I said I was asking what my rights are, I was referring back to my initial post.

Thanks

ermine

Glynnar wrote: »

It doesn't answer my question though I'm afraid.

Which boils down to

I screwed up and don't want to pay for the consequences of my mistake. How can I get somebody else to pay for my mistake?

Can't help there. You'll probably get away with it, but the only way you're going to find out is to give it a go. Stop the payment and eat the risks of having debt collectors set on ya.

This is a risk management choice. Is the modest risk of having debt-collecting dogs set on you times the likely cost and extra collections costs plus any ramifications of having a !!!!!! credit score and/or CCJs worth the potential gain to you of getting out of paying the money you owe? Weigh up the risks as you see them and take appropriate action.

Glynnar

ermine wrote: »

Which boils down to

Can't help there. You'll probably get away with it, but the only way you're going to find out is to give it a go. Stop the payment and eat the risks of having debt collectors set on ya.

This is a risk management choice. Is the modest risk of having debt-collecting dogs set on you times the likely cost and extra collections costs plus any ramifications of having a !!!!!! credit score and/or CCJs worth the potential gain to you of getting out of paying the money you owe? Weigh up the risks as you see them and take appropriate action.

You're right Ermine. I don't want it to be an illegal bypass too

I'm wondering if there was a way around it the fair way and it appears not

Voyager2002

ermine wrote: »

Which boils down to

Can't help there. You'll probably get away with it, but the only way you're going to find out is to give it a go. Stop the payment and eat the risks of having debt collectors set on ya.

This is a risk management choice. Is the modest risk of having debt-collecting dogs set on you times the likely cost and extra collections costs plus any ramifications of having a !!!!!! credit score and/or CCJs worth the potential gain to you of getting out of paying the money you owe? Weigh up the risks as you see them and take appropriate action.

These nasty consequences would only follow if a court were to decide that he owes the money. As I posted above, if it were to go to court I think he would have a pretty good defence. The situation with their search engine is similar to the following:

A man walks into a shop; tells the assistant that he wants a pair of black 'Blue Harbor' jeans; specifies the exact measurements and so forth that are required. The assistant offers to give him information about the full range of options available, but the man is clear that he knows exactly what he wants. The assistant goes and gets a pair of jeans; puts them in a bag; and places it on the counter so that the man can see inside it. The man does not bother to look inside (trusting that the assistant has brought exactly what he asked for) but proceeds to payment; then finds that the assistant has given him jeans in the wrong size and colour. Most of us would say that the man had been foolish not to check that he had been brought what he asked for, but that does not remove the fact that the assistant was negligent in bringing something different.

jacques_chirac

Voyager2002 wrote: »

These nasty consequences would only follow if a court were to decide that he owes the money. As I posted above, if it were to go to court I think he would have a pretty good defence. The situation with their search engine is similar to the following:

A man walks into a shop; tells the assistant that he wants a pair of black 'Blue Harbor' jeans; specifies the exact measurements and so forth that are required. The assistant offers to give him information about the full range of options available, but the man is clear that he knows exactly what he wants. The assistant goes and gets a pair of jeans; puts them in a bag; and places it on the counter so that the man can see inside it. The man does not bother to look inside (trusting that the assistant has brought exactly what he asked for) but proceeds to payment; then finds that the assistant has given him jeans in the wrong size and colour. Most of us would say that the man had been foolish not to check that he had been brought what he asked for, but that does not remove the fact that the assistant was negligent in bringing something different.

Your analogy is not relevant. The OP did 'look inside', they had all the information in front of them.

Edit to add: Also, you cannot compare an advised sale to an internet only purchase. Your analogy is comparable to the OP going into a travel agent and the agent booking the wrong flight. For an internet purchase, there is a reasonable expectation that the buyer will check the details of their purchase before committing to buy.

bengal-stripe

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Most of us would say that the man had been foolish not to check that he had been brought what he asked for, but that does not remove the fact that the assistant was negligent in bringing something different.

But the customer, presuming he has paid by card, cannot cancel the card transaction. He will have to go back to the shop and deliver the wrong pair.

If it is a straight exchange, he will get the right pair. If it cannot be exchanged, he will get a refund on the same card that was used initially. The original payment will be booked and a day or two later will be cancelled by the refund. If there is a difference in price, the original amount paid will be refunded and the correct price will be charged to the card.

jacques_chirac

OP, what have you booked and what are the flights that you wanted? Have you priced up how much it is to remedy the problem? If the prices have not risen dramatically overnight, it might be possible to change them for little more than the change fee.

Glynnar

jacques_chirac wrote: »

OP, what have you booked and what are the flights that you wanted? Have you priced up how much it is to remedy the problem? If the prices have not risen dramatically overnight, it might be possible to change them for little more than the change fee.

- I asked within search for a certain date +/- 0 days,
- The results still gave me +/-3 days unfortunately (should'nt have trusted it)
- Just to change the outbound flight to the correct date I put in, it's an extra £240 between us all, I would also need to change the return flight.
- I booked through onthebeach and they will attempt to do what I've done with changing dates so will probably be screwed either way.

Ultimately, I think it's fair to say I'm not going on holiday and I'm going to have to pay for the flights.

Glynnar

jacques_chirac wrote: »

OP, what have you booked and what are the flights that you wanted? Have you priced up how much it is to remedy the problem? If the prices have not risen dramatically overnight, it might be possible to change them for little more than the change fee.

Also

I specified Birmingham-Malaga then Malaga to Birmingham in search.

It gave me Birmingham to Malaga then Malaga to EMA.

A pathetic search function. I agree more attention should've eben paid, but isn't a search function there to search within a criteria?