Thomson cant honour holiday, now refusing to refund

longwalks1

I will see what they say today and reply on here as its the more recent threat

leylandsunaddict

britishboy wrote: »

Thanks leylands, surely a change to a different resort 30Km away is a major change?

That is open to interpretation I think. It's not an actual/significant change of destination, only a change of 'resort'. You're still flying into the same airport, and are on the same island?

Just keeping trying Thomson. Be polite, but firm. Good luck. Thomson Customer Service has always been dire.

I never use a middleman because I prefer to book direct, and if I knew the manager well it would be a no brainer. Middlemen make dealing with bookings more difficult.

Moto2

zagfles wrote: »

A different resort is a "significant change of destination".

I agree and I think the often quoted man on the Clapham omnibus would agree that a different hotel in a different town is a significant change.

You could take the nuclear option and file a S75 claim for not as described.
It doesn't cost you to try.

longwalks1

Thanks again people, only reason we didnt book direct as couldnt find any good flight times from our local airport, and some arent released yet. Then the dilema of booking the holiday then not getting flights

Had an email from Thomsons specific 'Change Department' saying how wonderful this new resort and hotel is, even down to promising me the nightly acrobat show and fire breathers?? Have tried the number they supplied to call (02476 280036) 4 times now and given up each time after being on hold for 15 minutes, so far I've wasted an hour on them today and yet to speak to anyone!

Westin

I suspect that once you finally get to speak to Thomson, when you explain that the alternative hotel option is not suitable for you, they will refund your deposit and allow you to cancel.

RHemmings

I didn't know the laws and practices for package holidays. They seem quite biased towards the tour operator.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/consumer-law/holiday-surcharges/

EDIT: That was on the right of the tour operator to charge more.

'Which' seems to give a description of the situation which is more pro-traveller.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/my-package-holiday-has-been-changed-or-cancelled

This suggests that travellers should not have to pay more if they are upgraded to a more expensive hotel.



EDIT: From Which

Change of holiday cost

Once a holiday is confirmed, a tour operator can only increase the cost if all of the following conditions are met:

it is more than 30 days before your departure
the booking conditions mention surcharges
the increase is due to an increase in transport costs, fees or taxes, or a change in the exchange rate.
The tour operator must absorb the first 2% of the increase.

If the increase represents a 'significant' change in price (ABTA argues this means more than 10%), then under the Package Travel Regulations you must be given the opportunity to cancel the holiday. The 10% figure is only a guide, and a smaller percentage increase could still be considered 'significant' on expensive holidays.

bouncydog1

Have you asked Thomson if they will allow you to change the booking to flights only? That way you get the dates and flights you want. Then book hotel and transfers yourself?

leylandsunaddict

bouncydog1 wrote: »

Have you asked Thomson if they will allow you to change the booking to flights only? That way you get the dates and flights you want. Then book hotel and transfers yourself?

That's something they certainly didn't used to allow. Whether they do know I don't know. The tour op and the airline trade separately so you can't usually swap from one to the other.

bouncydog1

That's as maybe - I would certainly be suggesting it to the tour operator as a compromise.

Westin

Thomson Holidays and Thomson for flight only are two separate trading divisions.

Assuming TOM sell flight only on this required route, it will be simpler to obtain a FOC cancellation, return of deposit and then rebook as a flight only.

There is no need to 'compromise'.