Scammed flights

chattychappy

venison wrote: »

Sorry but I don't see it as a "grey"area, the CC company provides protection for its customer, not the customer plus all his family etc, its a shame you didn't look at the review sites before the booking and not in the last 24 hours.
We live and learn do we not ?

The above analysis has nothing to do with S75.

molerat wrote: »

Legally if your wife pays you back then her ticket will not be covered.

I disagree with this analysis. The CC is (jointly) in breach of contract. So the cardholder has a claim in damages for both tickets. The wife may indeed have reimbursed the cardholder, but the cardholder has still suffered a loss in respect of both tickets - because the wife now has a claim on the cardholder for return of the monies she paid.

Once S75 is engaged (ie subject to the provisos in that section), the rest is normal contract law.

BeckiDunnjr

Thank you so much eddddy for such a positive reply. I really appreciate your advice 😁

chattychappy

eddddy wrote: »

So I don't really see a reason why an s75 claim should fail.

Apologies, I missed your post first time around. Yes, stepping through what you say, I agree with your post.

I wouldn't let it drop, at least not now.

eskbanker

I know this subject (of tickets for a group) comes up from time to time and that the guidance in the MSE article is equivocal, but my reading of a published FOS decision is that it supports OP's claim here.

Decision ref DRN3558264 from March 2016 involved three groups travelling, one consisting of immediate family of parents and daughter (booked on one invoice) and then a second larger group and a third individual booked as further transactions.

The ombudsman found against the claim for the extended group but (importantly for the OP in this thread) did accept that the immediate family booked on the same invoice were covered:

In certain circumstances, section 75 gives a consumer an equal right to claim against the supplier of goods or services or the provider of credit if there’s been a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier. One of those circumstances is that there must be a direct relationship between the debtor, the creditor and the supplier.

In this case: Mrs D is the debtor because she has used her credit card to buy the flights; Tesco Bank is the creditor because it has provided credit to Mrs D; and the supplier is the travel company that has agreed to provide flights to Mrs D and the other members of the party. But Tesco Bank does not have a direct relationship with all of the people for whom Mrs D has paid for flights. I find that there is a direct relationship relating to the tickets for her husband and daughter because they were bought on the same invoice as Mrs D’s ticket. But I find that there is no direct relationship relating to the tickets for the other members of the party that were paid for by Mrs D.