Monarch Expedia section 75

TonyJ77

Hi,
I bought and paid for a holiday through expedia for £1102.80 on 1st August 17. Flying with Monarch airlines and staying at a hotel in tenerife. I paid with my TSB Platinum credit card. When Monarch went down, I tried to find alternative flights out to fit the same dates but couldn't manage it. So I made a claim under section 75 to TSB. Copied all the documents and sent them with my letter on the 3rd October. I figured that there would be several hundred thousand others doing the same but I was more likely to get my refund quicker by going to TSB instead of Expedia (both being jointly liable).
Initially I got no reply and had to phone up again and again and email again and again but eventually I got my refund on the 31st October.

The total amount I paid online to Expedia at the time of booking was £1102.80 However, the next day I saw on my online statement that expedia had split the payment into £635.80 going to expedia and £467 going to Monarch. Yet as I got the full £1102.80 back it didn't matter to me. Until this morning - when I have recieved a letter from TSB credit card disputes telling me that Expedia are challenging the £635.80 and have resubmitted the charge through their bank...
They claim that the website at the time, clearly stated that the cost of the hotel booking was non refundable under any circumstances. At the time, I was just trying to get the best hotel for the best deal for my daughters and I and didn't pay attention to this - the last expectation I had was that the airline would go bust!
So, TSB have said:

"If you still query this charge, please forward your comments as to why you are still disputing the amount. This may allow us to return the charges to the retailer".

I am not disputing it any more as I was refunded but aside from that - the implication is that TSB will put the £635.80 charge back on my account if I can't satisfy them as to why this would be unreasonable/incorrect.

So can anyone offer me good advice in this respect? I definitely cannot afford to pay the sum now as life has taken a downward turn and I am now unemployed. I'd like to think that the section 75 principle still stands given that with the airline going bust I had no means of being able to use the accomodation - and that maybe it hinges on the fact that I actually paid one payment online of £1102.80 and I do have a copy of the booking showing this figure - irespective of the credit card statement the next day showing two separate payments going to two separate entities.

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

chanz4

two different contracts though, however depends how shown on the invoice

ic

Their site says in small print at the bottom of each page

Flight-inclusive holiday packages and Flight-Plus arrangements created on Expedia.co.uk are financially protected by the Civil Aviation Authority (under Expedia, Inc.'s ATOL number 5788). But ATOL protection does not apply to all holiday and travel services listed on this website. Please ask us to confirm what protection may apply to your booking. If you do not receive an ATOL Certificate then your booking will not be ATOL protected. If you do receive an ATOL Certificate but all the parts of your trip are not listed on it, those parts will not be ATOL protected. Please see our general terms and conditions for further details on ATOL or for more information about financial protection and the ATOL Certificate go to: https://www.atol.org.uk/ATOLCertificate.

I presume this means you have a "flight plus arrangement", rather than a "flight inclusive holiday package" where the flight and hotel are sold as a holiday, rather than as two items in a basket. I've tried putting together a flight and holiday with Ryanair, and see no mention of ATOL protection - so this is probably the sort of thing you bought?

No idea on the legality of all that, I always thought buying this way gave greater protection as you clearly did... Perhaps if you call Expedia they can arrange you alternative flights under the existing booking?

Nick_C

1) I'm assuming that the cost of the air tickets was more than £100 per person

2) The fact that the hotel is non refundable is irrelevant. You are not asking for a refund from the hotel, you are claiming consequential loss. Because of the failure to transport you to Tenerife, you could not use the hotel you paid for. S75 covers consequential loss.

My own experience from a few years ago; booked a weekend in Budapest. Flights booked with Malev using a Halifax CC. Hotel, non refundable, booked with Hilton and paid for with a Hilton (Barclays) CC. Lloyd's (Halifax) refunded the cost of both the tickets and the hotel, even though the hotel was paid for with a Barclays CC.

PeacefulWaters

It's a consequential loss that should be covered by your S75 claim.

It sounds like they've processed it as a chargeback.

TonyJ77

Yes I agree it is a consequential loss - I'll email them back with this point as the strongest..
Thanks for the advice.

eco_warrior

They have processed a chargeback so all you need to is reply back, commenting on the merchant's comments (as requested) and your claim will continue and will 99.9% be successful.

As it happens the merchants challenge is invalid as their service wasn't wholly fulfilled meaning you are entitled to a full refund of both elements of the booking (i.e. Expedia and Monarch transaction's)


Banks will always use a chargeback where its applicable to mitigate their losses. So TBS have processed chargebacks against both Monarch and Expedia on this basis, but these can be counter challenged. You must reply to them or you will be re-debited.

FestiveJoy

TonyJ77 wrote: »

Yes I agree it is a consequential loss - I'll email them back with this point as the strongest..
Thanks for the advice.

I'm not sure it is consequential loss.
Consequential loss would be the additional cost, if any, of purchasing alternative flights for which you have already been refunded.

The fact you no longer want the holiday (can't afford it now) is known as buyers remorse, and is not covered by S75 afaik.

Anyway, enjoy the festive season, well at laest what remains of it (although yours may well be extended I understand)

:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree:

eco_warrior wrote: »

They have processed a chargeback so all you need to is reply back, commenting on the merchant's comments (as requested) and your claim will continue and will 99.9% be successful. ...

That's not what MSE says:

Can I use Section 75 to claim for hotels, car hire etc booked separately?

We've heard of a small number of cases where a credit card company has paid out for 'consequential losses' such as separately booked hotels and car hire after a Section 75 claim – though there's no guarantee this will work for everyone. The Financial Ombudsman Service has said it will depend on each individual case and factors such as whether you still manage to use part of your bookings.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/monarch-airlines-collapse-latest-info-and-your-rights#diypackages

The same article goes onto say

What if I booked with a travel agent or website such as Expedia?

...If you did book via an agent, it's also worth noting you WON'T typically be able to reclaim using Section 75, as that protection doesn't usually apply when you buy something through an intermediary.

Which probably explains why, as you state, the CC did not process it as such, but rather as a chargeback.

eco_warrior

FestiveJoy wrote: »

I'm not sure it is consequential loss.
Consequential loss would be the additional cost, if any, of purchasing alternative flights for which you have already been refunded.

The fact you no longer want the holiday (can't afford it now) is known as buyers remorse, and is not covered by S75 afaik.

Anyway, enjoy the festive season, well at laest what remains of it (although yours may well be extended I understand)

:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree:



That's not what MSE says:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/monarch-airlines-collapse-latest-info-and-your-rights#diypackages

The same article goes onto say

Which probably explains why, as you state, the CC did not process it as such, but rather as a chargeback.

I'm confident what I am saying is correct.

The OP's contract is with Expedia and they have split the payment between themselves and Monarch. The contract includes flights and accommodation, so the flights are the Monarch transaction and the accommodation the Expedia transaction. They will also be invoiced as one even though the OP may have put them together himself.

Under both Visa/MasterCard chargeback schemes both transactions are eligible to be charged back as at least one of the two elements wont be received. Id expect all banks to go down this route whether the customer asks them to or not.

In my experience 99% of chargebacks versus Monarch were not challenged (hence no mention of this in the OP) but versus 3rd parties its much more common, however this doesn't mean they weren't valid and wont be successful. The letter the OP has received is standard for any chargeback at this stage. I'm sure his refund will remain in place if he follows it up.




and this is why the bank have done so.

TonyJ77

The update:

The Bank has now returned the charge of £635.80 to my credit card and have written to me to provide (again!) copies of both my proof of payment (credit card statement) and proof of the actual booking with expedia. I have replied this evening again emphasising that I contest this charge and that I regard the hotel booking sum of £635.80 as a consequential loss because I could not get there - as the airline went bust and there were no alternative flights that matched the hotel booking dates.

As the case turns I'll come back and update.