Section 75 Claim - help

CJJ1376

I have tried to claim under Section 75 for a holiday that I bought for my son and his family.
On arrival at the hotel in Tenerife there were terrible problems with everything including huge health and safety issues, no all inclusive, no kids clubs, no entertainment whatsoever, food was atrocious, in fact nothing was provided that should have been. My family had been at that hotel for the previous 4 years with no trouble at all. Apparently the hotel owner had been arrested for fraud and staff hadn't been paid. The hotel had deteriorated greatly and there were huge health and safety issues too. My son and his wife were told they would get a refund and I then I repaid for them to go to another hotel as I was concerned about them and my grandchildren in an unsafe environment.
They have never had the refund, the hotel are not answering any emails either. I contacted Santander about Section 75 and they have now told me that I cannot claim as it's 3rd Party. If I had the contract with the hotel that would have been different. My credit card paid for this holiday and the hotel did not provide the acceptable standards.
Can anyone suggest what I can do?

[Deleted User]

Post on this board for more answers https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=173

Nile

Hi, we move threads if we think they’ll get more help elsewhere (please read the forum rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board. If you have any questions about this policy please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.

I’ve moved your thread from the ‘I wanna’ board to the ‘Consumer Rights’ board, where it is better suited.

Regards

Nile

DoaM

Did you buy both the original holiday and the replacement (pending refund)? Or did your son pay for the first holiday?

Assuming you paid for both, I'm not sure if there's anything in S75 rules about paying for something but not benefiting from it (i.e. you not going on the holiday). What exactly do you mean by "it's 3rd party"?

sheramber

If I had the contract with the hotel that would have been different


Was it because you paid for the hotel but the benefit was to your son so he is the 'third party'. You do not have a direct link to the hotel as the you were not paying for your own benefit.

This is a situation that S75 does not cover.

zoob

I’m assuming theyve put a claim in the there travel insurance?

davidmcn

zoob wrote: »

I’m assuming they've put a claim in their travel insurance?

On what basis? "The hotel is rubbish" isn't usually an insured risk.

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

Did you buy both the original holiday and the replacement (pending refund)? Or did your son pay for the first holiday?

Assuming you paid for both, I'm not sure if there's anything in S75 rules about paying for something but not benefiting from it (i.e. you not going on the holiday). What exactly do you mean by "it's 3rd party"?

I presume they mean the contract is with the son & wife and not the OP, despite the OP paying for it.

Because you only have a claim if under a transaction financed by a debtor>creditor>supplier agreement, you have a claim for misrepresentation or breach of contract with the supplier.

Afaik, most holiday contracts will be with the lead passenger.

ETA: Like see case 62/02 here. No additional cardholder in OPs case but same principle - the person the credit was provided to wasn't party to nor had benefit of the contract.