Barclaycard not refunding thomas cook payment

Terry_Towelling

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Chargebacks are met by the merchant's bank not the card issuer- so unless Thomas Cook also banked with Barclays then Barclays wouldn't take the hit.

Not sure which part of my post you are referring to, but, yes, I know that a Chargeback hits the merchant acquirer (which could be the same as the issuing bank). I was highlighting a historical issue where the Bonding Authorities conspired against Barclaycard for many years and, given the way the Chargeback rules were then written, that denied them access to the appropriate Chargeback and so they had to absorb the losses themselves.

System

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Not sure which part of my post you are referring to, but, yes, I know that a Chargeback hits the merchant acquirer (which could be the same as the issuing bank). I was highlighting a historical issue where the Bonding Authorities conspired against Barclaycard for many years and, given the way the Chargeback rules were then written, that denied them access to the appropriate Chargeback and so they had to absorb the losses themselves.

Why would the historic bonding authorities specifically want Barclays to absorb the losses versus the merchant's bankers - seems a little far fetched.

cloud_dog

Hi

Having never gone through an ATOL claim before is anyone able to confirm if the ATOL guarantee covers the entire package booking including the deposit?

The reason I ask is that I paid the deposit via CC (American Express) and they are of the opinion that CAA will refund that also. We have been contacted by CAA advising us that they will start making refund payments.

eskbanker

cloud_dog wrote: »

Hi

Having never gone through an ATOL claim before is anyone able to confirm if the ATOL guarantee covers the entire package booking including the deposit?

The reason I ask is that I paid the deposit via CC (American Express) and they are of the opinion that CAA will refund that also. We have been contacted by CAA advising us that they will start making refund payments.

Since https://thomascook.caa.co.uk/customers/if-you-have-a-future-booking-and-have-not-travelled-yet/ states that "ATOL protected passengers with future bookings are entitled to a full refund for their cancelled holiday", I'd agree with Amex on this, without even considering any alternative interpretation to be honest - surely the deposit is just a part payment of the cost of the package?

cloud_dog

Things move fast.... So I have been notified by our lead person that the CAA have made a refund payment. This refund is the sum of the direct debit payments made so, we are left with, and are unsure for the deposit if:

1. We will recieve another refund from CAA without submitting a claim
2. Will need to submit a separate claim to the CAA
3. Will need to progress a S75

cloud_dog

Just been on the phone with CAA and any deposit payments made by cash, cheque, debit / credit card requires an online claim to be raised.

eskbanker

I now see that the ATOL claim section of https://thomascook.caa.co.uk/customers/if-you-have-a-future-booking-and-have-not-travelled-yet/ does explain their two-tier refund process that distinguishes between DD payments and the rest:

For the first time, we are now able to automatically refund those customers who paid for their holiday via direct debit. If you booked directly with Thomas Cook and your flights were with Thomas Cook, you will be contacted via the email you used to make your booking to let you know that you will shortly be receiving your refund. You do not need to take any action when you receive this email. This will be paid straight into your bank account. We began the process to refund these payments on Monday 30 September and expect them to be received within 14 days of this date. Please note that this refund will not include any amount paid via another payment method other than direct debit, which would need to be claimed separately.

If your flights were with an airline other than Thomas Cook, you will need to make a claim for the entire package.

For bookings made by payment methods other than direct debit, directly with travel agents or where flights are with another airline, the refund process will take longer owing to the numerous and complex data processing systems Thomas Cook employed across Europe.

To enable us to provide these refunds as fast as possible, we have developed a simplified, online refunds form. This will ultimately reduce the amount of time it will take for customers to get their refund compared to the standard process in this unprecedented situation. Once submitted to the CAA, we aim to pay back valid refunds within 60 days. Please note that no other refund forms will be accepted.

eco_warrior

Our legal and Section 75 teams are currently debating this one. Legal say we cannot knock back customers who would rather come to us than ATOL.

They might come up with an answer to it at some point but not as yet. However less than 10 customers have insisted from 8000.

Ben8282

cloud_dog wrote: »

Hi

Having never gone through an ATOL claim before is anyone able to confirm if the ATOL guarantee covers the entire package booking including the deposit?

The reason I ask is that I paid the deposit via CC (American Express) and they are of the opinion that CAA will refund that also. We have been contacted by CAA advising us that they will start making refund payments.

Yes the guraantee will cover the total holiday cost.

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

Our legal and Section 75 teams are currently debating this one. Legal say we cannot knock back customers who would rather come to us than ATOL.

They might come up with an answer to it at some point but not as yet. However less than 10 customers have insisted from 8000.

I previously suggested a reason why it may be possible to knock back a S75 claim where ATOL protection (or other Bond arrangements) apply, and that is a customer claiming breach of contract is required to mitigate their losses when making such a claim. A Bond payment is one way in which the customer can mitigate their losses and so the card issuer should be within their rights to refuse the claim.

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Why would the historic bonding authorities specifically want Barclays to absorb the losses versus the merchant's bankers - seems a little far fetched.

I explained this in my post. It goes back to the collapse of Laker Airways (1980s rather than 1970s apparently) where Barclays refused to take part in any rescue package - the Bonding Authorities obviously bore a grudge. It may sound far-fetched but I worked for Barclays during the time when the Bonding Authorities were refusing to pay Barclays customers.

To give a more complete picture of how they made their refusals, they pointed to the Conditions relating to Bond payments which said that a Bond will only pay when there are no other 'insurances' to cover the losses. The Bonding Authorities cited Barclays Voluntary Travel Policy (VTP - which I won't define) as a type of 'insurance' and that allowed them to wriggle out of paying. As far as I'm aware they never used this condition to wriggle out of paying to any non-Barclays cardholders.

They were careful in their letters to customers to avoid saying that they 'wouldn't pay' or 'couldn't pay' and simply instructed the customers to claim from Barclays VTP. Their letters also prevented Barclays from meeting the Chargeback criteria.

It was a difficult time with many travel companies going bust - quite a few of them acquired by Barclays.