Thomas Cook Section 75 Claims-Halifax Clarity Card

blueste

Halifax are telling me they are waiting for advice/response from the CAA on how to proceed and beyond this just quoting the 30-45 days they are allowed to respond to claims.

I cannot for the life of me understand how the CAA could advise a bank in regards to a section 75 claim?
Has anyone had a refund or at least a claim form from Clarity or any other experience that differs from mine thus far?

eskbanker

There's another thread running where the card company is essentially taking the view that ATOL are underwriting losses (on eligible package bookings) and therefore there's no obligation for the bank to accept a s75 claim if the customer will be reimbursed via that route, is that what they're saying to you?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6058771/barclaycard-not-refunding-thomas-cook-payment

Ben8282

eskbanker wrote: »

There's another thread running where the card company is essentially taking the view that ATOL are underwriting losses (on eligible package bookings) and therefore there's no obligation for the bank to accept a s75 claim if the customer will be reimbursed via that route, is that what they're saying to you?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6058771/barclaycard-not-refunding-thomas-cook-payment

I would personally agree with this view.

blueste

Sorry should have been clearer, my claims are for flight only booked directly with Thomas Cook so not ATOL Protected.

Ben8282

blueste wrote: »

Sorry should have been clearer, my claims are for flight only booked directly with Thomas Cook so not ATOL Protected.

This situation is of course an unfortunate consequence in allowing what were once holiday charter airlines such as Thomas Cook Airlines to sell their seats directly to the public (ie to operate their flights as de-facto scheduled services) rather than to require them to sell via the intermediary of an ATOL bonded tour operator. In the past, seat-only arrangements on what would have been charter flights would have been fully covered by ATOL due to the manner in which they were sold.

This should surely be a simple chargeback as you have not received and there is no possibility of your receiving the service paid for.

eco_warrior

Some flights were sold with ATOL certificates. Not many mind.

eco_warrior

Strong rumours that ATOL protected customers will referred to their card issuers for refunds instead of claiming via The CAA

Terry_Towelling

It often happens that the Bond money will run out before card-paying customers get anything from it. I think the funds are spent in a certain order - repatriation first, then cash customers next, probably debit card payers after that, then credit cardholders last.

If this case does not have any Bond coverage, it can be a simple Chargeback with no need to go anywhere near S75. However, if there are consequential losses, or it involves a mixture of credit card and cash payments, a S75 stance may need to be adopted by the customer to get full losses back.

If I were the customer, I'd probably be saying there's no Bond coverage (if that's true and can be evidenced) so please do a Chargeback for any card payments and consider my claims for other (consequential) losses (if any) under S75. Something along those lines anyway.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

It often happens that the Bond money will run out before card-paying customers get anything from it. I think the funds are spent in a certain order - repatriation first, then cash customers next, probably debit card payers after that, then credit cardholders last.

If this case does not have any Bond coverage, it can be a simple Chargeback with no need to go anywhere near S75. However, if there are consequential losses, or it involves a mixture of credit card and cash payments, a S75 stance may need to be adopted by the customer to get full losses back.

If I were the customer, I'd probably be saying there's no Bond coverage (if that's true and can be evidenced) so please do a Chargeback for any card payments and consider my claims for other (consequential) losses (if any) under S75. Something along those lines anyway.

The bond was confirmed as being sufficient, so this is the first inkling that it might not be. That or demand is too high and referring to issuers is a better option.

Unsure how it could have reached this point, if true.

Only a rumour for now

Arotheram

I rang up Halifax to claim cost of flight only but they replied out of time. I then have filled in a Section 75 claim form and now await their response. Sounds like prevarication to me!

[Deleted User]

Perhaps, but at least you got around to it eventually.