We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Thomas Cook consequential loss.

1235

Comments

  • It is possible that the banks have decided anything purchased for someone else is a gift (another potential grey area) and therefore not eligible for S75 cover - but, they have adopted a voluntary policy (which will vary from bank to bank) whereby they will pay out when the beneficiaries of those 'gifts' are family members/dependents. Such a voluntary arrangement should limit their exposure and reduce the possibility that a case will go to court and be ruled against them. (All just guesswork on my part, though).

    The whole gift thing just becomes an issue when the contract isn’t in the debtors name. This happens more often with certain purchases, cars being the main one.

    If I buy you a telly and give you if for Xmas then I could make a s75 claim quite easily.
  • Financial ombudsman decision DRN6496220 seems to support mine and similar cases.
  • The whole gift thing just becomes an issue when the contract isn’t in the debtors name. This happens more often with certain purchases, cars being the main one.

    If I buy you a telly and give you if for Xmas then I could make a s75 claim quite easily.

    So, if I use my CC to buy flights for a load of people, that makes me the debtor and I have given the flights as gifts. So why is my S75 claim restricted by my card issuer when I try to make a claim for any extra costs (over and above the original booking costs) when I buy replacement flights for the party following supplier failure?

    If the TV you buy me goes bang and you claim for a replacement (but that costs a bit more because the Christmas sale has ended) will you be denied that extra bit because I am not related to you? I'm not trying to be bloody-minded here, I simply trying to learn why the card issuers are doing as they are.

    By the way, 45 inch ultra HD will do very nicely thank you - no need to spend more than £500:)
  • So, if I use my CC to buy flights for a load of people, that makes me the debtor and I have given the flights as gifts. So why is my S75 claim restricted by my card issuer when I try to make a claim for any extra costs (over and above the original booking costs) when I buy replacement flights for the party following supplier failure?

    If the TV you buy me goes bang and you claim for a replacement (but that costs a bit more because the Christmas sale has ended) will you be denied that extra bit because I am not related to you? I'm not trying to be bloody-minded here, I simply trying to learn why the card issuers are doing as they are.

    By the way, 45 inch ultra HD will do very nicely thank you - no need to spend more than £500:)

    They are doing it to avoid paying out :) This must have been tested at FOS by now.

    The immediate family thing, imo it’s prob more hassle than it’s worth for them not to pay out. But stags, golf holidays, extended family and friends, they will get the knock backs. All these extra recipients of the services, as outlined on the contract, is an easy get out.

    The tv example is simple as the recipient of the gift isn’t on the paperwork.
  • They are doing it to avoid paying out :) This must have been tested at FOS by now.

    The immediate family thing, imo it’s prob more hassle than it’s worth for them not to pay out. But stags, golf holidays, extended family and friends, they will get the knock backs. All these extra recipients of the services, as outlined on the contract, is an easy get out.

    The tv example is simple as the recipient of the gift isn’t on the paperwork.

    So, what you're saying is that gifts are not covered after all (as I suggested a few posts ago), but card companies don't 'kick back' unless they can see it is a gift, or just want to avoid the hassle.

    So why is FOS requiring banks to pay out in these situations? - because it has been tested by them, if not by the law courts.
  • I agree that the credit card companies just don’t want to pay out.
    The cases I have seen at FOS all seem to support paying out in such cases.
    In my case,as in DRN6496220,it is my holiday and Im deriving benefit from taking my family away.
    As for stag parties etc i would be inclined now to advise everyone to book separately to avoid the problems i have encountered but this creates issues in its self.
  • So, what you're saying is that gifts are not covered after all (as I suggested a few posts ago), but card companies don't 'kick back' unless they can see it is a gift, or just want to avoid the hassle.

    So why is FOS requiring banks to pay out in these situations? - because it has been tested by them, if not by the law courts.

    The gift thing isn’t actually a thing. It’s about contract, ownership and recipient of service. It’s a red herring. Just my opinion.
  • Lpool21 wrote: »
    I agree that the credit card companies just don’t want to pay out.
    The cases I have seen at FOS all seem to support paying out in such cases.
    In my case,as in DRN6496220,it is my holiday and Im deriving benefit from taking my family away.
    As for stag parties etc i would be inclined now to advise everyone to book separately to avoid the problems i have encountered but this creates issues in its self.

    Can you link me up to the case?
  • Hmm, not sure this is quite the same situation.

    The FOS case was about a room booking, and, as mentioned in the case, the way the debtor contracted to use those rooms is unspecified and therefore not relevant; the agency failed to book the rooms and therefore breached the contract. The complainant simply paid for replacements, could not get exact ones, and (reasonably) had to pay a bit extra.

    In this thread, the contract involves flights that are applicable to named individuals and so the use of the tickets is specified. The FOS case does mention something that we have debated in other threads - namely, gift-giving and the beneficiaries of a purchase. My opinion (nothing more) on this is that where the debtor (the principal cardholder) is also a beneficiary to the contract which also involves the giving of a gift, S75 cover will apply.

    So, whilst this thread is different, it is still possible to claim that the principal cardholder (the debtor) was a beneficiary of the purchased service and so S75 cover should apply. Had they simply bought flight tickets for others (and not themselves) S75 cover would not exist - although even this is still up for debate in my eyes.

    So the breach of contract has led to a loss (direct in my view, rather than consequential) and that loss should be recompensed.

    Just my thoughts.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.