Tesco cc & thomas cook section 75

Ben8282

eco_warrior wrote: »

Thomas cook don’t invoice the flights as two amounts just the one. But a full chargeback can be processed and let the merchant bank represent with a breakdown (or even accept the full chargeback). This isn’t a particularly easy or quick process. Would be 2-3 months for the chargeback to run its course.

There should be a breakdown somewhere. Do you work in Thomas Cook invoicing?

Ben8282

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Don't know what the specific wording of the Chargebacks is these days but, in days gone by, an issuer would be denied access to the 'non-receipt of services' Chargeback following the failure of a travel company unless they had documentary evidence that any Bonding Authority (that may be involved) could not, or would not, help out. That's probably the reason for the refusal.

If this is one of those situations where (as Heng Leng suggests) the nature of the booking was such that it was never covered by any Bond arrangement in the first place, you may be able to kick back against your issuer. That said, I cannot understand why a repatriation flight would have been available if there was no Bond cover.

OP clearly states that it was flight only therefore there would have been no bond cover.

Having said that though, IF this repatriation flight was operated by an aircraft of similar capacity specifically chartered for that purpose, it would make sense to simply board all the passengers from the non-operating Thomas Cook flight and be done with it rather than board only ATOL covered passengers and allow the flight to operate with empty seats..

eco_warrior

Ben8282 wrote: »

There should be a breakdown somewhere. Do you work in Thomas Cook invoicing?

Yeah I agree that Thomas Cook (or their administrators) will have a breakdown somewhere.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Don't know what the specific wording of the Chargebacks is these days but, in days gone by, an issuer would be denied access to the 'non-receipt of services' Chargeback following the failure of a travel company unless they had documentary evidence that any Bonding Authority (that may be involved) could not, or would not, help out. That's probably the reason for the refusal.

If this is one of those situations where (as Heng Leng suggests) the nature of the booking was such that it was never covered by any Bond arrangement in the first place, you may be able to kick back against your issuer. That said, I cannot understand why a repatriation flight would have been available if there was no Bond cover.

Because everyone was flown home, not just ATOL protected (bonded) customers

born_again

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

That said, I cannot understand why a repatriation flight would have been available if there was no Bond cover.

As far as we were aware in the aftermarth (that weekend) of TC going under. Flights only were NOT covered by the bond. As such there was no return trip for customers.
Then the Gov stepped in and agreed to bring them back.
Given the OP had already arranged return fights, and why not given no one knew this at the time they would be brought back.

All the OP can do is raise a complaint with Tesco.

eco_warrior

born_again wrote: »

As far as we were aware in the aftermarth (that weekend) of TC going under. Flights only were NOT covered by the bond. As such there was no return trip for customers.
Then the Gov stepped in and agreed to bring them back.
Given the OP had already arranged return fights, and why not given no one knew this at the time they would be brought back.

All the OP can do is raise a complaint with Tesco.

I don’t recall a distinction being made about Atol/Non-Atol repatriation. It was always everyone and it was widely reported in the immediate build up to TC going under.

The government “stepping in” was already decided, at least in my mind/opinion anyway.

Terry_Towelling

OK, so if a flight-only booking was not covered by any Bond, any customer on their holiday would have reasonable grounds to believe they were going to be stranded and not going to be helped out. It would therefore seem reasonable for such a customer to make alternative arrangements of their own - and quite quickly too.

If a card issuer is going to deny a Chargeback to such a customer, they would surely need to explain to the customer that they had behaved unreasonably in making their own repatriation arrangements in 'haste', and should have waited for more information to come out about 'repatriation for all'. Of course, had they waited and no such 'repatriation for all' was offered, and all other return flights were then booked up, they could have had a far worse situation to deal with.

The question is, was the customer's action reasonable, given the situation in which they found themselves, and is their card issuer's refusal to now help out reasonable? A customer on holiday isn't necessarily going to be glued to the news in the build up to a travel failure that they may never have known was in the offing in the first place.

I wonder what FOS would say about this?

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

OK, so if a flight-only booking was not covered by any Bond, any customer on their holiday would have reasonable grounds to believe they were going to be stranded and not going to be helped out. It would therefore seem reasonable for such a customer to make alternative arrangements of their own - and quite quickly too.

If a card issuer is going to deny a Chargeback to such a customer, they would surely need to explain to the customer that they had behaved unreasonably in making their own repatriation arrangements in 'haste', and should have waited for more information to come out about 'repatriation for all'. Of course, had they waited and no such 'repatriation for all' was offered, and all other return flights were then booked up, they could have had a far worse situation to deal with.

The question is, was the customer's action reasonable, given the situation in which they found themselves, and is their card issuer's refusal to now help out reasonable? A customer on holiday isn't necessarily going to be glued to the news in the build up to a travel failure that they may never have known was in the offing in the first place.

I wonder what FOS would say about this?

Hey terry.

On what basis would the customer believe they would be stranded? What’s the precedent?

Of the 8000 claims I’ve direct contact with I would estimate 10 or less have booked their own flights home. Of those maybe 2-3 booked the return flights before TC went under, as they saw it coming.

The only repatriation issues I’ve heard of are that some customers were flown to different airports and then bussed home, so it was a longer return leg.

born_again

eco_warrior wrote: »

On what basis would the customer believe they would be stranded? What’s the precedent?

I have only ever known 2 repatriations. Monarch & T Cook, for non bonded customers..

Every other tour company going under, & as you know there are many each year. Folks are left to their own devices unless its ATOL bonded.

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

Hey terry.

On what basis would the customer believe they would be stranded? What’s the precedent?

Of the 8000 claims I’ve direct contact with I would estimate 10 or less have booked their own flights home. Of those maybe 2-3 booked the return flights before TC went under, as they saw it coming.

The only repatriation issues I’ve heard of are that some customers were flown to different airports and then bussed home, so it was a longer return leg.

I'm basing this on the fact that a flight-only booking does not seem to attract any Bond cover, so a customer with such a booking could (quite reasonably) not be expecting any help with flights home.