Section 75 claim rejected

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

How did this thread get so long

You can’t claim for standard of service through your credit card, not through chargeback or S75s.

DSC chain doesn’t matter.

Quite so, but you can claim a misrepresentation has occurred if you have evidence that the apartment was described as non-smoking but turned out not to be - which is what we have here. How you go about proving that is another matter.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Quite so, but you can claim a misrepresentation has occurred if you have evidence that the apartment was described as non-smoking but turned out not to be - which is what we have here. How you go about proving that is another matter.

Yeah that would be possible in some circumstances.

I know of a claim where a customer paid for a hotel that was to be child free. As it turned out she noticed a child and so upon her return tried to claim her entire hotel costs back from us. As laughable as this sounds, it had the same outcome as 99% of service issue claims.

Ben8282

Obviously s75 was never intended to cover this sort of situation.
One problem here is that complaints of this nature need to be sorted out by the hotel/apartment/tour operator/airline etc involved and not by a bank which is not really in a position to properly assess the merits of such a claim.
It would appear that having made a complaint to the, say, hotel involved and having it rejected this gives the complainer a second go by trying to complain to somebody else. Tour operators have a big problem with professional complainers/spurious complainers seeking the slightest thing to complain about. Now it would appear the bank/credit card company are going to have to re-open the already rejected complaint thereby giving the complainer a second chance.

eco_warrior

Ben8282 wrote: »

Obviously s75 was never intended to cover this sort of situation.
One problem here is that complaints of this nature need to be sorted out by the hotel/apartment/tour operator/airline etc involved and not by a bank which is not really in a position to properly assess the merits of such a claim.
I would appear that having made a complaint to the, say, hotel involved and having it rejected this gives the complainer a second go by trying to complain to somebody else. Tour operators have a big problem with professional complainers/spurious complainers seeking the slightest thing to complain about. Now it would appear the bank/credit card company are going to have to re-open the already rejected complaint thereby giving the complainer a second chance.

Agreed. We receive huge demand of this type following the holiday season. If anything it’s getting worse even though the outcomes don’t change (with the odd exception).

Belenus

eco_warrior wrote: »

How did this thread get so long

You can’t claim for standard of service through your credit card, not through chargeback or S75s.

DSC chain doesn’t matter.

I'm primarily claiming for misrepresentation.

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

Belenus

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Quite so, but you can claim a misrepresentation has occurred if you have evidence that the apartment was described as non-smoking but turned out not to be - which is what we have here. How you go about proving that is another matter.

I have comprehensive evidence of that.

Expedia have accepted that the apartment was not as advertised. They made me an offer that I rejected as it was nowhere near what I felt was justified.

Santander agree that the apartment was not as advertised. They initially attempted to claim that they were not liable due to a break in the debtor-creditor-supplier chain.

However they are now back tracking on that as I, prompted by you, sent them the Expedia Ts and Cs.

1.2. Scope and your relationship with Expedia
Expedia, Inc. operates the Website which acts as an interface between you and the various Travel Service Providers offering the Services. When you make a booking for a Service using the Website, you will be entering into a contract with the relevant Travel Service Providers for that Service.

Thanks for that suggestion. It is good to see positive contributions on here. :beer:

Santander have now made me an offer to settle the matter. I'm considering it.

Belenus

eco_warrior wrote: »

Yeah that would be possible in some circumstances.

I know of a claim where a customer paid for a hotel that was to be child free. As it turned out she noticed a child and so upon her return tried to claim her entire hotel costs back from us. As laughable as this sounds, it had the same outcome as 99% of service issue claims.

Thanks for your post but this really is a rather more serious complaint than a stray child in a hotel.

This is the first time in over four decades of going on holiday that I have felt the need to make such a complaint so I can't reasonably be accused of being a professional complainer or spurious complainer.

born_again

Glad the Op seems to be getting things sorted.

The issue they have is one of the problems where 3rd party companies are involved. That are nothing but introducers. All they do is advertise something, but not actual do anything except pass your details onto the actual person/company.