Anyone got a refund from TravelTrolley or communication from them?

desiman

@LifeGoesOn This is my source, RE: S75 or not, what is yours? 
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/getting-your-money-back-if-you-paid-by-card-or-paypal/

If you didn’t buy directly from the seller

You can’t use section 75 if you paid through a third party - like PayPal, Amazon third-party sellers, a travel agent or a group buying company like Groupon or Living Social.

desiman

Also here 
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-youre-protected-when-you-pay-by-card

What isn’t covered: (S75)

• in some cases, if you buy a ‘flight only’ from a third party, such as a travel agent, you might not be able to make a claim because the third party was only contracted to provide the tickets and not the flight.

Life__Goes__On

I use Case Law (makes interesting reading).
 Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v. Lloyds TSB Bank plc and others (Appellants) and others (Respondents)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071031/lloyds-1.htm

The case was about foreign transactions and the use of third parties and even forth parties.
When first heard the banks won

The OFT appealed, and won the appeal that the use of third parties (& even forth parties) was covered  under S75 and so was foreign transactions

The banks then appealed to the  House of Lords, but just on the issue of  foreign transactions and the banks lost.

So with third parties it's an  Appeal Court ruling
With foreign transactions it's a House of Lords ruling.

Life__Goes__On

This might help a bit more https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/law-reports/4017.article

"The OFT contended that connected lender liability under section 75(1) arose in relation to any transaction financed by a credit card issued in the UK, whether the transaction was entered into under a three or four-party structure and whether the transaction was entered into in the UK or abroad. "

The OFT won that argument.

Life__Goes__On

Thought I would explain why Paypal isn't considered covered

The reason the OFT won the case is because although third parties wasn't  in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it could have reasonable to foresee that would happen, that why it comes in the scope of the Act.

Now Paypay is just  a method of payment and a fairly new method.
Now could this have been foreseen in 1974 when the Act became law?  I personally doubt it.
But it could be tested in the Court, but you would need deep pockets in doing so as there is no Case law to refer to. So could end up going to the Supreme Court,

 

desiman

That's really useful info, thanks. To be honest, I was not going to be prescriptive to the credit card company about which route of reimbursement I want to take (S75 or Chargeback), I want to be guided by their expertise and the Financial Ombudsman also puts the onus of that decision on the provider, rather than the customer. 
I refer to the page on Covid, here https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/complaints/coronavirus-covid-19-information-businesses 

Life__Goes__On

NP
Good luck with claim.
If rejected  ask  the reason why,  especially in regards to the above Case Law.
They would have do go down two routes, that  the Case Law ruling above  doesn't apply to them ,  or   the Case Law has been superseded ( which I don't believe it has).

The fact they didn't even bother taking the 3rd party issue to the House of Lords is they knew they would lose, then everyone would know their rights. So they dropped in is the hope it wouldn't be so well known about.
They only took the other issue to the HoL because they thought they could win,  but didn't  and cost them dearly.
That's why one ruling is more well known that the other.

frayedknot

I've been looking at reviews of this company on trustpilot etc and it's not pretty, they seem to have melted down in the first 4 weeks of the crisis, I think ABTA and Atol will be building a rather thick file on them also.. They are now at least answering the phones (Indian call-centre) but I wouldn't be taking any credit note from them as their long-term future seems questionable. They are taking cash refunds from the airlines and banking the money, then offering credit notes to customers, obviously to protect liquidity.

fifeken

tzb27 said:

I have asked my uncle to send them this email:

I am still waiting to hear further from you since my last email. After seeking some legal advice it's been highlighted that I am entitled for cash refund under EU laws. 

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Your-rights/Your-rights-when-you-fly/  

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Cancellations/Long-haul-cancellations/

I am in great need of these funds and request you to urgently refund the full amount as soon as possible. 

I will wait to hear from you within next 7 working days before consulting a solicitor to recieve further advice on full refund and other damages caused due to the delay in your responsibility to resolve this situation.

I hope to hear from you soon. 

You may not be doing yourself (or your Uncle) any favours.  These rules may force the airline to give a cash refund to Travel Trolly, but they don't force TT to give it all you.  Their Ts & Cs include an administration fee which could put a big dent in what you get back.

fifeken

What about Section 21 which allows them to take an admin fee from airline refunds?