Refund on non cancellation room

liamc28

Life__Goes__On said:

"

liamc28 said:

Life__Goes__On said:

When was your holiday? had your flights been cancelled?

Yes our flight has been cancelled and virgin have offered our money back. Holliday supposed to be the 3rd may. 

Did you book flights or hotel first (not sure it's important  but might help)

We booked the flights first then hotel. Our flights got cancelled last week

Life__Goes__On

Then if you don't want the vouchers then goes down the Section 75 route,   as long as you want to invest the time and know you might end up ruling against you ( but it won't cost you a penny)

Westin

Life__Goes__On said:

Hi  Westin
I'm going down "consequential losses"  under Section 75

If someone books a flight,  then a hotel and the flight is cancelled  the hotel becomes a "consequential loss"

As S75  is about breach of contract and also how it affects other contracts.
So if the OP losses  money on the hotel ( or hasn't been able to stay)  this is down to the breach of contract the OP had with the airline.

The "consequential loss" is the loss the OP has as the airline cancelled the flight.
The OP would claim on the credit card  that the OP paid the flight with (how the OP paid the hotel doesn't mater)

Someone could claim "consequential loss" from a retailer (or airline)

But I will suggest the  Credit card as they have deeper pockets.

Interesting thought process.  As bagand96 however mentioned, seems very strange that no one has to my knowledge picked up on this before and reported on its success. Would Martin not have mentioned this before?

I wonder if this might be helpful to the poster a few weeks ago that asked about recover of costs for items purchased for their holiday.  How broad would this ‘consequential loss’ claim on S75 go?  A claim perhaps for those new t-shirts, shorts and flip-flops bought in Primark for that cancelled RyanAir flight to the Costas? 

Life__Goes__On

I could well be wrong  and it won't work,  I would NEVER suggest  a person uses court action as this will cost.
But if I had a voucher for a hotel that I never planned on going to this would be one course of action
I would also NEVER suggest this would be the only action to take,  my view is try everything that is free as long as you want to invest the time.

Life__Goes__On

This link  might be worth a read
It's not just a random website  the article  is by a Professor of Travel Law

https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/resources/editorials/monarch-collapses-right-royal-mess/

"On this basis my daughter is entitled to go out and buy replacement flights, as near as possible to her original flights, and claim the difference back from her credit card provider. Alternatively she could stay at home and accept the refund for the cost of the flights but claim the cost of cancelling her hotel – which would be a reasonably foreseeable loss.
(my bold)

bagand96

Life__Goes__On said:

This link  might be worth a read
It's not just a random website  the article  is by a Professor of Travel Law

https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/resources/editorials/monarch-collapses-right-royal-mess/

"On this basis my daughter is entitled to go out and buy replacement flights, as near as possible to her original flights, and claim the difference back from her credit card provider. Alternatively she could stay at home and accept the refund for the cost of the flights but claim the cost of cancelling her hotel – which would be a reasonably foreseeable loss.
(my bold)

Like you have said you could well be wrong I'm also willing to admit I may be too.  I've never known of any examples of it being successful, and I would have thought consumer advocates like Martin and Which would be all over it if it was a legitimate avenue.

Only difference I can see is that in the Monarch case, there is a clear breach of contract in that the airline doesn't exist so there's no flight and no refund.  If an airline has refunded for a cancelled flight then there is no breach of contract, therefore I'm not sure claiming a S75 on that transaction would work.  But I'm no law professor.

You are right that there is nothing to lose (other than time) to try it with the bank, and indeed the ombudsman.

Life__Goes__On

It can't be a sure fire winner as someone would have backed a court test case.
As I  believe the Thomas Cook  issue has been taken to the Ombudsman will be good to see any rulings.
Then there could be a test case from the OFT  as they have done that is the past.

EDIT
The is a difference I agree, but do wonder if it makes difference is a breach a breach no matter the circumstances?

Westin

I wonder that as it would seem there is ambiguity and doubt as to this being bona fide - and as you say a test case in law required, perhaps this might not be the best direction to lead the OP or other to.  It may respectfully just be giving false hope and lead people down a dead end path. 

Life__Goes__On

People can read the my advice or even read that a Professor of Travel Law thinks airlines are (in some cases)  are responsible for "consequential loss"
I have supplied this  information and people can judge for themselves
If I am wrong, hopefully someone can supply links to cases and/or legal opinion to why it won't work, as that would be very helpful.

Life__Goes__On

"

Westin said:

 It may respectfully just be giving false hope and lead people down a dead end path. 

Some people may just want to give up, not bother accept they have lost their money with a voucher or stay that they will never use.
That is up to them , but I've never been a person that has not tried something as I might lose.
So I offer my advice for the person I am, others might offer advice for the person they are,  it's up the the readers the advice they choose.