Section 75 advice

Bradders9126

Can someone please clarify for me please..
If I make a section 75 claim against an airline that goes into administration (Definitely covered etc. and no issues) I’ve read that you can make a claim for "consequential losses", as well as the cost of what you bought.

When typed into google is states... This covers any costs caused by the problem with your purchase. For example, if you bought tickets for an event that got cancelled, you may be able to claim back your travel and hotel costs from your credit card company.

My question.. Would this cover say the deposit I have paid for my Florida Park Tickets. £120 that I purchased from a different company? (I know it makes no difference but also purchased on same credit card) The reason I ask is that I can get refunds back on everything else i.e Villa, Car Hire etc. But will lose my none refundable deposit for park tickets as I will not be going to Florida.

Thanks in advance

Life__Goes__On

There is certainly a difference of opinion if it's covered or not.
It's clear the breach will have cost you, but is it fair that airline/credit card to cover the cost.
I've been thinking over this issue, and maybe it's not fair in this case, but in other cases it  would be fair.
The only way you will find out is to try,  but I see it taking a very long time.
With a S75 fairness involved,  in a court case it is not.
So my thinking is you would more likely win a court case, than a S75  but I'm not saying you would win either.

Bradders9126

Thanks for the advice.. I personally didn’t think it would be but I thought I would seek some advice just in case.

Streaky_Bacon

If you make a claim, the sensible thing to do is to include all losses that you have suffered, both direct and consequential.

If the airline is liable for something, then the credit card provider is also liable.

That said consequential loss is more difficult to prove. For example you would need to show that the airline could foresee the consequential loss. Once you can show that the airline is liable, then both it and the card provider are equally liable for all losses.

With regards to fairness, it is worth remembering that the basis of s75, is really that the credit providers have facilitated the merchant, financially benefit from such arrangements, and also have the power to push back on merchant, and can also pursue them for the claim amount, and so making them jointly liable will ensure that they manage and push back on merchants in their scheme. If it did not exist, then they would have no inclination to do so. So it is not that the credit provider is at fault for the breach, of course, but that they are in a better position to do something about it, preemptively and retrospectively.

As Lord Hope said in OFT v Lloyds TSB Bank plc

The simple and unqualified statement of the right that is
expressed in section 75(1) is consistent with the policy that lies behind
the Act, informed by recommendations by the Crowther Committee. Its
long title states that the new system which it lays down is “for the
protection of consumers”. That policy applies to debtors and creditors
within the territorial reach of the Act generally. Transactions of that
kind are to the commercial advantage of the supplier and the creditor.
The creditor is in a better position than the debtor, in a question with a
foreign supplier, to obtain redress. It is not to be assumed that the
creditor will always get his money back. But, if he does not, the loss
must lie with him as he has the broader back. He is in a better position,
if redress is not readily obtainable, to spread the cost. He is in a better
position to argue for sanctions against a supplier who is not reliable. For
his part, the debtor is entitled to assume that he can trust suppliers who
are authorised to accept his credit card.