Section 75

wizzywig27

Hi all, looking for some advice. I have a holiday booked which may or may not go ahead. The whole balance so far has been paid on my credit card. Should the holiday be cancelled and not go ahead, will section 75 cover my partners half as well, or does she need to make a payment on her credit card just to ensure she is covered? We both live at the same address. The holiday is in my name but she is obviously a passenger. I have paid on Barclaycard and if she pays hers will be on Nationwide.

MEM62

Why are your thoughts going straight to S75?  If the travel company cancels then they are under an obligation to refund you.  If you have any issues with them then refer to your travel insurer.  If both those fail I would still look at a charge back before S75.   

wizzywig27

Because S75 offers legal protection, chargeback still might not be effective. 

Travel insurance was with my bank (not anymore as changed banks), and is with someone else now which was taken out after holiday was booked so may not be covered.

i booked with loveholidays, they are offering vouchers, despite the legal requirement they are failing to offer refunds, so was looking at my options. 

eskbanker

wizzywig27 said:

Because S75 offers legal protection, chargeback still might not be effective. 

Travel insurance was with my bank (not anymore as changed banks), and is with someone else now which was taken out after holiday was booked so may not be covered.

i booked with loveholidays, they are offering vouchers, despite the legal requirement they are failing to offer refunds, so was looking at my options. 

Booking via an intermediary will usually scupper a s75 claim, as doing so breaks the debtor-creditor-supplier chain required to sustain a legitimate claim, so don't pin all your hopes on s75 at the expense of the other options if you've paid loveholidays for a holiday that will/would actually be fulfilled by another operator....

Life__Goes__On

eskbanker said:

wizzywig27 said:

Because S75 offers legal protection, chargeback still might not be effective. 

Travel insurance was with my bank (not anymore as changed banks), and is with someone else now which was taken out after holiday was booked so may not be covered.

i booked with loveholidays, they are offering vouchers, despite the legal requirement they are failing to offer refunds, so was looking at my options. 

Booking via an intermediary will usually scupper a s75 claim, as doing so breaks the debtor-creditor-supplier chain required to sustain a legitimate claim, so don't pin all your hopes on s75 at the expense of the other options if you've paid loveholidays for a holiday that will/would actually be fulfilled by another operator....

If it is a "package holiday" then a S75 will cover it, as LH is the travel agent and the supplier of the package.
The OP should have an ATOL cert,  whoever is named on that is the supplier.

eskbanker

Life__Goes__On said:

eskbanker said:

wizzywig27 said:

Because S75 offers legal protection, chargeback still might not be effective. 

Travel insurance was with my bank (not anymore as changed banks), and is with someone else now which was taken out after holiday was booked so may not be covered.

i booked with loveholidays, they are offering vouchers, despite the legal requirement they are failing to offer refunds, so was looking at my options. 

Booking via an intermediary will usually scupper a s75 claim, as doing so breaks the debtor-creditor-supplier chain required to sustain a legitimate claim, so don't pin all your hopes on s75 at the expense of the other options if you've paid loveholidays for a holiday that will/would actually be fulfilled by another operator....

If it is a "package holiday" then a S75 will cover it, as LH is the travel agent and the supplier of the package.
The OP should have an ATOL cert,  whoever is named on that is the supplier.

I think we covered this on another thread - there was indeed an old FOS ruling that s75 applied where a travel agent was deemed to be the supplier of a package, by virtue of having constructed it to that customer's requirements, but that clearly doesn't mean that agents selling packages created by others are covered.  I believe that resellers such as loveholidays fall into the latter category, but OP can obviously check the terms of their own booking:

loveholidays acts as an agent in respect of all bookings made on our website or by telephone. For all bookings, your contract will be with the applicable Service Provider of your chosen Travel Service (who may be the principal or the agent of the principal) and loveholidays acts only as an agent on their behalf, except where we state to the contrary in the terms and conditions.

Life__Goes__On

eskbanker said:

Life__Goes__On said:

eskbanker said:

wizzywig27 said:

Because S75 offers legal protection, chargeback still might not be effective. 

Travel insurance was with my bank (not anymore as changed banks), and is with someone else now which was taken out after holiday was booked so may not be covered.

i booked with loveholidays, they are offering vouchers, despite the legal requirement they are failing to offer refunds, so was looking at my options. 

Booking via an intermediary will usually scupper a s75 claim, as doing so breaks the debtor-creditor-supplier chain required to sustain a legitimate claim, so don't pin all your hopes on s75 at the expense of the other options if you've paid loveholidays for a holiday that will/would actually be fulfilled by another operator....

If it is a "package holiday" then a S75 will cover it, as LH is the travel agent and the supplier of the package.
The OP should have an ATOL cert,  whoever is named on that is the supplier.

I think we covered this on another thread - there was indeed an old FOS ruling that s75 applied where a travel agent was deemed to be the supplier of a package, by virtue of having constructed it to that customer's requirements, but that clearly doesn't mean that agents selling packages created by others are covered.  I believe that resellers such as loveholidays fall into the latter category, but OP can obviously check the terms of their own booking:

loveholidays acts as an agent in respect of all bookings made on our website or by telephone. For all bookings, your contract will be with the applicable Service Provider of your chosen Travel Service (who may be the principal or the agent of the principal) and loveholidays acts only as an agent on their behalf, except where we state to the contrary in the terms and conditions.

I not a fan of using T&Cs as Acts always override it.
Can you find any rulings that support it's not covered under S75?

Life__Goes__On

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/271646/DRN6656888.pdf  (PDF) (Ruling April 2020

"Section 75 makes HSBC, as the provider of credit, jointly and severally liable for a breach of
contract or a misrepresentation by the travel agency Mrs C paid with her credit card. Another
law makes the travel agency liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the hotel
or by the airline, if this was a package holiday. No-one has suggested that this was not a
package holiday, so I have assumed that it was. HSBC has agreed to refund Mrs C. But the
travel agency is not responsible for providing a bus at the UK airport, and no law makes the
travel agency liable for anything the airport did or failed to do. So section 75 does not extend
to that part of this complaint."


It's crystal clear with this ruling the OP is cover by S75 if it is a package holiday.

eskbanker

Life__Goes__On said:
I not a fan of using T&Cs as Acts always override it.

Can you find any rulings that support it's not covered under S75?

I agree that Ts & Cs can't override legislation, but the significant aspect of those Ts & Cs is the clear specification of the role of each of the parties, i.e. confirming that loveholidays is acting as an agent for the actual holiday supplier.

The first pertinent example that I came across of the broken D-C-S chain is https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/248207/DRN2028841.pdf, in which a customer tries to hold her bank liable under s75 but her complaint is rejected because she booked via an online travel agent (referred to anonymously as 'G' for some reason):

The key to whether Miss E has a valid claim lies in identifying the role of G. I have looked at the contract and its website. These identify it as an organiser rather than a supplier of the holiday. It says that once a customer makes a booking it will contact the supplier to see if the chosen holiday is available at the price quoted. It adds that the content of the website represents the holidays offered by the suppliers.

I am satisfied that the role of G is as an intermediary in organising the holiday and taking payment which it passes on to the supplier. That means the DCS link is broken. I would add that there is no evidence of an associated relationship between the tour operator and G as defined in the legislation. I appreciate this may well appear to be a technicality, but as the law is currently drafted Miss E does not have section 75 claim against the bank. Therefore, while I have every sympathy with Miss E, I cannot uphold her complaint.

The holiday concerned is clearly a package, but this doesn't in and of itself grant the customer any rights as far as s75 is concerned, other than (as stated in previous post) where a case can be made that the agent has actually assembled the package rather than simply reselling someone else's.

Life__Goes__On said:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/271646/DRN6656888.pdf  (PDF) (Ruling April 2020

"Section 75 makes HSBC, as the provider of credit, jointly and severally liable for a breach of
contract or a misrepresentation by the travel agency Mrs C paid with her credit card. Another
law makes the travel agency liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the hotel
or by the airline, if this was a package holiday. No-one has suggested that this was not a
package holiday, so I have assumed that it was. HSBC has agreed to refund Mrs C. But the
travel agency is not responsible for providing a bus at the UK airport, and no law makes the
travel agency liable for anything the airport did or failed to do. So section 75 does not extend
to that part of this complaint."

It's crystal clear with this ruling the OP is cover by S75 if it is a package holiday.

As you might expect, I disagree!  Firstly, I believe that the ombudsman has been careless with language in referring to a 'travel agency', as the case study makes no mention of an agent as a separate entity from the actual holiday supplier, which is the key distinction I've been referring to.

The wording you've bolded is clearly referring to other legislation (maybe the Package Travel Regulations?) but again it's not directly relevant here, in that as I understand it it's establishing that a tour operator is responsible for the services provided by its subcontractors, such as airlines or hotels.

Life__Goes__On

So for your viewpoint to be correct, I need to be wrong, the Ombudsman need to be wrong and the The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 need to be wrong.

I can't see the point of further discussion.

harsh_but_fair

What is interesting (if you don't mind an intrusion into this from a newbie) is the fact that we are in months into the biggest number of cancelled holiday events since the Great Flood and this forum (and indeed the whole internet) is awash with people asking 'am I covered by my credit card if I've booked holiday x via agency y' and there is still no definitive answer...

The proof being that two very respected people on this forum are disagreeing

somebody needs to get a stake in the ground