Section 75

wizzywig27

On the ATOL certificate it states:

Your provider and booking ref:
JTA GBP, Ref: JNFXXXXX for the flight, and Bonotel Accommodation USD , Ref:XXXXXXX

At the bottom it has LH as ATOL Certificate issuer and says Package (Multi Contract) Sale

Life__Goes__On

wizzywig27 said:

On the ATOL certificate it states:

Your provider and booking ref:
JTA GBP, Ref: JNFXXXXX for the flight, and Bonotel Accommodation USD , Ref:XXXXXXX

At the bottom it has LH as ATOL Certificate issuer and says Package (Multi Contract) Sale

I've seen that is the other forum on here, LH mis-selling a package holiday, trying to claim it's a linked (multi contract) which offers less protection, it's the only company I've seen do this.

Did LH  give you one invoice  and a grand total  for the cost of the holiday?

wizzywig27

Life__Goes__On said:

wizzywig27 said:

On the ATOL certificate it states:

Your provider and booking ref:
JTA GBP, Ref: JNFXXXXX for the flight, and Bonotel Accommodation USD , Ref:XXXXXXX

At the bottom it has LH as ATOL Certificate issuer and says Package (Multi Contract) Sale

I've seen that is the other forum on here, LH mis-selling a package holiday, trying to claim it's a linked (multi contract) which offers less protection, it's the only company I've seen do this.

Did LH  give you one invoice  and a grand total  for the cost of the holiday?

Yes mate, basically the full amount spread over 10 payments 

Life__Goes__On

wizzywig27 said:

Did LH  give you one invoice  and a grand total  for the cost of the holiday?

Yes mate, basically the full amount spread over 10 payments 

https://www.abta.com/tips-and-advice/is-my-holiday-protected/new-package-travel-regulations
Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements 2018

In my view you booked this

What is a package holiday?

A package holiday can come in many different forms and can be sold in different ways – from a ‘ready-made’ package (where the different travel services are put together for you by the travel company and offered at a single price) to many tailor-made trips (for example where you select different services from a range offered before paying for them together) – however they will all have the same level of financial and legal protection.

A package holiday is a combination of at least two different types of travel services, which are listed below: 

• transport (such as a flight, coach or train but not transfers from an airport)
• accommodation (such as a hotel, villa or apartment)
• car rental 
• a tourist service (such as a tour guide or a trip to a historical attraction) where this is a significant part of the holiday either because of its value or because it is an essential part of the trip.

But LoveHolidays are claimed you have this

What is a linked travel arrangement?

A linked travel arrangement is a combination of at least two different types of travel services (listed below) – but it is how these travel services are sold which defines it as a linked travel arrangement. 

Types of travel services covered by a linked travel arrangement:

• transport (such as a flight, coach or train but not transfers from an airport)
• accommodation (such as a hotel, villa or apartment)
• car rental 
• a tourist service (such as a tour guide or a trip to a historical attraction) where this is a significant part of the holiday either because of its value or because it is an essential part of the trip.

It counts as a linked travel arrangement if your travel company sells it to you by:

Arranging the separate selection and separate payment of each of your travel services - such as a flight and accommodation - during a single visit (either to their shop, website or other point of sale). This means you will have separate contracts with the individual travel service providers. 

Arranging for you to make a booking for one travel service (for example a flight) and then arranged for you to then be offered, in a targeted manner – such as through an email – another travel service from another trader (such as a car hire firm) which you then book less than 24 hours later.

What is the difference between the consumer protection of a package holiday and a linked travel arrangement?

A linked travel arrangement is not a package and doesn’t offer the same protection as a package.
A package offers both legal and financial protection, a linked travel arrangement just offers a level of financial protection, which will vary depending on how you bought your services  (please see below for more information on what protection each arrangement has).



So by Lovehoildays claiming you have linked (multi-contract)  instead of a package (single contract) it thinks it  doesn't give you the same legal protection
 

eskbanker

Life__Goes__On said:

eskbanker said:

I'd expect Nationwide to be able to argue (not without justification IMHO) that the contract is between wizzywig27 and retailer, with their cardholder not actually being a party to it.

I disagree,  the contract is with all parties on the booking form, otherwise all others would be third parties.

Example
Mr A pays for a flight for Mrs A, and there is trouble with the flight,  Mr A can not claim S75 via his credit card because there is not a link as Mrs A  is the third party.

If you are correct If Mr A books a flight for Himself and Mrs A,  and they get to the airport and there is trouble with the flight,  then Mr A could only claim a S75 for himself,  as in your view Mrs A  has no contract so is a third party.

I don't think I have a seen a ruling such as this

I'm not really wanting to get bogged down in abstract hypotheticals - my understanding remains that in the event of a problem requiring s75 to be invoked, wizzywig27 as lead passenger (authorised to act on behalf of any and all other passengers) can claim from Barclaycard for the full cost of the holiday for all passengers named on the booking, and that partner making a payment with a separate card in her name is unlikely to bestow additional rights (if all non-lead passengers could improve their position by doing this then it would surely be widely recommended).  Are you agreeing with this or are you suggesting that wizzywig27's partner paying Nationwide is either necessary or beneficial?

Life__Goes__On

eskbanker said:

I'm not really wanting to get bogged down in abstract hypotheticals -

I was tying to justify  my point of view on a legal issue,  it's always up to others,  if they want to do the same with their view.
Personally I feel it's an important issue as there will be other readers of the posting not just the OP.
Some might be worried as they get the impression that that aren't protected as they paid on their credit card, but are not the lead passenger.
(I know at least three married couples that do this)

eskbanker said:

 Are you agreeing with this or are you suggesting that wizzywig27's partner paying Nationwide is either necessary or beneficial?

I don't think it's necessary,  but doing so I see upsides and downsides,  downside is both CCC point to each other,  the upside is if you know one of the CCC is better at dealing with S75,  then you can use them.

eskbanker

Life__Goes__On said:

Some might be worried as they get the impression that that aren't protected as they paid on their credit card, but are not the lead passenger.
(I know at least three married couples that do this)

I was under the impression that lead passenger status was significant contractually and therefore ultimately for s75 purposes, but came across an FOS case where Barclays initially took that stance but changed tack and FOS agreed that they should have done:
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/249398/DRN3871979.pdf

Mr W felt he should be entitled to a full refund so he raised a claim with Barclays under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“S75”). Barclays declined his claim. It initially said Mr W hadn’t paid for the holiday, but later agreed he had. It said the claim couldn’t succeed because it was Mr W’s relative that had the contract with the travel agent.

[...]

I thought there was a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement between Mr W, the holiday company and Barclays, in order for Mr W to make a S75 claim. This was because Mr W had paid the holiday company directly using his Barclays credit card and he was listed as a passenger on the booking confirmation. Although he wasn’t the lead passenger, the very nature of these types of bookings was that only one person could ever be the lead passenger. I didn’t think this meant only the lead passenger had a contract with the holiday company – Mr W did too.

Given that, it still surprises me that it's not widely publicised on a site like this that payments from multiple passengers can improve s75 coverage by opening up more claim avenues!

Life__Goes__On

eskbanker said:

Mr W felt he should be entitled to a full refund so he raised a claim with Barclays under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“S75”). Barclays declined his claim. It initially said Mr W hadn’t paid for the holiday, but later agreed he had. It said the claim couldn’t succeed because it was Mr W’s relative that had the contract with the travel agent.

[...]

I thought there was a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement between Mr W, the holiday company and Barclays, in order for Mr W to make a S75 claim. This was because Mr W had paid the holiday company directly using his Barclays credit card and he was listed as a passenger on the booking confirmation. Although he wasn’t the lead passenger, the very nature of these types of bookings was that only one person could ever be the lead passenger. I didn’t think this meant only the lead passenger had a contract with the holiday company – Mr W did too.

Thanks for that, I feel that case is an important reference point for any current cases that are on going.
It will be strange point to a case, that wasn't upheld, but so glad the Ombudsman made it clear that wasn't the reason it failed.

eskbanker said:

Given that, it still surprises me that it's not widely publicised on a site like this that payments from multiple passengers can improve s75 coverage by opening up more claim avenues!

I agree, in the above case if all 3 had part paid then any of them could have claimed, so should be publicised  widely.
(TBH I didn't know it wasn't)

I tend to read the Acts, then try to find case law, or other rulings for my info, then find sites that share my opinion, and link to them as they can but it into words much better than I can. Also linking to an Act is not really helpful to most people looking for advice.

I would never say my opinion is always right, or sites like this are always right, it's always up to the reader to be as certain as they can, as it's their money.
One advice I would always give,  if it's a financial advice a person is after and wants it watertight, with legal redress, a forum isn't the place, a person  needs to pay for the advice. 







 

Life__Goes__On

What has surprised be in regards to S75  is that the rulings saying there has to be a direct link so no third parties.

But case law, in this matter as far as I can tell is
Office of Fair Trading v (1) Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (2) Tesco Personal Finance Ltd (3) American Express Services Europe Ltd: CA (Civ Div) (Lord Justices Waller, Smith, Moore-Bick): 22 March 2006 

And that ruled  a direct link isn't needed.

eskbanker

Life__Goes__On said:

What has surprised be in regards to S75  is that the rulings saying there has to be a direct link so no third parties.

But case law, in this matter as far as I can tell is
Office of Fair Trading v (1) Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (2) Tesco Personal Finance Ltd (3) American Express Services Europe Ltd: CA (Civ Div) (Lord Justices Waller, Smith, Moore-Bick): 22 March 2006 

And that ruled  a direct link isn't needed.

That case comes up from time to time on here and has quite a history - my understanding is that the original judgment was in 2004, then the 2006 hearing was at the Court of Appeal, and then it went to the House of Lords in 2007 (who agreed with the appeal court).

I'm certainly no lawyer but it seems to me that the fourth player in the four-party model under consideration was specifically the merchant acquirer, who effectively has to be involved in credit card transactions, rather than any intermediary, but the judgment doesn't explicitly assert that other models (such as travel agents) are fundamentally different....

The MSE s75 guidance refers to the case in vague terms but I don't know if any s75 claimants have succeeded in citing the 2006 judgment (do you accept the challenge?!):

You're unlikely to be covered when payments are made to a company that isn't the one providing you with the product or service. In these cases, the credit card company usually says it didn't have a direct relationship with the supplier, so isn't equally liable.

If you stand your ground, it's possible to argue that the indirect relationship constitutes an arrangement to pay. The Court of Appeal decided this was acceptable in 2006, but it's unlikely to be an easy task.