Section 75 question

mpet

eddddy said:

mpet said:
The owner of the property hasn’t changed - just the management company. I have confirmed with the owner that they have received no monies for my booking. So if I wanted to rebook I would have to pay again.

With regard to the category of ‘goods not supplied’, I initially called Santander to explain the situation and that is the category they allocated.

The t’s & c’s clearly state if a booking is cancelled by them a full refund will be made (they have also confirmed this by email).
It may be they were going to try and put us in another property, but the contract specifically gives the address of the property we booked.
However, this is probably irrelevant now, as they have no properties as the owner has sold the company.

A lot of what you say seems to be based on 'hearsay' comments by the property owner, who may have some kind of grudge. It's unlikely that the CC company will take any notice of 'hearsay'. There'll only be interested in contractual terms between you and the management company.

You need to build-up a watertight case, otherwise there's the risk that the management company will challenge the chargeback, and then say something like "We arranged accommodation on the date agreed, and you didn't turn up."

Thank you for your comments. To reiterate - there is no hearsay. I have it confirmed by email from the villa owner AND the management company I am claiming from that they no longer manage the villa and haven’t for a few months.

I also have an email from the villa management company saying I can have a refund ( the t’s & c’s support this)

They have not made a refund ( as agreed in an email to me and in accordance with their t’s & c’s). My claim is made on the basis that they cannot supply me with the ‘goods’ I have ‘purchased’ and have not refunded me in accordance with their t’s & c’s.  

Sandtree

eddddy said:
I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Typically, you have no contract with the booking company.

I agree it many not be 100% clear cut but for a contract you need:
1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Consideration

If you go to Rent a Great Villa . Com (or some random other such site) you put in your details of what you want and you get a list of offers back... you then click the accept button on one of them... then you make consideration by paying the website.  You may not have a written contract but that doesnt stop a contract existing.

eddddy

Sandtree said:

eddddy said:
I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Typically, you have no contract with the booking company.

I agree it many not be 100% clear cut but for a contract you need:
1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Consideration

If you go to Rent a Great Villa . Com (or some random other such site) you put in your details of what you want and you get a list of offers back... you then click the accept button on one of them... then you make consideration by paying the website.  You may not have a written contract but that doesnt stop a contract existing.

Yes - but that's not what's under discussion here.

The discussion is about section 75 of the consumer credit act 1974. To put it in legal terms there must be a "debtor-creditor-supplier agreement". See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

And whilst your description of a contract is correct, your previous post is likely to be wrong:

Sandtree said:

You do still get S75 but only for the services provided by the booking company... ie if they failed to actually book the villa with the owner you'd have a valid claim but if there was an issue with your stay etc then there is no claim because thats not related to the booking company's services.

For example, if I rent a holiday home and there is no heating, my claim is against whoever rented the holiday home to me (who I had a contract with).

My claim is not against the person that the property owner hired to provide heating maintenance services (who I have no contract with).  The same applies if the property owner hires a management company - with a an online booking website - to provide booking management services.

However, this discussion thread has now moved on from this point.

mpet

eddddy said:

However, this discussion thread has now moved on from this point.

Yes - the input from everyone has been very interesting/enlightening, but my initial question was ' as the Management company has now sold the company due to financial issues, do I need to change my initial Section 75 claim' . I guess I'll just have to wait for the verdict from Santander.

Sandtree

eddddy said:

Sandtree said:

eddddy said:
I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Typically, you have no contract with the booking company.

I agree it many not be 100% clear cut but for a contract you need:
1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Consideration

If you go to Rent a Great Villa . Com (or some random other such site) you put in your details of what you want and you get a list of offers back... you then click the accept button on one of them... then you make consideration by paying the website.  You may not have a written contract but that doesnt stop a contract existing.

Yes - but that's not what's under discussion here.

The discussion is about section 75 of the consumer credit act 1974. To put it in legal terms there must be a "debtor-creditor-supplier agreement". See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

And whilst your description of a contract is correct, your previous post is likely to be wrong:

Sandtree said:

You do still get S75 but only for the services provided by the booking company... ie if they failed to actually book the villa with the owner you'd have a valid claim but if there was an issue with your stay etc then there is no claim because thats not related to the booking company's services.

For example, if I rent a holiday home and there is no heating, my claim is against whoever rented the holiday home to me (who I had a contract with).

My claim is not against the person that the property owner hired to provide heating maintenance services (who I have no contract with).  The same applies if the property owner hires a management company - with a an online booking website - to provide booking management services.

However, this discussion thread has now moved on from this point.

Which is exactly what I said... however I just corrected/elaborated on the statement that you have no S75 at all as this is incorrect. If the agent failed to pass the booking on  there would be a valid claim.

born_again

As far as any CC will go here, on S75.
You paid a management co (3rd party) for villa rental (owner of which is creditor)
Thus the debtor (you) to creditor (villa owner) link is not there. Just the same if you had used paypal to pay for the rental.

Makes no difference what paperwork is held.

mpet

born_again said:

As far as any CC will go here, on S75.
You paid a management co (3rd party) for villa rental (owner of which is creditor)
Thus the debtor (you) to creditor (villa owner) link is not there. Just the same if you had used paypal to pay for the rental.

Makes no difference what paperwork is held.

Just to update for anyone in a similar situation. Santander have credited me for these payments, so it appears they agree there was a link and the claim was valid.

born_again

mpet said:

born_again said:

As far as any CC will go here, on S75.
You paid a management co (3rd party) for villa rental (owner of which is creditor)
Thus the debtor (you) to creditor (villa owner) link is not there. Just the same if you had used paypal to pay for the rental.

Makes no difference what paperwork is held.

Just to update for anyone in a similar situation. Santander have credited me for these payments, so it appears they agree there was a link and the ?claim was valid.

Thanks.
But have they done a chargeback (reversable) or a S75 claim, which given the timescale I doubt.

mpet

I’m not sure, and I understand it can be reversed, if the company supply evidence that it’s not valid (although the company no longer exists as it has been sold, so unlikely).  But would it not have been rejected initially by Santander if it was not a valid claim?

eskbanker

mpet said:

I’m not sure, and I understand it can be reversed, if the company supply evidence that it’s not valid (although the company no longer exists as it has been sold, so unlikely).  But would it not have been rejected initially by Santander if it was not a valid claim?

No, assuming it's not obviously vexatious, banks will effectively take the customer's word for it initially, and simply attempt to charge the transaction value to the merchant's bank.  If the merchant, via their bank, disputes it, then the customer's bank has a decision to make about who to believe, once presented with both sides of the story....