Section 75

born_again

Kettle13 said:

Virgin Airlines. Another nightmare as took 140 days to re-imburse the flight money. 

So your claim is against accommodation that will have been available in the US, just you could not get there.

ThisnotThat

born_again said:

Kettle13 said:

Virgin Airlines. Another nightmare as took 140 days to re-imburse the flight money. 

So your claim is against accommodation that will have been available in the US, just you could not get there.

Yes, but there is this trip cancellation insurance that OP paid to the accommodation company.  But it's not really clear why they're not playing ball if the OP has proof of the flights being cancelled.

born_again

ThisnotThat said:

born_again said:

Kettle13 said:

Virgin Airlines. Another nightmare as took 140 days to re-imburse the flight money. 

So your claim is against accommodation that will have been available in the US, just you could not get there.

Yes, but there is this trip cancellation insurance that OP paid to the accommodation company.  But it's not really clear why they're not playing ball if the OP has proof of the flights being cancelled.

So trip ins policy will (no doubt) have been a 3rd party co (thinking no debtor creditor link) 
So I think this is going to get no where.

Wonder if they are not playing ball as oversea's customer in the hope they go away.

Has the Op got travel ins? As that should be the way forward. 

Kettle13

Sorry for not getting back earlier, but currently in discussions with Natiowide Claims dispute team (who are being helpful).
So for clarity.
We booked a Rental in Scottsdale Arizona. Their general Cancellation Policy gives you up to 60 days prior to arrival to cancel.
Generally accept Flight Cancellations as proof for not being able to go. We paid for their extra policy which covered you up to 3 days prior to arrival.
We have a general holiday insurance built into our Flexiplus Nationwide account.
On top of that we also due to our health issues (both in our sixties and things tend to fall apart)  always take out extra cover on another insurance Policy (in this case with Virgin).

Now we tried for many months once obvious that we would not be able to go (flights being cancelled, impossible to get a visa(esta) to enter US etc), plus the fact my wife was having to shield as clinically vulnerable to covid(acute Asthma and early stage COPD).
 Rental company appeared to be honourable throughout this time, and just needed confirmation of Flight Cancellation to put forward our claim. Then once we did wanted the evidence we had been paid back. With Virgin this took 140 odd days after the flight cancellation notice. By that time the rental company had basically stopped talking to us and were using various reasons for not paying us.
Went to nationwide and Virgin insurance and both said I had to go for a Section 75 first. The rest is as previous mentioned .

In regards to Rental company AZVR their reviews on the site were great but on digging deeper have discovered that there are many many other people who have gone through similar to me with them. The company are known for refusing to pay back deposits if you give them bad reviews plus other practices. The Yelp reviews on them are quite telling as to who these people are. 

Sandtree

born_again said:

Really annoys me that people pay for travel insurance & the Ins co's tell you to go to bank for S75 claim... Time FCA slapped them down and told them to pay out rather than passing the buck for something that is what people pay for.

So you think people should be able to claim £1,000 off their insurance and £1,000 off their credit card for the same £1,000 loss? The insurance claim doesnt nullify the statutory claim against the card issuer. What checks and balances are you proposing to prevent undue enrichment? 

The whole point of travel insurance is that its the last resort, you could change it so that the insurer gets subrogated rights and therefore they pay you out £1,000 and then they make the S75 claim against your credit card company in the same way your car insurer repairs your car and then reclaims from the third their outlay.  If banks and insurers came to similar agreements that exist between insurers it could work easily enough, if banks refused similar agreements then insurance costs go up as claims handling costs cannot be added to subrogated claims.

Kettle13

Nationwide have decided to settle this, due to some poor mismanagement and overly long process.
Sometimes things do go right. Thanks for the comments etc