Section 75 and Travel Agents (also don't use Dream World Travel)

bagand96

Dream World Travel T&Cs appear to suggest that e-tickets will be sent at any time up to 10 days prior to travel. Whilst I see both sides of the argument, I’m not 100% convinced DWT are in breach of contract just because they hadn’t supplied airline e-tickets 

Upsidedownandaround

bagand96 said:

Dream World Travel T&Cs appear to suggest that e-tickets will be sent at any time up to 10 days prior to travel. Whilst I see both sides of the argument, I’m not 100% convinced DWT are in breach of contract just because they hadn’t supplied airline e-tickets 

Is their something specific about OTA's that differentiate them from everyone else that enters in to a contract in your eyes or is your view that agreeing to provide something by a date in the contractual terms and conditions and then failing to do so is not a breach of contract?

Alan_Bowen

This is becoming more interesting, and no doubt frustrating, by the day. All IATA airline tickets have to be issued by accredited IATA agents who must hold all monies on trust for the airlines, in other words, they cannot do anything with the money other than pay for the ticket and payments are collected fortnightly by direct debit. Looking at the website of Dream World it does not appear to be an IATA agent at all, so it has to buy in the tickets from another agent and cannot issue tickets at the time of booking. 

ATOL regulations allow IATA agents who issue tickets immediately to avoid ATOL protection because once issued, but not before, the customer has a contract with the airline who will subsequently carry the passenger even if they have not been paid. However if tickets are not issued immediately, and Dream World makes it clear you only get them shortly before travel, then they do have to be ATOL protected and an ATOL Certificate should have been issued. I am assuming none was issued in this and many other cases, which is a clear breach of CAA rules. You could make a complaint to the CAA regarding this apparent breach as it leaves customers financially at risk.

Going back to section 75, the company booking conditions begin

Your contract is with Dream World Travel Ltd. Central Chambers, Suite 21, Ealing Broadway W5 2NR. These conditions form part of that contract for all arrangements you book with us.

That I would suggest, with the evidence that they cannot act as an agent for any airline if they are not an IATA Agent, means you do have a contract with them, they clearly never bought any ticket, they, therefore, have nothing to wait for to come back from an airline or another agent, so their failure to refund is in my mind a clear claim under section 75. I should also tell you that a search of county court judgments shows unsatisfied judgements from earlier this year so suing may not be a guarantee of a refund!

eskbanker

Alan_Bowen said:

However if tickets are not issued immediately, and Dream World makes it clear you only get them shortly before travel, then they do have to be ATOL protected and an ATOL Certificate should have been issued. I am assuming none was issued in this and many other cases, which is a clear breach of CAA rules.

From OP:

mrweeble said:

Dream World never got round to issuing us e-Tickets, just their own booking confirmation and an ATOL certificate

Alan_Bowen said:

they clearly never bought any ticket, they, therefore, have nothing to wait for to come back from an airline or another agent, so their failure to refund is in my mind a clear claim under section 75.

They've seemingly accepted repeatedly that they're obliged to refund and committed to doing so, so the question is at what point does ongoing delay constitute an actionable breach of contract as such?  Putting aside the question of whether or not they're reliant on initially securing a refund from the airline (I'm as sceptical as everyone else about whether they did actually pay the money out in the first place, but proving this could be problematic), they suggest that refunding their customer could take up to six months in their terms but I don't believe that there's anything binding within the contract, or implied terms, that mandates refunds within x days/weeks/months?  The point that Upsidedown makes about 'how long is too long' isn't unreasonable, but my question, in the context of aiming to hold the creditor liable, is specifically at what point does a delay turn from an irritation into an actual breach of contract, as I don't see anything definitive specifying this?

It's different for direct airline bookings or package holidays, where there is a clear legal obligation to refund within 7 and 14 days respectively after cancellations, thereby providing dissatisfied customers with something tangible to cite and act on, but agency-booked flights don't offer this certainty.

Upsidedownandaround

eskbanker said:

Alan_Bowen said:

However if tickets are not issued immediately, and Dream World makes it clear you only get them shortly before travel, then they do have to be ATOL protected and an ATOL Certificate should have been issued. I am assuming none was issued in this and many other cases, which is a clear breach of CAA rules.

From OP:

mrweeble said:

Dream World never got round to issuing us e-Tickets, just their own booking confirmation and an ATOL certificate

Alan_Bowen said:

they clearly never bought any ticket, they, therefore, have nothing to wait for to come back from an airline or another agent, so their failure to refund is in my mind a clear claim under section 75.

They've seemingly accepted repeatedly that they're obliged to refund and committed to doing so, so the question is at what point does ongoing delay constitute an actionable breach of contract as such?  Putting aside the question of whether or not they're reliant on initially securing a refund from the airline (I'm as sceptical as everyone else about whether they did actually pay the money out in the first place, but proving this could be problematic), they suggest that refunding their customer could take up to six months in their terms but I don't believe that there's anything binding within the contract, or implied terms, that mandates refunds within x days/weeks/months?  The point that Upsidedown makes about 'how long is too long' isn't unreasonable, but my question, in the context of aiming to hold the creditor liable, is specifically at what point does a delay turn from an irritation into an actual breach of contract, as I don't see anything definitive specifying this?

It's different for direct airline bookings or package holidays, where there is a clear legal obligation to refund within 7 and 14 days respectively after cancellations, thereby providing dissatisfied customers with something tangible to cite and act on, but agency-booked flights don't offer this certainty.

When contracts don't mention a specific time frame for performance "reasonable time" becomes an implied term.

I doubt anybody is able to put up a valid argument that a year after is a "reasonable time". Particularly given they were told months ago it would "be with them soon".

eskbanker

Yes, not actually trying to argue that a year is reasonable, but the degree of subjectivity involved in that judgement is still potentially problematic if trying to convince another party (the creditor) to pick up the tab.

bagand96

Upsidedownandaround said:

bagand96 said:

Dream World Travel T&Cs appear to suggest that e-tickets will be sent at any time up to 10 days prior to travel. Whilst I see both sides of the argument, I’m not 100% convinced DWT are in breach of contract just because they hadn’t supplied airline e-tickets 

Is their something specific about OTA's that differentiate them from everyone else that enters in to a contract in your eyes or is your view that agreeing to provide something by a date in the contractual terms and conditions and then failing to do so is not a breach of contract?

No I don’t think that OTAs are different from anyone else in terms of entering into a contract.

But there are occasions where flight tickets can be purchased and payed for, but the tickets not issued immediately. Unless booking a package holiday or a charter flight only it is quite rare these days, but not impossible. Some airlines still offer special fare buckets via agents where the tickets won’t be issued immediately.  As Alan has pointed out, this would require an ATOL license, Dream World Travel do have one, and the OP stated they received a certificate. 

I’m not excusing the outrageous delay in a refund. Just pointing out DWT may not be in breach of contract which would affect the outcome of a S75 claim.

sheramber

lots of complaints about delay in refunding

https://www.reviews.io/company-reviews/store/dreamworldtravel.co.uk

Upsidedownandaround

bagand96 said:

But there are occasions where flight tickets can be purchased and payed for, but the tickets not issued immediately. Unless booking a package holiday or a charter flight only it is quite rare these days, but not impossible. Some airlines still offer special fare buckets via agents where the tickets won’t be issued immediately.  As Alan has pointed out, this would require an ATOL license, Dream World Travel do have one, and the OP stated they received a certificate. 

That's irrelevant though in this case if what the OP says is correct.

It's not a case of tickets not being provided immediately it's a case of them not being provided at all.

bagand96

Upsidedownandaround said:

bagand96 said:

But there are occasions where flight tickets can be purchased and payed for, but the tickets not issued immediately. Unless booking a package holiday or a charter flight only it is quite rare these days, but not impossible. Some airlines still offer special fare buckets via agents where the tickets won’t be issued immediately.  As Alan has pointed out, this would require an ATOL license, Dream World Travel do have one, and the OP stated they received a certificate. 

That's irrelevant though in this case if what the OP says is correct.

It's not a case of tickets not being provided immediately it's a case of them not being provided at all.

The tickets weren't provided because the airline cancelled the flight before the time at which the tickets would have been provided.  

S75 claims can be complex around flights booked with agents with the creditor-debtor link being broken with the agent in the middle. And the banks will try and find any way out of a claim.