Section 75 claim refused by Barclaycard

cactusdust

To cut a very long story short:

- Booked flights via Opodo.
- The airline made a schedule change, making a connection impossible. 
- As booking is with Opodo, all changes have to be made with them.
- Requested a change with Opodo to make the flights work again. 
- That was initially agreed in principle but then that booking fell through due to an insufficient connection time, according to Opodo.
- New flights were agreed.
- We kept chasing Opodo, basically they kept saying "48 hours more" as they were awaiting reply from the airline. However I was in contact with the airline travel agent support office who said they had already contacted Opodo. 
- Despite trying to sort this out 10-14 days before the flight, Opodo never solved the issue and new flights had to be purchased. 

I made a claim via Barclaycard under section 75 with the replacement flights cost as a consequential loss however BC have refused this saying:

"I have carefully reviewed all the documentation provided , and can understand your frustration and concerns at being unable to resolve this problem . However , I regret that on this occasion , as Opodo are a booking agent and not supplying the flights directly therefore there is no Debtor Creditor Supplier. Therefore , the Consumer Credit Act is not liable for any extra costs incurred in these situations ."

I can understand in principle what they are saying but Opodo "own" the booking and are solely responsible for looking after the booking and, in this circumstance, rebooking it.

Are they bang to rights here or is there a misunderstanding?

Thanks!

grumbler

IMHO, you are right and Barclaycard are just fobbing you off. However, you still can use small claims court (online) to sue them instead of Opodo if you wish.

I think, it was (and, possibly, still is) much easier to use chargeback route instead of s75. However, in this case you can claim only the original amount you paid.

Sandtree

grumbler said:

IMHO, you are right and Barclaycard are just fobbing you off. However, you still can use small claims court (online) to sue them instead of Opodo if you wish.

I think, it was (and, possibly, still is) much easier to use chargeback route instead of s75. However, in this case you can claim only the original amount you paid.

Why go to court rather than the Financial Ombudsman via a complaint?

It may be worth searching the FOS decision database on their website to see how they have decided similar cases. I am not convinced it is purely Barclay's fobbing you off however as ultimately the whole series of events were caused by the Airline rescheduling a flight and so there are 4 parties to the transaction (you, barclaycard, the booking agent and airline) which does break S75.

[Deleted User]

Opodo are a third party booking agent so break the chain of debtor/creditor as Barclays said hence why they won't do S75

grumbler

Well, that's what MSE say:

If that relationship is deemed to be broken by the involvement of an intermediary or third party, Section 75 protection WON'T apply. Unfortunately though, even the Financial Ombudsman Service – which arbitrates Section 75 disputes – is unable to provide clear guidance on when this happens, leaving shoppers in the dark.  

Hardly a surprise given that s.75 itself makes very little sense and is unique to UK.
IIRC, Opodo do manage the booking, not just sell tickets like usual 'agents' do.

cactusdust

Deleted_User said:

Opodo are a third party booking agent so break the chain of debtor/creditor as Barclays said hence why they won't do S75

Our issue is with Opodo, not the airline. Opodo are the ones responsible for servicing the booking up until the booking falls under the control of the airline at check-in. Only Opodo could have fixed this and were the reason we were out of pocket.

Opodo are the ones at fault and who have shown absolute incompetence throughout. 

That is our chain of thought, although I appreciate it might not match your point/the law.

uk1

I lost a S75 FOS appeal because of booking through an agent. I was also let down by the agent’s negligence. 

Oddly I had sought a chargeback action from the banks which it refused and when I escalated to the FOS the  FOS employee converted it to a S75 complaint, and it was eventually adjudicated in my favour but which I objected to this conversion of my complaint and I insisted it would fail on appeal from the bank.  When the  bank appealed the FOS case was escalated and the senior FOS person reconsidered it and reversed their decision.  They also told me it was then “too late” to revert to my actual original claim ie chargeback.  So let down by the bank and FOS. 

The only slight glimmer might be if you also asked Opodo to arrange another element of your trip eg hotels or perhaps insurance.  This might then be interpreted as a package and might then qualify under the packaged holiday conditions.

But I’m afraid in your case it seems more like a small money claim rather than an FOS claim. 

Good luck.

MrFrugalFever

OP, you haven’t actually mentioned that you have followed Opodo’s complaints procedure, which invariably needs to be done before any such further action is taken. You might be surprised.

I would revisit any and all T’s & C’s when booking through Opodo so you can be sure that should the complaint need to be taken further I.e. Small claims court, you have grounds to do so.

In my experience, a smaller company who relies heavily on reputation to expand is more likely going to admit defeat and redress the customer, the larger corporations are much harder to deal with!

[Deleted User]

cactusdust said:

Deleted_User said:

Opodo are a third party booking agent so break the chain of debtor/creditor as Barclays said hence why they won't do S75

Our issue is with Opodo, not the airline. Opodo are the ones responsible for servicing the booking up until the booking falls under the control of the airline at check-in. Only Opodo could have fixed this and were the reason we were out of pocket.

Opodo are the ones at fault and who have shown absolute incompetence throughout. 

That is our chain of thought, although I appreciate it might not match your point/the law.

I'm simply pointing out that Section 75 conditions have not been met hence the refusal, it's not a matter of my "point", it's the law. I don't know why you tried S75 anyway, the agency should sort out the flights, Opodo complaint process should be followed and / or a chargeback attempted. You will not get an S75 refund on this basis unless Barclays decide to ignore the rules.

Sandtree

MrFrugalFever said:

OP, you haven’t actually mentioned that you have followed Opodo’s complaints procedure, which invariably needs to be done before any such further action is taken. You might be surprised.

I would revisit any and all T’s & C’s when booking through Opodo so you can be sure that should the complaint need to be taken further I.e. Small claims court, you have grounds to do so.

In my experience, a smaller company who relies heavily on reputation to expand is more likely going to admit defeat and redress the customer, the larger corporations are much harder to deal with!

The courts do not require you to have followed any company complaints process... the CPR only require that reasonable attempts have been made to resolve the matter before engaging the courts and even then that doesn't impact the judgement but only if costs are awarded.

To go to the Financial Ombudsman the complaint process must have been followed but that would be Barclay's not Opodo's as the FOS will opine on Barclay's actions not Opodo's.

uk1 said:

But I’m afraid in your case it seems more like a small money claim rather than an FOS claim. 

In theory, absolutely not. The FOS is much more generous than the courts and I have seen various cases on S75 complaints where the FOS has categorically stated by the letter of the law the customer wasn't entitled to a refund and that a court wouldn't have given one but that the FOS has more ability for lenience and that in very specific circumstances they believe the customer had no reason to believe a 4th party was involved and so upheld the complaint (one example being a company that was sharing card services technically provided for the neighbouring business).

In practice it maybe because Barclaycard may decide to settle out of court as it isn't cost effective for them to defend the claim... if it goes to court its almost certainly a loss and so the OP adds court costs and fees to their losses.

cactusdust

Well, after speaking to Barclaycard and asking them to look at it again they settled in full.