Credit card claim for cancelled holiday

Ath_Wat

Manxman_in_exile said:

Further to my previous post (and to answer the actual question you are asking... ) my understanding is that you can only make a successful s75 credit card claim if the person suffering the loss is the person who's card paid for the item/service in question.

In this case your card paid for your son's travel insurance with a different provider from your own travel insurance in an entirely separate transaction.  If your son's insurer doesn't pay out, my understanding is that you have no claim aginst your credit card.

If you buy a "gift" for somebody else on your credit card, you can't rely on you being able to make a claim on your card.

(NB - my less than perfect understanding of how s75 works is that their must be an unbroken Debtor - Creditor - Supplier link.  If you buy something on your credit card for somebody else, you run the risk of breaking that crucial link.  If you want to "treat" people, let them buy it and then give them the money... )

I think we need to be clear that in any event what you are talking about here is getting back the cost of the insurance - what the OP wants back is the cost of the holiday.

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Further to my previous post (and to answer the actual question you are asking... ) my understanding is that you can only make a successful s75 credit card claim if the person suffering the loss is the person who's card paid for the item/service in question.

In this case your card paid for your son's travel insurance with a different provider from your own travel insurance in an entirely separate transaction.  If your son's insurer doesn't pay out, my understanding is that you have no claim aginst your credit card.

If you buy a "gift" for somebody else on your credit card, you can't rely on you being able to make a claim on your card.

(NB - my less than perfect understanding of how s75 works is that their must be an unbroken Debtor - Creditor - Supplier link.  If you buy something on your credit card for somebody else, you run the risk of breaking that crucial link.  If you want to "treat" people, let them buy it and then give them the money... )

I think we need to be clear that in any event what you are talking about here is getting back the cost of the insurance - what the OP wants back is the cost of the holiday.

Fair point.

CyprusBoy

Manxman_in_exile said:

CyprusBoy said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CyprusBoy said:
I’ve since read that there is a very good chance they won’t pay out for my step-son’s claim as the policy is in his name (my email address and my credit card) and he personally has “suffered no financial loss”

You've been reading the wrong sources... he has suffered a loss... he was due to go on a £1,000 holiday (or whatever the cost is) and now isnt and so £1,000 less the excess is appropriate compensation for him.

Presumably you gifted the holiday to him, but it is you that has suffered no financial loss... you intentionally gave him a gift and he received that gift.

It is always the traveller that makes the claim not the random person that happened to pay for it.

Many thanks for the prompt and constructive reply. My source is "Sally sorts it" in the Daily Mail on July 26th where a similar claim with Direct Line went to the Ombudsman but was still not successful. 

Prompt and "constructive" (ie telling you something you would prefer to hear) does not necessarily equate to being "right".  You might want to pay more attention to the other replies...

I'm actually disagreeing with DullGreyGuy's comment but nevertheless thanks also for the prompt and constructive comment. I don't however accept your definition of the word constructive, and your assumption that I'm NOT paying attention to other replies is precisely that - an assumption. 

VohnnyJegas

CyprusBoy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

CyprusBoy said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CyprusBoy said:
I’ve since read that there is a very good chance they won’t pay out for my step-son’s claim as the policy is in his name (my email address and my credit card) and he personally has “suffered no financial loss”

You've been reading the wrong sources... he has suffered a loss... he was due to go on a £1,000 holiday (or whatever the cost is) and now isnt and so £1,000 less the excess is appropriate compensation for him.

Presumably you gifted the holiday to him, but it is you that has suffered no financial loss... you intentionally gave him a gift and he received that gift.

It is always the traveller that makes the claim not the random person that happened to pay for it.

Many thanks for the prompt and constructive reply. My source is "Sally sorts it" in the Daily Mail on July 26th where a similar claim with Direct Line went to the Ombudsman but was still not successful. 

Prompt and "constructive" (ie telling you something you would prefer to hear) does not necessarily equate to being "right".  You might want to pay more attention to the other replies...

I'm actually disagreeing with DullGreyGuy's comment but nevertheless thanks also for the prompt and constructive comment. I don't however accept your definition of the word constructive, and your assumption that I'm NOT paying attention to other replies is precisely that - an assumption. 

You getting flustered and arguing over your feelings serves no purpose.

Manxman_in_exile

CyprusBoy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

CyprusBoy said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CyprusBoy said:
I’ve since read that there is a very good chance they won’t pay out for my step-son’s claim as the policy is in his name (my email address and my credit card) and he personally has “suffered no financial loss”

You've been reading the wrong sources... he has suffered a loss... he was due to go on a £1,000 holiday (or whatever the cost is) and now isnt and so £1,000 less the excess is appropriate compensation for him.

Presumably you gifted the holiday to him, but it is you that has suffered no financial loss... you intentionally gave him a gift and he received that gift.

It is always the traveller that makes the claim not the random person that happened to pay for it.

Many thanks for the prompt and constructive reply. My source is "Sally sorts it" in the Daily Mail on July 26th where a similar claim with Direct Line went to the Ombudsman but was still not successful. 

Prompt and "constructive" (ie telling you something you would prefer to hear) does not necessarily equate to being "right".  You might want to pay more attention to the other replies...

I'm actually disagreeing with DullGreyGuy's comment but nevertheless thanks also for the prompt and constructive comment. I don't however accept your definition of the word constructive, and your assumption that I'm NOT paying attention to other replies is precisely that - an assumption. 

I based my assumption on the entirely reasonable basis that DullGreyGuy's post was the only one out of seven that you had replied to, and you had singled that post out to reply to and to thank him for his "constructive" contribution - despite saying now that you don't agree with it(?).

Except for my post you haven't subsequently replied to any of the other 14 posts, most of which have given more constructive advice than DullGreyGuy...

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

Personally I think the 'financial loss' discussion misses the point - there have been plenty of threads before where insurers will only reimburse claims on a pro rata basis, regardless of who paid, so that, for example, if a policy only covers half of the people on a trip, the insurer will only reimburse half of the cost, i.e. everyone needs their own insurance, rather than one person being able to reclaim the entire cost just because they paid.

So in this case, provided the insurers concerned accept the principle of the claim, they should reimburse costs according to the proportion of the total holiday price associated with each subset of the party....

There have been plenty of threads about someone who paid for a whole trip only getting their percentage of the trip back being told the other travellers need to claim on their own insurance but they were uninsured so couldn't.

As I have said a dozen times already the policy book is king... show me a policybook that states you can only claim for what you personally paid.

Exactly - it's all about policy terms not financial loss.

Ultimately yes

From a first principles basis its the person that's lost their holiday that has sustained an unplanned loss and hence why the most common approach is that the traveller claims.

If you take the scenario of Parents pay but aren't travelling but the adult kids have a policy that doesn't cover what they haven't paid... there is no policy the Parents can buy as non-travellers that would cover it... there is no equivalent of life insurance where A can insure B's life. 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

Personally I think the 'financial loss' discussion misses the point - there have been plenty of threads before where insurers will only reimburse claims on a pro rata basis, regardless of who paid, so that, for example, if a policy only covers half of the people on a trip, the insurer will only reimburse half of the cost, i.e. everyone needs their own insurance, rather than one person being able to reclaim the entire cost just because they paid.

So in this case, provided the insurers concerned accept the principle of the claim, they should reimburse costs according to the proportion of the total holiday price associated with each subset of the party....

There have been plenty of threads about someone who paid for a whole trip only getting their percentage of the trip back being told the other travellers need to claim on their own insurance but they were uninsured so couldn't.

As I have said a dozen times already the policy book is king... show me a policybook that states you can only claim for what you personally paid.

Exactly - it's all about policy terms not financial loss.

Ultimately yes

From a first principles basis its the person that's lost their holiday that has sustained an unplanned loss and hence why the most common approach is that the traveller claims.

If you take the scenario of Parents pay but aren't travelling but the adult kids have a policy that doesn't cover what they haven't paid... there is no policy the Parents can buy as non-travellers that would cover it... there is no equivalent of life insurance where A can insure B's life. 

The key thing for this thread is to recognise that with one insurance company covering 3/7ths of the party and another covering 4/7ths, each of these companies' maximum liabilities will only be for those proportions of the total holiday cost, regardless of who paid - even if one of the policies doesn't cover the circumstances of the claim, that wouldn't increase the liability of the other insurer....

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Further to my previous post (and to answer the actual question you are asking... ) my understanding is that you can only make a successful s75 credit card claim if the person suffering the loss is the person who's card paid for the item/service in question.

In this case your card paid for your son's travel insurance with a different provider from your own travel insurance in an entirely separate transaction.  If your son's insurer doesn't pay out, my understanding is that you have no claim aginst your credit card.

If you buy a "gift" for somebody else on your credit card, you can't rely on you being able to make a claim on your card.

(NB - my less than perfect understanding of how s75 works is that their must be an unbroken Debtor - Creditor - Supplier link.  If you buy something on your credit card for somebody else, you run the risk of breaking that crucial link.  If you want to "treat" people, let them buy it and then give them the money... )

I think we need to be clear that in any event what you are talking about here is getting back the cost of the insurance - what the OP wants back is the cost of the holiday.

Is this point by @Ath_Wat relevant or not?

If somebody buys an insurance policy on their credit card, and the insurance company does not (for whatever reason) pay out on what would otherwise be a valid claim, is the credit card provider then liable to pay the claim under s75?

Ath_Wat

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Further to my previous post (and to answer the actual question you are asking... ) my understanding is that you can only make a successful s75 credit card claim if the person suffering the loss is the person who's card paid for the item/service in question.

In this case your card paid for your son's travel insurance with a different provider from your own travel insurance in an entirely separate transaction.  If your son's insurer doesn't pay out, my understanding is that you have no claim aginst your credit card.

If you buy a "gift" for somebody else on your credit card, you can't rely on you being able to make a claim on your card.

(NB - my less than perfect understanding of how s75 works is that their must be an unbroken Debtor - Creditor - Supplier link.  If you buy something on your credit card for somebody else, you run the risk of breaking that crucial link.  If you want to "treat" people, let them buy it and then give them the money... )

I think we need to be clear that in any event what you are talking about here is getting back the cost of the insurance - what the OP wants back is the cost of the holiday.

Is this point by @Ath_Wat relevant or not?

If somebody buys an insurance policy on their credit card, and the insurance company does not (for whatever reason) pay out on what would otherwise be a valid claim, is the credit card provider then liable to pay the claim under s75?

If the insurance company have gone out of business, there might be an argument.

If, as in this case, they are saying the claim is not valid, then I imagine the bank will just say "they are saying the claim is not valid" - otherwise they would have to pay out on every rejected insurance claim anyone ever makes.

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Further to my previous post (and to answer the actual question you are asking... ) my understanding is that you can only make a successful s75 credit card claim if the person suffering the loss is the person who's card paid for the item/service in question.

In this case your card paid for your son's travel insurance with a different provider from your own travel insurance in an entirely separate transaction.  If your son's insurer doesn't pay out, my understanding is that you have no claim aginst your credit card.

If you buy a "gift" for somebody else on your credit card, you can't rely on you being able to make a claim on your card.

(NB - my less than perfect understanding of how s75 works is that their must be an unbroken Debtor - Creditor - Supplier link.  If you buy something on your credit card for somebody else, you run the risk of breaking that crucial link.  If you want to "treat" people, let them buy it and then give them the money... )

I think we need to be clear that in any event what you are talking about here is getting back the cost of the insurance - what the OP wants back is the cost of the holiday.

Is this point by @Ath_Wat relevant or not?

If somebody buys an insurance policy on their credit card, and the insurance company does not (for whatever reason) pay out on what would otherwise be a valid claim, is the credit card provider then liable to pay the claim under s75?

If the insurance company have gone out of business, there might be an argument.

If, as in this case, they are saying the claim is not valid, then I imagine the bank will just say "they are saying the claim is not valid" - otherwise they would have to pay out on every rejected insurance claim anyone ever makes.

If the insurer has gone out of business, I would have thought this would be covered in the first instance by some kind of "insurer of last resort" - like the MIB with motor insurance - rather than the card provider.

I agree I'm not sure that the card provider should end up with open-ended insurance claims.  They aren't in the business of insurance...