Booking.com

eskbanker

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

bagand96

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assumptions but my point is that, in the context of going legal, it'll be important to be able to quantify the claim in terms of facts, so it seems likely that the failure to notify will have caused some of the additional costs incurred by OP, but IMHO it's unlikely to have been all of them.

It's a fair point about what the original airline offered though - it would seem odd that an airline would simply cancel a flight a month in advance without proposing one or more alternatives to the booker, so if there's some evidence available that they did put such alternatives on the table to booking.com then that would certainly help OP's case.

bagand96

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assumptions but my point is that, in the context of going legal, it'll be important to be able to quantify the claim in terms of facts, so it seems likely that the failure to notify will have caused some of the additional costs incurred by OP, but IMHO it's unlikely to have been all of them.

It's a fair point about what the original airline offered though - it would seem odd that an airline would simply cancel a flight a month in advance without proposing one or more alternatives to the booker, so if there's some evidence available that they did put such alternatives on the table to booking.com then that would certainly help OP's case.

Indeed normally an airline would cancel a flight and offer an alternative or a refund but that notification in this case would have gone to the agent which was never passed to the OP.  But had the notification arrived a month in advance the OP would have had options and even if the only option from the original airline was a refund, there's no way a replacement flight would have cost £600 at that point.

Turn it around and can Booking.com prove your argument that their lack of notification only caused some of the OP's additional costs.  That would be as hard for them to prove as it is for the OP to prove it did cause their costs. 

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assumptions but my point is that, in the context of going legal, it'll be important to be able to quantify the claim in terms of facts, so it seems likely that the failure to notify will have caused some of the additional costs incurred by OP, but IMHO it's unlikely to have been all of them.

It's a fair point about what the original airline offered though - it would seem odd that an airline would simply cancel a flight a month in advance without proposing one or more alternatives to the booker, so if there's some evidence available that they did put such alternatives on the table to booking.com then that would certainly help OP's case.

Indeed normally an airline would cancel a flight and offer an alternative or a refund but that notification in this case would have gone to the agent which was never passed to the OP.  But had the notification arrived a month in advance the OP would have had options and even if the only option from the original airline was a refund, there's no way a replacement flight would have cost £600 at that point.

Turn it around and can Booking.com prove your argument that their lack of notification only caused some of the OP's additional costs.  That would be as hard for them to prove as it is for the OP to prove it did cause their costs. 

Yes, I agree that it's unlikely that a replacement flight at the time of the cancellation would have been £600, but the point is that this is what needs to be established when calculating the claim, rather than just assuming what it would have been.

And yes, it's entirely possible that booking.com (or the card company) wouldn't be able to prove what those replacement flight costs would have been at that time (although a large travel company is likely to have good connections), but I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with the claimant here when seeking recovery of costs?

bagand96

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assumptions but my point is that, in the context of going legal, it'll be important to be able to quantify the claim in terms of facts, so it seems likely that the failure to notify will have caused some of the additional costs incurred by OP, but IMHO it's unlikely to have been all of them.

It's a fair point about what the original airline offered though - it would seem odd that an airline would simply cancel a flight a month in advance without proposing one or more alternatives to the booker, so if there's some evidence available that they did put such alternatives on the table to booking.com then that would certainly help OP's case.

Indeed normally an airline would cancel a flight and offer an alternative or a refund but that notification in this case would have gone to the agent which was never passed to the OP.  But had the notification arrived a month in advance the OP would have had options and even if the only option from the original airline was a refund, there's no way a replacement flight would have cost £600 at that point.

Turn it around and can Booking.com prove your argument that their lack of notification only caused some of the OP's additional costs.  That would be as hard for them to prove as it is for the OP to prove it did cause their costs. 

Yes, I agree that it's unlikely that a replacement flight at the time of the cancellation would have been £600, but the point is that this is what needs to be established when calculating the claim, rather than just assuming what it would have been.

And yes, it's entirely possible that booking.com (or the card company) wouldn't be able to prove what those replacement flight costs would have been at that time (although a large travel company is likely to have good connections), but I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with the claimant here when seeking recovery of costs?

Well the only proof of costs the claimant has is the costs they incurred on the day.  If the defendant was to dispute those costs as unreasonable then I would expect them to provide evidence as to why they are unreasonable and what they consider reasonable costs to be.

I'm not saying there's a definite successful legal argument for the OP here, I'm just stating the argument I would make if I was in the situation.  At least with a S75 claim it's "nothing ventured nothing gained" as the only cost to the OP is time and effort. I'd still worry that there's an easy out because of the complex arrangement with Booking/Gotogate.

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

Just to play devil's advocate a little here - what would actually make booking.com (and therefore the credit card company) legally or contractually liable for the extra cost?

Obviously the lack of notification was unfortunate, but if, for the sake of argument, they'd advised of the cancellation promptly, then I believe that refunding the purchase cost would have fulfilled their obligations, i.e. there's no requirement for them to rearrange replacement flights at no extra cost.  Is there any evidence that the alternative flight would have been significantly cheaper at that stage, i.e. that there's an identifiable incremental cost arising specifically from the delay?

Apart from any s75 issues relating to the different parties involved, there would be a requirement to demonstrate breach of contract, so it's important to be able to identify (a) exactly which provision of a contract was breached and (b) the cost directly attributable to that breach.

The argument I would make is that their failure to notify of the cancellation is a breach of their contract as agent, and that the failure is what caused the additional costs incurred by the OP.  Booking a flight on the day is almost always incredibly expensive.  Had the agent advised of the cancellation at the time (1 month prior to travel) then the original airline would likely have offered alternative flights at zero cost to the OP, or other airlines may have been far more reasonably priced.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assumptions but my point is that, in the context of going legal, it'll be important to be able to quantify the claim in terms of facts, so it seems likely that the failure to notify will have caused some of the additional costs incurred by OP, but IMHO it's unlikely to have been all of them.

It's a fair point about what the original airline offered though - it would seem odd that an airline would simply cancel a flight a month in advance without proposing one or more alternatives to the booker, so if there's some evidence available that they did put such alternatives on the table to booking.com then that would certainly help OP's case.

Indeed normally an airline would cancel a flight and offer an alternative or a refund but that notification in this case would have gone to the agent which was never passed to the OP.  But had the notification arrived a month in advance the OP would have had options and even if the only option from the original airline was a refund, there's no way a replacement flight would have cost £600 at that point.

Turn it around and can Booking.com prove your argument that their lack of notification only caused some of the OP's additional costs.  That would be as hard for them to prove as it is for the OP to prove it did cause their costs. 

Yes, I agree that it's unlikely that a replacement flight at the time of the cancellation would have been £600, but the point is that this is what needs to be established when calculating the claim, rather than just assuming what it would have been.

And yes, it's entirely possible that booking.com (or the card company) wouldn't be able to prove what those replacement flight costs would have been at that time (although a large travel company is likely to have good connections), but I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with the claimant here when seeking recovery of costs?

Well the only proof of costs the claimant has is the costs they incurred on the day.  If the defendant was to dispute those costs as unreasonable then I would expect them to provide evidence as to why they are unreasonable and what they consider reasonable costs to be.

I'm not saying there's a definite successful legal argument for the OP here, I'm just stating the argument I would make if I was in the situation.  At least with a S75 claim it's "nothing ventured nothing gained" as the only cost to the OP is time and effort. I'd still worry that there's an easy out because of the complex arrangement with Booking/Gotogate.

Likewise I'm not saying that OP has no chance either, just highlighting that the claim is probably more nuanced than they may have thought, but agree that the card company is likely to rely on a broken debtor-creditor-supplier chain anyway!