Credit card / Travel / Section 75 / advice needed.

eskbanker

HillStreetBlues said:

eskbanker said:

Section 75 protection only applies to items priced at over £100, so buying hold luggage and seat reservations over and above flight tickets, especially in separate transactions, is unlikely to qualify IMHO....

I have to  disagree.
When Monarch went bust I had 2 single flights tickets, 2 luggage 2 seat reservations, No single item cost more than £100 but able to claim S75  as the "item" was  everything to do with that trip (flights, luggage & seats)

When adding seats (with the airlines I use)
You don't get billed for adding seats (eg: get an invoice for the seats)  what it does is recalculate the cost of the whole trip with those seats now included.

I'm just relaying what the legislation says - card companies may sometimes choose to interpret it more generously but unwise to rely on that.

The point about separate transactions stands though - OP had already purchased flights with a debit card and was considering buying extra hold luggage with a credit card in a separate transaction, which will inevitably be billed accordingly and therefore even less likely to qualify for s75 coverage....

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

eskbanker said:

Section 75 protection only applies to items priced at over £100, so buying hold luggage and seat reservations over and above flight tickets, especially in separate transactions, is unlikely to qualify IMHO....

I have to  disagree.
When Monarch went bust I had 2 single flights tickets, 2 luggage 2 seat reservations, No single item cost more than £100 but able to claim S75  as the "item" was  everything to do with that trip (flights, luggage & seats)

When adding seats (with the airlines I use)
You don't get billed for adding seats (eg: get an invoice for the seats)  what it does is recalculate the cost of the whole trip with those seats now included.

The law states that its a single "item" that has to be between £100 and £30,000 (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75 )

There is inevitably a question of what an "item" is... is a twin pack of shirts one item as its in one packet with one price or is it two items because its two shirts? The general rule is that it comes down to what level the invoice shows the pricing at and so if your inv shows:

1 Seat, 2 hold luggage and seat allocation = £120 then you are covered

1 Seat: £80, 2 hold luggage 2x£15 and seat allocation £10 then you have no cover 

bob69 said:

With regards to the car hire, what exactly are the advantages of paying in advance with a credit card?

The main advantage is if something happened (eg you turned up and the company has gone bust) that you can deal with your UK based bank to recover your monies rather than having to deal with Cypriate legal system etc

Be aware that for S75 to apply you have to pay the supplier directly with your credit card... if you go via a broker or intermediary etc then S75 is limited to failures by the broker

HillStreetBlues

eskbanker said:

I'm just relaying what the legislation says - card companies may sometimes choose to interpret it more generously but unwise to rely on that.

In my case I don't think Halifax were being more generous,  they rejected it first,  but I appealed and they paid up with an apology and compensation.

eskbanker said:

The point about separate transactions stands though - OP had already purchased flights with a debit card and was considering buying extra hold luggage with a credit card in a separate transaction, which will inevitably be billed accordingly and therefore even less likely to qualify for s75 coverage....

But it isn't "billed accordingly"

Example on my receipt
2 flight MAN-TEN
£130
Paid via Mastercard £130.00     (this card is a debt card but doesn't state this)

Now add luggage

my receipt will now look like this
2 flight MAN-TEN
2 15kg Luggage
£210
Paid via Mastercard £130.00
Paid via Visa  £80                  (this card is a credit card but doesn't state this)


So if airline went bust I would present the final receipt as prove that in part I paid with credit card.
This receipt  doesn't show any breakdown in cost.
 

eskbanker

OK, fair enough, if there are multi-transaction receipts set out in that way then that should improve the chances of a successful s75 claim, but ultimately it still comes down to interpretation....

HillStreetBlues

I argued that any add ons aren't  different item,  but a component of the end product.

Using the building a computer as an example (over £100)
If I go onto a site  that lets you build a computer I select a  bare bones computer  and decide against adding wifi card to it and buy the wifi card  elsewhere then if the computer on arrival doesn't work,  I can claim with a S75 on the computer  but not on the wifi card (two items) and two purchases

If on the other hand while building I add the wifi card to the computer (at any point) while building the computer,  the wi-fi card is a component of the end product.  The end purchase is  the final build of the computer So everything is covered by S75

eskbanker

Sure, but the fact that you eventually persuaded Halifax to accept that argument on a small s75 claim doesn't actually signify that it's some sort of precedent that would definitely apply elsewhere, as the definition of 'item' still ultimately comes down to interpretation!

HillStreetBlues

I do agree that my argument might not always work, but always better to have one.

HillStreetBlues

It didn't set any precedent, but if I had listened to the naysaers I'd be £300 worse off
I know what I would perfer.

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

I argued that any add ons aren't  different item,  but a component of the end product.

Using the building a computer as an example (over £100)
If I go onto a site  that lets you build a computer I select a  bare bones computer  and decide against adding wifi card to it and buy the wifi card  elsewhere then if the computer on arrival doesn't work,  I can claim with a S75 on the computer  but not on the wifi card (two items) and two purchases

If on the other hand while building I add the wifi card to the computer (at any point) while building the computer,  the wi-fi card is a component of the end product.  The end purchase is  the final build of the computer So everything is covered by S75

Argue what you want... buy a £2,000 computer and its covered... by a computer made of a series of £99 components to save money and if you are invoiced per component then you have no cover. 

Just look at the financial ombudsman's decision database... there are lots of people who assumed it was invoice value not item value and the Ombudsman have ruled in favour of the lender because that isnt what the law states. 

HillStreetBlues

DullGreyGuy said:

Argue what you want... buy a £2,000 computer and its covered... by a computer made of a series of £99 components to save money and if you are invoiced per component then you have no cover. 

Just look at the financial ombudsman's decision database... there are lots of people who assumed it was invoice value not item value and the Ombudsman have ruled in favour of the lender because that isnt what the law states. 

You really need to read  the thread as a whole, not pick up part of it. If you had you would have known I was talking about there being just a final cost.

HillStreetBlues said:

But it isn't "billed accordingly"

Example on my receipt
2 flight MAN-TEN
£130
Paid via Mastercard £130.00     (this card is a debt card but doesn't state this)

Now add luggage

my receipt will now look like this
2 flight MAN-TEN
2 15kg Luggage
£210
Paid via Mastercard £130.00
Paid via Visa  £80                  (this card is a credit card but doesn't state this)


So if airline went bust I would present the final receipt as prove that in part I paid with credit card.
This receipt  doesn't show any breakdown in cost.