Booking Direct With Hotel - Section 75

Civvy21

Good afternoon,

We are currently planning our forthcoming trip to Japan. I have made a credit card booking with a major hotel chain directly through their website. This involved paying for the stay upfront. I can cancel with a full refund up to two days before arrival. However, on making the payment I was transferred to a third party payment platform (Tripla). Am I right in thinking that this would not break the Section 75 DCS chain as the payment processor has been contracted by the supplier? And that therefore Section 75 would apply to this booking.

I'm not expecting any issues. However, it would be useful info to know before I make any further hotel bookings.

Grateful for any advice.

eskbanker

You're correct - the use of such payment processors, implemented by the supplier, doesn't break the s75 D-C-S chain, whereas using an account in your name at the likes of PayPal would be a different story…

Civvy21

Thank you eskbanker. I appreciate your advice.

Digging a bit deeper it appears Tripla is not just a payment processor. According to Google:

Tripla is 

an AI-powered booking engine and chatbot system primarily used by hotels in Japan and Taiwan to increase direct bookings, manage guest communication, and streamline operations.

It also appears that the credit card payment has been made to Tripla.

Does that change anything?

Grumpy_chap

Even if the D-C-S link is intact, how does the value consideration affect a hotel booking in the context of S75?

Is the value based on the full booking, so 14 nights (or however many) at £xx per night is >£100?

Or is the value of each night, which might be less than £100, considered?

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81916045#Comment_81916045

Unless you actually entered into a contract with Tripla then it doesn't seem to me that they broke the chain, so if the Ts & Cs of your purchase are clear that you're contracting with the hotel group then you should be OK.

Civvy21

Thank you eskbanker. I appreciate your advice.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6658842/booking-direct-with-hotel-section-75

The short answer is that its complex but in reality S75 is generally of little use with hotel bookings given it only covers breach of contract and most people posting on here about reclaiming hotel costs are talking about missing flights or being ill which are all matters for travel insurance not S75.

The law as drafted says there must be a direct link/ contracts between the three parties (debtor (you), creditor (the bank) and the supplier (the hotel)). This legislation was drafted before credit cards were used in any material way by consumers.

The House of Lords (before the Supreme Court existed) has previously confirmed that Merchant Banks dont count as breaking the contract as the reality is almost no one can directly accept cards but use an acquiring bank.

The problem is that the world does stand still and technology continues to evolve. The advantage of common law, as we have in England, is the law gives judges the authority to interpret it and therefore legislation doesnt need constant redrafting but the downside is that it creates uncertainty until case law is established.

A few years ago this site and others were raising questions on if the likes of Zettle and SumUp would be covered or not given the payment is technically made to them and not the merchant. It didnt come to a definitive answer but the rule of thumb appeared to be generally if the merchant is identified in the transaction it probably will. Before that we had similar questions about PayPal which was even more murky an answer depending on if you were logged in or not.

How does the transaction show on your statement? Tripla? Does it contain anything that identifies the hotel?

I disagree with @eskbanker about the necessity of a contract but its more grey than anything, in a case with the FOS a business borrowed a neighbours card machine after theirs broke, the bank rejected the claim because they paid a different business but the FOS on that case acknowledged there were no S75 under a strict definition of the law but upheld the complaint saying the customer was unaware of the situation and the FOS is legally obliged to find fair outcomes not to mirror what a court of law would do.

born_again

I'm going to say this is going to be down to your CC & how they read on Tripla. To me it seems more they are 3rd party (especially given they are showing as debited on CC account, rather than hotel)

But as above, very little reason for S75 on a hotel booking. Missed flight or cancelled flight no S75/Chargeback cover.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81916921#Comment_81916921

Yes, fair point, I was probably oversimplifying by suggesting that the existence or otherwise of a contract with the fourth party is the primary deciding factor for s75 coverage - I do recall the edge case you mention but can't find it on here or within the FOS database.

As you rightly say, it's a complex area that's been discussed many times before, but again my searching capabilities (or perhaps those of the forum!) defeat my attempts to locate previous threads that specifically cover the rule of thumb you refer to, i.e. the mention of the merchant's name in the payment transaction - are there any FOS decisions that you've come across that specifically address this?

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917080#Comment_81917080

Are you meaning third party or fourth party here?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917119#Comment_81917119

Third party to the hotel so a 4th party for the transaction.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917117#Comment_81917117

No, a named beneficiary was the opinion of another website like this and so should be taken with a big pinch of salt. It was on the arguments of the likes of Zettle and SumUp which this site came to no definitive statement on.