We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Booking Direct With Hotel - Section 75
Comments
-
Thank you all for your very interesting comments.
The credit card payment just refers to "tripla.co.ltd".
I am not anticipating any issues with this particular booking (it is a flexible booking). It's a large Japanese hotel chain and I am reasonably sure they will refund my payment if we can't travel. Which, because of family health reasons, may happen. I prefer the benefit if Section 75 cover, just in case.
If it is not covered by Section 75 I will avoid booking hotels in Japan which use Tripla for payment management. Unfortunately quite a few of the Japanese hotels we have looked at seem to use them.
0 -
Just to be clear, section 75 wouldn't apply anyway if you cancel the booking, in that it only offers protection if there's a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier.
0 -
Thank you eskbanker.
I would only have used Section 75 if, for some reason, the hotel did not refund my money. Or, of course, if the hotel chain folded.
0 -
I have to admit I thought s75 was pretty much settled law. There doesn't seem to be any complexities unless the arrangement is structurally complicated where you have multiple different entities involved in the payment arrangement. 98% of most consumer transactions, that will not be the case.
Whether the chain is broken will be contingent on whether the third party involved is passing the payment directly through to the supplier. The majority of payment processors are going to pass through the payment directly to the supplier so the chain remains intact.
The point about the named party on your bank statement is indicative of whether the payment is being made directly to the supplier or to third party, because that named party on the statement will typically be the "Merchant of Record". A MOR is the party that is legally responsible for handling and processing the transaction and anything that goes wrong with it.
If the named party is someone other than the supplier, then they are essentially acting as an intermediary that breaks the chain for s75 purposes. This is because the payment funds will go directly into the intermediary's account where they deduct their fees, taxes and other incidentals before transferring the net payment to the supplier. For s75 purposes, it becomes a debtor-creditor-intermediary-supplier relationship so the chain is broken.
A sort of 'grey area' I can think of where it may get a little confusing is when it comes to third parties acting as agents. There are two instances I can foresee where the chain can remain intact or it can be broken:
#1 The agent takes the payment using their platform/payment processing system and the funds are transferred directly to the supplier less agent fees.
#2 The agent takes payment and receives ownership of that payment as it goes into the agent's own bank account. The agent then remits those funds to the supplier.
In the first scenario, the agent is merely collecting the payment which goes directly to the supplier without touching their own bank account. They act acting purely as an agent of the supplier so the s75 chain is not broken. Quite often I read or see that just because a payment is taken by an agent, the chain must be broken but that's a red herring, particularly as I know some agent companies in certain industries are required to use the supplier's payment system and that it is built into the agent's own platform.
For the second scenario, the chain would be broken because the funds are routed to the supplier via the agent's own bank and this is what I would consider to be a debtor-creditor-intermediary-supplier relationship such that it breaks the chain.
Either way, the named entity on the bank statement would indicate who owns the legal transaction and therefore usually determine whether chain is broken or intact. In the OP's case, given that the payment was processed via the hotel's own website, that would be a strong indicator the chain is not broken since the third party would usually provide a payment gateway to process the payment on behalf of the hotel.
0 -
The point about the named party on your bank statement is indicative of whether the payment is being made directly to the supplier or to third party, because that named party on the statement will typically be the "Merchant of Record". A MOR is the party that is legally responsible for handling and processing the transaction and anything that goes wrong with it.
If the named party is someone other than the supplier, then they are essentially acting as an intermediary that breaks the chain for s75 purposes. This is because the payment funds will go directly into the intermediary's account where they deduct their fees, taxes and other incidentals before transferring the net payment to the supplier. For s75 purposes, it becomes a debtor-creditor-intermediary-supplier relationship so the chain is broken.
Either way, the named entity on the bank statement would indicate who owns the legal transaction and therefore usually determine whether chain is broken or intact. In the OP's case, given that the payment was processed via the hotel's own website, that would be a strong indicator the chain is not broken since the third party would usually provide a payment gateway to process the payment on behalf of the hotel.
The credit card payment just refers to "tripla.co.ltd".
Given that the payee was the fourth party, Tripla, surely OP's chain is broken on that named party/MOR basis?
0 -
It may have been sorted, all I can say is that the MSE article about SumUp and Zettle said there was still concern; it could be a later update was published which I missed. The issue of PayPal has been long standing though and as far as I know it still breaks S75 if you pay after logging into your account despite the fact that your statement will name both PayPal and the merchant.
My guess is that Tripla isnt a merchant bank or payment processor, they offer hotel booking software which either agents can use to offer a range of a hotels or a single hotel can use to only offer their own. They themselves will be using a payment processor to collect the funds and pass the monies on to the relevant client potentially less their commissions.
As already outlined, the FOS has to come to fair outcomes and dont have to come to the same conclusion a court would. I doubt the FOS would consider if it went through Tripla's bank account or not as a material consideration as clearly there is no way a consumer will know and would have no right to find out.
0 -
No need for S75. Chargeback would cover these issues & be a lot quicker.
Life in the slow lane0 -
Does chargeback cover a refusal to refund, in the event that the customer chooses to cancel a flexible booking?
0 -
Visa Chargeback code 16.3 - Credit Not Processed
Visa Chargeback code 16.7 - Cancelled Merchandise/ Service
It would depend a little on why they are refusing to refund, most cases its agreed a refund is due but its just never received. Mastercard have very similar options.
0 -
I thought that one was applicable to issues with the payment after being sent, rather than resolving a dispute entailing refusal to send it in the first place? It's often posted on here (not necessarily accurately!) that "there's no chargeback for change of mind" even when CCRs apply.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards