Agoda cancelled my confirmed paid hotel booking, refusing comparable replacement

Alderbank

Perhaps it is some time since you read what the Consumer Credit Act actually says? (the Act is now more than 50 years old) but the intent is very much that the supplier rather than the banks carry the can if the contract is breached.

The reimbursement is not outside s75. Section 75 has 5 parts:

s75(1) says that if the supplier breaches the Act that the card issuer is jointly responsible. This is to make it easier for the consumer to get their money back. However s75(2) goes on to say that the supplier is responsible for repaying the bank in full not only for whatever the bank has to pay out to meet their joint responsibility but also all the court costs incurred by the bank. In practice the card issuing bank has an interbank arrangement with the seller's merchant bank and the merchant bank just takes the money from the seller's account.

s75(4) defines the limits of the arrangement (back in 1974 it was £30-£10,000, it has progressively been increased to £100-£30,000) and s75(5) says that if the consumer bypasses the seller and just takes the bank to court that the bank can ask the court to drag the seller before the court as a joint party to the proceedings.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009066#Comment_82009066

No, that's not true at all.

A simple thought experiment.

If you pay a non-UK entity but they say that it is under the jurisdiction of the UK, which law applies?

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009158#Comment_82009158

It's probably 43 years since I read it as that's when I studied it!

I see what you mean that I was mistaken in phrasing it that it was outside s75, however…

I'm not sure if I'm nit-picking or not, but does s75(2) actually say that the supplier is "responsible" for repaying the bank, or does it just say the bank is "entitled" to recover the money from the supplier?

To me "responsible" means that yes, the supplier ends up footing the bill, but I see "entitled to be indemnified" as a lower level obligation meaning the bank is entitled to the money if it wants to enforce that entitlement.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs but it seems to me that I'm constantly reading on here that when a card provider pays out a s75 refund then they are paying it out of their own funds and not the supplier's. It's a point of distinction made all the time on here when s75 and chargeback is being compared, and it's often given as an explanation as to why banks etc prefer chargeback over s75 - they don't like paying out their own money

I think the point I was trying to make to the OP is that I was questioning his apparent belief that under s75 the supplier will reimburse the bank. I think that only happens if the bank chooses to enforce it, and we seem to be often told on here that most of the time banks don't bother to do so - they just absorb the cost

Or at least that's what I understand from what I've read here about how banks deal with s75

Grumpy_chap

It has been indicated many times in these forums that S75 paid by the credit provider is not recovered from the retailer in practice. That seems to be part of the rationale why chargeback exists.

@born_again will be able to advise more accurately than I can.

Rocknrollah

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009013#Comment_82009013

The debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement exists here. Clause 9.2 of Agoda's own Terms of Use (Version 6.2, effective 24 March 2026) states:

"Upon receipt of your payments by Agoda for Confirmed Bookings, your obligation to the Travel Supplier for that amount is extinguished."

Agoda collected my payment, confirmed the booking, and by the operation of its own terms extinguished my obligation to the hotel. That is not an intermediary passing funds through. That is the supplier in the DCS arrangement. You cannot collect the money, discharge the consumer's debt to the underlying provider, and then claim you are not the supplier for S75 purposes.

Additionally, Amex has confirmed that the payment was processed on behalf of a UK-based entity (Agoda International Pte. Ltd., UK Establishment). The DCS link runs through that entity.

Rocknrollah

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009045#Comment_82009045

You are correct that Agoda's terms specify Singapore law and courts. However, a choice of law clause cannot override mandatory consumer protection in the consumer's country of habitual residence. This is established under the retained UK equivalent of Rome I, Article 6. More importantly, Agoda's own Clause 36.9 concedes this point expressly: "Nothing in this clause shall limit or exclude any liability that cannot be limited or excluded under applicable law." The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is precisely such applicable law.

Rocknrollah

@Alderbank's reading of the statute is correct and helpful . On the practical question of whether the card issuer actually recovers from the merchant, that is a matter between Amex and Agoda and does not affect the consumer's statutory right. My claim under S75 is against Amex as joint obligor. Whether Amex absorbs the cost or pursues Agoda through its merchant agreement is their commercial decision. From my perspective, the right exists and has been exercised.

Will continue to update as this progresses.

Rocknrollah

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009045#Comment_82009045

You are correct that Agoda's terms specify Singapore law and courts. However, a choice of law clause cannot override mandatory consumer protection in the consumer's country of habitual residence. This is established under the retained UK equivalent of Rome I, Article 6. More importantly, Agoda's own Clause 36.9 concedes this point expressly: "Nothing in this clause shall limit or exclude any liability that cannot be limited or excluded under applicable law." The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is precisely such applicable law.

Grumpy_chap

Well, this thread has taken a surprise turn. From a TLDR question a couple of days ago, the OP is now an expert quoting legislation like it's second nature.

QrizB

The opening post reads as though it was assisted by AI.

Possibly this is also the source of the OP's new legal knowledge?