Agoda cancelled my confirmed paid hotel booking, refusing comparable replacement

Jenni_D

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009358#Comment_82009358

Did you capitalise Travel Supplier, or is that how it is stated in the T&Cs? If that's from the T&Cs then it suggests that Travel Supplier will have a definition (near the beginning of the T&Cs) - what does that state?

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009360#Comment_82009360

Of course it can if they're actually based in the country that they say they're based in.

This isn't a UK company, doing business entirely within the UK, that is claiming that some obscure jurisdiction applies to their contract. This is a Singaporean company saying that Singaporean law applies to their contract.

If you sue them, you might win by default as they probably won't put up a fight in a UK courtroom (as they're Singaporean) but you would be flushing money down the drain. They don't exist as a legal entity in the UK so you have no way of enforcing the judgement.

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009387#Comment_82009387

It seems to often be the case that people don't want help, they want to prove everyone wrong.

I'm sure in due course we'll be told that either AMEX folded and paid them eleventy billion pounds or they successfully sued Agoda and they now own the entire company.

Rocknrollah

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009429#Comment_82009429

That is how it appears in the T&Cs, capitalised throughout as a defined term. The definition is in the introductory section: "various products and services which are supplied, offered and/or operated by third parties ('Travel Suppliers')." So the Travel Supplier is defined as the third party providing the accommodation, which is the hotel.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009638#Comment_82009638

For S75 where they are based is not a issue

flaneurs_lobster

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009890#Comment_82009890

Since S75 is continuing to be mentioned can I ask again?

Isn't S75 used when you've paid for something, haven't received the thing, you get your money back.

OP has paid for something, hasn't got the thing, has been offered full refund plus extras - S75 not relevant?

or, OP has paid for something, hasn't got the thing, wants x4.5 spend as compensation OR the thing that is now priced at x4.5 original quoted price - S75 no relevant?

S75 is about refunding punter where goods/service not supplied and no refund given - not a consumer spat about dodgy pricing policy?

Jenni_D

S75 makes the credit provider jointly liable with the seller for any breach of contract .. if the breach entitles the consumer to a refund greater than the sum paid (e.g. the seller breaches the contract and it costs the consumer more for someone else to fulfil the contract, then the consumer is entitled to the full cost, not just what they paid the original seller) .. in that situation S75 makes the credit provider jointly liable for that full cost .. or rather, the difference in costs. (As the original cost would still be borne for fulfilling the contract).

I'm not saying that this applies in this case, just that it can.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82010527#Comment_82010527

S75 covers breach of contract &/or misrepresentation.

Bank will not use S75 none receipt, given their is a chargeback right, which means retailer funds their error & not the card provider.

OP has not come back & said why it was cancelled. Which is relevant here. Just because the price has now gone up does not mean they will get the difference paid.

There is no chargeback right here.

mta999

Have you looked at the booking terms and conditions of the hotel in Seoul as these will form part of the contract

brianposter

The booking terms are part of a separate contract.