Agoda cancelled my confirmed paid hotel booking, refusing comparable replacement

Okell

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

🙂

I've only stumbled across this thread again searching for something else.

Yes - @Rocknrollah's new found knowledge is very impressive.

But what I don't understand is:

1 re Rome I, Article 6, doesn't that only come into play in consumer contracts between UK consumers and service providers from EU member states, and;

2 re the reference to "applicable law" under para 36.9 of Agoda's T&Cs, doesn't that mean Singapore law as per para 39.11 and not the UK Consumer rights Act 2015 as the OP seems to believe?

I suppose I'm also not sure what the OP's claim is based on anyway.

Weren't Agoda fully entitled to cancel the confirmed booking the following day under para 7.6 of their T&Cs?

If the OP has declined all Agoda's offers which have included a choice between two alternative hotels or a full refund plus £100 gratuity, I'm not sure what else he's reasonably expecting.

(Apologies if I've got this all mixed up but as I say i only stumbled across it accidentally and don't remember all the deatils from last month)

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82009362#Comment_82009362

What happened to the updates?

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82038976#Comment_82038976

I'm not holding my breath waiting…

Rocknrollah

It took almost three months but AMEX found in my favour today with the replacement cost difference. "To successfully claim under Section 75, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the Merchant has either misrepresented the sale or breached the contract with you.
Having carefully considered all of the information provided, including the booking confirmation, cancellation correspondence, replacement accommodation evidence and supporting documentation, we consider that you have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Merchant breached the contract. We further consider that the consequential loss claimed has been supported by the evidence provided and represents the additional cost reasonably incurred in obtaining replacement accommodation following that breach.
Accordingly, we have decided to uphold your Section 75 claim and have posted our compensation terms, in full and final settlement of your claim"

dumpster_fire2025

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

A bit old but anyway.

How so? If S75 makes the credit card company jointly and severally liable for breaches of contract and misrepresentation then surely it's entirely relevant as to where they are based as that will then affect the laws that apply to the transaction and therefore whether it is determined to be a breach/misrepresentation or not?

I could see a credit card company potentially not bothering with that and just applying UK law as it's easier and cheaper but I see no reason under the law why, if it's being done to the letter of the legislation, it could not be reviewed based on the applicable laws rather than those of the UK.