Oasis airline in liquidation- what to do?

vienly

when you post it to HSBC, make sure you address it to

Internal Chargeback Department
HSBC
xxxxx
Southend-on-sea
xxxxx


on your letter, make it 'FOA: Internal Chargeback Department'


Yeah I sent all documents to them including old and new e-tickets with receipts.

amy_lam

vienly wrote: »

when you post it to HSBC, make sure you address it to

Internal Chargeback Department
HSBC
xxxxx
Southend-on-sea
xxxxx


on your letter, make it 'FOA: Internal Chargeback Department'


Yeah I sent all documents to them including old and new e-tickets with receipts.

Ok it's a good start that i have been sending it to the correct department..fingers crossed?
Did you book on Oasis's website? because you only get booking confirmation that way, not a reciept.
So are they just going to credit your account right?? when they give you your money back...

tsey

markymoo wrote: »

Morgan Stanley Cards is now owned by Barclays Bank!

Maybe that is a reason why goldfish ain't interested!

Annoying therefore that MS/Goldfish, now owed by Barclays is still procrastinating, when other Barclay debit card customers have already had money reimbursed. Not sure how Barclay can justify differential treatment of customers.

Agreed that all banks/credit card companies who have not honoured reimbursement under section 75 be named and shamed in media. Section 75 clearly states
"The Customer can choose whether to sue the supplier, the credit grantor, or both, for the full amount of the claim. The first is the belief among some lenders that consumers can only claim against them after they have first sued the provider of the goods or services. In fact, no such requirement exists and consumers can choose which party to claim against.
Customers can claim for all losses caused by the breach of contract or misrepresentation”

vienly

They said they will credit my credit card account within 48 hours so just have to hope everything goes through smoothly.

I sent them my confirmation email from Oasis which I booked via the website, not receipt sorry

twitch

amy_lam wrote: »

Did you book on Oasis's website? because you only get booking confirmation that way, not a reciept.

The booking confirmation gives a run-down of the costs for the flights. HSBC can bring up details of your card transactions and find proof of the payments within seconds. They would know very well that you have spent the money on Oasis flights.

Chucky_2

I am still having major problems with MS - I sent them everything they needed on Monday and their s.75 dept are taking their time with authorise the refund. I have called them numerous times only for them to say they cannot assist until the s.75 dept authorise the claim.

The financial ombudsman will not intervene until 8 weeks have passed, so they're a waste of time. I am due to fly out on 11 July so I don't have another 8 weeks to spare!!

Although I know that the law is on our side, it is still very frustrating that we as the injured party are haivng to make such extensive phonecalls etc to exercise our rights!!

I agree that we should name and shame them - bring them to the media's attention and see if they continue to delay matters unnecesarily.

rustyg

I had an unsatisfactory discussion with Morgan Stanley / Goldfish in which I was asked for a letter from Oasis or KPMG stating that my flight would not be happening on the scheduled day before any kind of repayment could be made.

I immediately phoned the Financial Ombudsman (02079641000 or 08450801800) who took down my details and told me that he would be writing on my behalf to complain. MS/Goldfish still have 8 weeks to respond but I will at least be receiving a claim form to use against them.

twitch

rustyg wrote: »

I had an unsatisfactory discussion with Morgan Stanley / Goldfish in which I was asked for a letter from Oasis or KPMG stating that my flight would not be happening on the scheduled day before any kind of repayment could be made.

Have you put in your claim to Oasis? If you did, you should have been sent a letter from them in a reply, which said it was too early to tell if any creditors would be receiving money. I sent included this letter with my claim to HSBC, to cover all bases.

Also, look at this press release by KPMG. It states that since no other investors bought Oasis, they had to cancel the contract of flight crew and most of the staff. I think that pretty much says there will be no more Oasis flights:

http://www.kpmg.com.hk/en/about/KPMG_news/2008/080418_OasisUpdate.html?TopMenuOn=4&LeftMenuOn=5&NoChinese=0

Chucky_2

rustyg wrote: »

I had an unsatisfactory discussion with Morgan Stanley / Goldfish in which I was asked for a letter from Oasis or KPMG stating that my flight would not be happening on the scheduled day before any kind of repayment could be made.


It appears that they are asking for different things from different customers. They asked me for a negative bonding letter, which although I didn't get, I did get an email from KMPG advising that Oasis is not a bonded airline and that they do not have any insurance from which the passengers can claim from. This should be sufficient. You will need to email KPMG at [EMAIL="info@oasishongkong.com"]info@oasishongkong.com[/EMAIL] for this.

lucky88_2

Chucky wrote: »

I am still having major problems with MS - I sent them everything they needed on Monday and their s.75 dept are taking their time with authorise the refund. I have called them numerous times only for them to say they cannot assist until the s.75 dept authorise the claim.

The financial ombudsman will not intervene until 8 weeks have passed, so they're a waste of time. I am due to fly out on 11 July so I don't have another 8 weeks to spare!!


If you have a final response letter before the 8 weeks, and if you're not happy with MS decision of not refunding you, you can immediately send in the complaint form. So you may not have to wait 8 weeks and they have to listen to the FO and MS cant fob them off once a consumer jurisdiction CJ order has been isuued on them.
But the FO says most cases are settled informally by them and only 10% of their cases go to court.

a case study where compensation was awarded.

Mr J bought his son a second-hand car costing £5,000. He paid for the car in three parts:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] by part-exchanging his car for £3,000;[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] with a cheque for £1,500; and[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] by charging £500 to his credit card issued by the firm.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Things started to go wrong with the car more or less straight away. It spent most of the next six weeks back at the garage. The garage paid for all the repairs, which cost more than £1,200, but Mr J thought they should also compensate his son for the distress and inconvenience he had been caused, and for the six weeks worth of insurance and road fund licence he felt had been wasted.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The garage didn’t agree – so Mr J turned to the firm, putting in a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the ‘Act’). However, the firm also refused to pay up. It said that there wasn’t a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship under the Act, and that it therefore had no obligation to meet Mr J’s claim. The reason for there not being such a relationship was, it said, because the garage’s invoice for the car had been made out to Mr J's son, not to Mr J himself, and ‘any statutory right under the Act could not be extended by way of gift’.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Mr J then came to us. It was not up to our caseworker in the assessment team to decide whether Section 75 did, or did not, apply (that would have needed an investigation and a finding on the merits of the complaint). There were, in her view, arguments both ways. But, just as importantly, if Section 75 did apply, it seemed clear that only some of Mr J’s claim could ever be successful, because we could only ever make an award for Mr J’s losses, not for those of his son. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]By then, the firm had offered Mr J £250 as a gesture of goodwill. The caseworker explained her initial thinking to Mr J and said he could either accept the firm’s offer, or reject it and wait while we conducted an investigation. After taking into account what the caseworker had said about the limitations on the amount we might ultimately award, Mr J accepted the £250.[/SIZE][/FONT]