Oasis airline in liquidation- what to do?

twitch

Well, you can add a '0' next to HSBC.

I just called them again with the same result as last time. HSBC told me that when I put in my claim, they make a claim to Oasis' bank. Without a letter from the liquidator saying there will definitely be no money coming from them, it is easier for Oasis' bank to dispute HSBC's claim.

How the hell is that my problem? The contract is made equally with Oasis and HSBC. My claim has got nothing to do with Oasis' bank.

However, the rep said I could give written confirmation to HSBC to say that I want them to go ahead with the claim. It's all really confusing, and completely incorrect information.

Tonight I will be applying to another bank for savings/credit card accounts, and will no longer use HSBC, no matter what the result of my claim is.

lucky88_2

lucky88 wrote: »

please edit ccc ratings from your dealings with your own ccc.out of 5 stars.
if you get compensation as well you should award your ccc 5 stars. So 0 stars is for nothing.3 stars for a refund but no compensation. 4 stars is refund but helpful and may compensate.

HSBC ;0
LLOYDS TSB; 3,
Barclays;
Nat West;
MS Goldfish;
JLFS; 0,
First Direct;
Capital One.

Please add on your rating or any ccc.So it is quick and easy for us to judge these ccc.

just use quote to add your addition/rating.

lucky88_2

twitch wrote: »

Well, you can add a '0' next to HSBC.

I just called them again with the same result as last time. HSBC told me that when I put in my claim, they make a claim to Oasis' bank. Without a letter from the liquidator saying there will definitely be no money coming from them, it is easier for Oasis' bank to dispute HSBC's claim.

How the hell is that my problem? The contract is made equally with Oasis and HSBC. My claim has got nothing to do with Oasis' bank.

hi, i ve added your score. write in and ask them to write a final response letter to you. with this letter, the ombudsman will negotiate for you on your behalf and as members of the FO, they have to abide what the ombudsman tells them when it issues a consumer jurisdiction order on hsbc, but usually, they do it over the phone informally with them.

so, get writing as all this phone calls are getting you nowhere and more fustrated.

twitch

Ialready wrote once requesting that their final decision be put in writing to me and gave them a deadline of 10 working days, which is more than enough for them to respond.

I am writing AGAIN today to express our annoyances, as well as ask that all decisions be put in writing, and that I be paid in full by the 15th.

lucky88_2

twitch wrote: »

Ialready wrote once requesting that their final decision be put in writing to me and gave them a deadline of 10 working days, which is more than enough for them to respond.

I am writing AGAIN today to express our annoyances, as well as ask that all decisions be put in writing, and that I be paid in full by the 15th.

hi, also you can quote them David Boyack v Royal bank of scotland at the Sheriff Court in Kikcaldy. see below he is like us suing the ccc, rbs, for misrepresentation. quote them this case. it is up to the defendants, hsbc and oasis, to sort out who loss what and for Hsbc to recover the debt from oasis and not you!!.


The effect of this decision is that credit card companies, rather than consumers, will be responsible where there is a breach or misrepresentation by an overseas seller. This will apply to goods purchased over the internet from foreign suppliers, as well as goods bought in person whilst abroad. Several cases which had been stayed pending this decision, such as David Boyack -v- Royal Bank of Scotland at the Sheriff Court at Kikcaldy 15th August 2007, will now be decided.

The Boyack case concerns alleged misrepresentations made to a consumer by the supplier of a clock in Dubai. If Boyack succeeds in his claim, the credit card issuer will now have to seek redress against the supplier in Dubai for its own loss.

I am assuming that Mr Boyack had succeded in his claim against RBS!! So this case is your/our legal precedent according to s.75 (1) + (2)!!!

lucky88_2

13. The simple and unqualified statement of the right that is
expressed in section 75(1) is consistent with the policy that lies behind
the Act, informed by recommendations by the Crowther Committee. Its
long title states that the new system which it lays down is “for the
protection of consumers”. That policy applies to debtors and creditors
within the territorial reach of the Act generally. Transactions of that
kind are to the commercial advantage of the supplier and the creditor.


"The creditor is in a better position than the debtor, in a question with a
foreign supplier, to obtain redress. It is not to be assumed that the
creditor will always get his money back. But, if he does not, the loss
must lie with him as he has the broader back."

" He is in a better position, if redress is not readily obtainable, to spread the cost. He is in a better position to argue for sanctions against a supplier who is not reliable."


For his part, the debtor is entitled to assume that he can trust suppliers who
are authorised to accept his credit card. These considerations, which
support the right of recourse in relation to tripartite arrangements, are
just as powerful in the case of four-party transactions.
14. It was submitted that section 75(2) casts light on the meaning of
section 75(1). But, unlike section 75(1), section 75(2) is not concerned
with consumer protection. It is not to be seen as a quid pro quo for the
right of recourse that is afforded to debtors by section 75(1). So I do not
think that one can find here any implied limitation on the scope of
section 75(1). Nor, for the reasons that Lord Mance has explained, is
any implied limitation to be found in the provisions about cancellation
and its consequences in sections 67-74 of the Act. Cancellation is just
one of the risks that the creditor has to bear in its assessment of where
the balance lies between the commercial advantages and disadvantages
of the system that it enters into when it commences business as a card
issuer. So, for these and all the other reasons that Lord Mance gives, I
would reject the argument that section 75(1) applies only to domestic
transactions.
LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE

twitch

Oh I believe it! It's just the bank that won't listen.

I've written to HSBC and marked FAO for the department that vienly mentioned (Internal Chargeback Department), and also sent the letter by fax.

Mariannekat

While on the subject of case law, I thought I would post some summaries of cases that could be looked at by anyone whose banks say that they are not liable to pay for the purchase of further air tickets. Banks are liable under section 75(1) for damages - this includes the original value of the contract with Oasis, plus any loss incurred as a result of Oasis breacking your contract.

Note - I've only skim read these cases for facts, so if anyone is going to cite them in writing, do read the cases yourself.

Richard Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and HFC Bank Plc (County Court of Aberdeen, 26 March 2008): The purchaser entered into an agreement with a supplier for a lap top, and paid a £50 deposit, the rest to be funded by a credit agreement. The lap top did not meet the specifications that it was represented as having, so the purchaser attempted to rescind the contract with the credit supplier for the credit, and reclaim his £50. The credit supplier refused to end the contract, and the dispute led to the purchaser having a bad credit rating. The purchaser was entitled to recover £8,000 for the actual loss (£50) and general damages to his credit.

Bond and Ors v Livingstone and Co (Queens Bench Division, 27 March 2001) was a case of professional negligence against solicitors. The claimant had undergone a hair replacement procedure, which had gone "disasterously wrong". The judge decided that it was professionally negligent of the solcitiors to not lodge a claim against the claimant's bank under section 75 of the CCA for damages for original cost of the treatment plus damages for personal injury.

Grant v Electro Centre [2007 CLY 763]: the claimant bought a DVD player on his credit card from an electrical retailer which was faulty, and the claimant had to repair it. The bank and retailer were jointly and severally liable for the cost of the repair (£47) and damages of £19 for transport costs in taking the DVD player to get repaired and picking it up.

Porter v General Guarantee Corporation Ltd, Howard Baugh & Sons Ltd (Third Party) (Queens Bench Divison, Kilner Brown J, 21 December 1981). The claimant funded the purchase of a used car with a loan. The condition of the car was misrepresented. The claimant was entitled to rescind the contract and claim damages, including consequential loss of £34 for "premium car insurance" and £84 for "other indidental expenses".
________________________________

monkey2nut

chased Lloyds TSB again today. They said that the claim was being processed and I should expect a refund into my account early next week. Watch this space...... :rolleyes:

lucky88_2

please add your ccc ratings from your dealings with your own ccc.out of 5 stars.
if you get compensation as well you should award your ccc 5 stars. So 0 stars is for nothing.3 stars for a refund but no compensation. 4 stars is refund but helpful and may compensate.

HSBC ;0
LLOYDS TSB; 3,
Barclays;3
Nat West;
MS Goldfish;
JLFS; 0,
First Direct;
Capital One.
Nationwide; 3

Please add on your rating or any ccc.So it is quick and easy for us to judge these ccc.
just use quote to add your addition/rating.