Forum Home» Credit Cards

Thomas Cook consequential loss. - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Thomas Cook consequential loss.

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Credit Cards
53 replies 4K views
2456

Replies

  • Hi Overseer
    Sounds like you are in exactly the same situation as me.
    Bc are due to call me tomorrow as I have escalated my complaint.I am going to highlight the case from the Ombudsman to them and mention the fact that my loss could in fact be a direct one.
    I have looked online and asked on here for any evidence that consequential loss only applies to dependents but I cannot find it.
    People book/pay for flights for travel with girl/boy friends,friends,parents etc etc all the time and I cannot understand why consequential loss would not apply in these instances.
    If I have no luck with Bc then I will take my case to the Ombudsman.
  • MigsterMigster Forumite
    98 posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts
    Whilst you booked all 6 tickets, presumably the 2 friends and probably your parents were going to pay you back for theirs. As such you are really only bearing the cost of 2 tickets, so I can see why Barclays might not be willing to pay the difference on all 6, as it could be argued that this "loss" belongs to the other adults in your party.
  • Hi Migster
    As I have i have already stated I am paying for all the flights and no one is paying me back.
    I don’t think this would make any difference anyway.
  • Terry_TowellingTerry_Towelling Forumite
    2.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    It would be interesting to know on what basis the banks are deciding when to pay out and when not, because they all seem to have differing interpretations. The Consumer Credit Act doesn't mention family, friends or the like, it simply mentions the 'debtor' having the option to hold the creditor liable for losses following a breach of contract.

    So, are the banks exploiting the definition of the word 'debtor', or are they using some part of the Law of Contract to limit the way they will pay out when the beneficiaries of a contract include people other than the person who originally incurred (and still holds) the debt - i.e. they have received a gift?

    The Consumer Credit Act defines a debtor as:-
    “debtor” means [F18(except in relation to green deal plans: see instead section 189B(3))] the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement includes the prospective debtor;
    That doesn't appear to preclude the person incurring the debt from still being the debtor despite other people benefitting from performance of the contract.

    On a slightly tangential note, if I own a house jointly (and equally) with several friends and I pay £50 by credit card and £950 in cash for radiators to be installed in each of our bedrooms, but it all goes wrong and I have a claim for breach of contract, is the bank going to say, they will give me back the £50 but the rest of my claim is a consequential loss (which is debatable) and therefore any additional payment will only cover repairs in my bedroom, because the people in the other rooms are not family or dependents of me? That would be absurd.
  • You make some very good points Terry.
    I am also very interested to discover how the banks are arriving at this conclusion.
    The example you give of the radiators is very good and funny.
    The case example I gave explicitly grants payment of consequential loss to non dependents ie the ladies parents.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • OverseerOverseer Forumite
    15 posts
    Sixth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Hi Terry, I'm a bit confused about your radiators example. Unless I'm not understanding properly.
    First of all, if you make a payment of £50 by credit card, you have no protection with the credit card issuer for payments under£100. But if you make a part payment of £100 or over and no matter how you pay the balance - the whole amount is covered by section 75.

    However, using your example, if you only pay £50 by credit card and the balance in cash, and something goes wrong, you can make a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Alternatively, you can make a claim through the Small Claims Court if the claim is under the maximum amount for your country and
    you can recover your costs of doing so if you are successful.

    Both the above examples are not affected by who owns the house, the person who creates the contract is the only claimant.
  • dazza.mkdazza.mk Forumite
    1.9K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    Overseer wrote: »
    Hi Terry, I'm a bit confused about your radiators example. Unless I'm not understanding properly.
    First of all, if you make a payment of £50 by credit card, you have no protection with the credit card issuer for payments under£100.

    Overseer, the value of the purchase needs to be £100- £30k, this doesn't mean that you have to pay the full value on your credit card. If you paid 1p on the credit card and the rest in cash you would be covered by the legislation.
  • OverseerOverseer Forumite
    15 posts
    Sixth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Hi dazza.mk ,
    Thanks for bringing the misunderstanding to my attention about payment amount by credit card. I must admit that I have always had it in my head that £100 was the essential minimum to pay by credit card to ensure cover by section 75. In my defence I can only say that most written examples state £100 to get the message across, although it is more complicated than that.
  • OverseerOverseer Forumite
    15 posts
    Sixth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Hi Terry, My apologese for getting it wrong. I now know what you meant about paying £50 deposit by credit card. See below.



    Credit Card Protection under Section 75t Card Protection under Section 75
    #19


    21st Oct 19, 8:54 PM

    Hi dazza.mk ,
    Thanks for bringing the misunderstanding to my attention about payment amount by credit card. I must admit that I have always had it in my head that £100 was the essential minimum to pay by credit card to ensure cover by section 75. In my defence I can only say that most written examples state £100 to get the message across, although it is more complicated than that.
  • Terry_TowellingTerry_Towelling Forumite
    2.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Overseer wrote: »
    Hi Terry, I'm a bit confused about your radiators example. Unless I'm not understanding properly.
    First of all, if you make a payment of £50 by credit card, you have no protection with the credit card issuer for payments under£100. But if you make a part payment of £100 or over and no matter how you pay the balance - the whole amount is covered by section 75.

    However, using your example, if you only pay £50 by credit card and the balance in cash, and something goes wrong, you can make a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Alternatively, you can make a claim through the Small Claims Court if the claim is under the maximum amount for your country and
    you can recover your costs of doing so if you are successful.

    Both the above examples are not affected by who owns the house, the person who creates the contract is the only claimant.

    My example was couched in the way it was, to make it clear that, because it wasn't just my house, whatever I bought would end up benefitting all the owners, and that those co-owning beneficiaries were not related to me and not my dependents.

    My point was that my claim under S75 would not be scrutinised by the bank in the same way as a travel claim. I would (probably) have no problem getting the claim paid, despite some of it being viewed as a consequential loss that related to people who were neither my family nor my dependents.

    The amount of the credit transaction being under £100 is not an issue - as has been pointed out - if the contract is valued over £100 and less than £30K.

    I concede it was a very contrived example but it was just to illustrate a point.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support