Section 75 claim rejected
Options
Belenus
Posts: 2,549 Forumite
in Credit cards
I booked an apartment in Amsterdam for one week with Expedia UK.
All my dealings were with Expedia via their website. I had no contact with Amsterdam Apartments in Amsterdam, the company providing the apartment.
I provided Expedia with a Santander Credit Card number.
The actual payment was taken by Amsterdam Apartments.
The apartment was unsatisfactory. See my previous thread for background although that isn't necessary for my question.
I attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the situation with Expedia so I made a Section 75 claim with Santander.
Santander have rejected my claim on the basis that there is a break in the debtor-creditor-supplier chain.
They claim that because I had a contract with Expedia but the payment as taken by Amsterdam Apartments, with whom I had no contract, that breaks the chain.
I disagree. I think Santander are trying to duck out of their joint responsibility under Section 75.
In my opinion, the fact that Amsterdam Apartments took a payment directly from my Santander credit card, establishes a direct link between me and Amsterdam Apartments.
Who is correct according to Section 75 rules?
What are my options?
Should I take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service?
Thank you.
All my dealings were with Expedia via their website. I had no contact with Amsterdam Apartments in Amsterdam, the company providing the apartment.
I provided Expedia with a Santander Credit Card number.
The actual payment was taken by Amsterdam Apartments.
The apartment was unsatisfactory. See my previous thread for background although that isn't necessary for my question.
I attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the situation with Expedia so I made a Section 75 claim with Santander.
Santander have rejected my claim on the basis that there is a break in the debtor-creditor-supplier chain.
They claim that because I had a contract with Expedia but the payment as taken by Amsterdam Apartments, with whom I had no contract, that breaks the chain.
I disagree. I think Santander are trying to duck out of their joint responsibility under Section 75.
In my opinion, the fact that Amsterdam Apartments took a payment directly from my Santander credit card, establishes a direct link between me and Amsterdam Apartments.
Who is correct according to Section 75 rules?
What are my options?
Should I take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service?
Thank you.
A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".
0
Comments
-
It does seem that you bought the service from Expedia, not from Amsterdam Apartments, hence the rejection.I think Santander are trying to duck out of their joint responsibility under Section 75.
You don't have anything to lose by doing so. You might be lucky.Should I take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service?0 -
Update.
Santander phoned me this morning to say they were rejecting my claim.
However they have just phoned me again to say they are looking at it again and asking for more information.
Perhaps they will reconsider in my favour.A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0 -
Thanks for responding.It does seem that you bought the service from Expedia, not from Amsterdam Apartments, hence the rejection...
My point is that I didn't buy the service from Expedia as I didn't pay them a penny. Amsterdam Apartments took the payment.
I suspect that this is a grey area that might or might not have yet been tested in court.
I can't be the only person in a similar situation.
I have read about the subject on the internet and I do think I may have a valid Section 75 claim.
If I don't get a satisfactory response from Santander I will take it to the FOS and then to the County Court as a final resort.A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0 -
While Amsterdam Apartments took the payment. Did they supply the apartment or do they work like AirBnb?
If they are like AirBnb then that will break the link. As they are not the actual supplier of the apartment.
Good luck anyway. And if rejected take it to FOS.Life in the slow lane0 -
Yes, Amsterdam Apartments took the payment and provided the apartment. They have a dozen or more apartments in the city.born_again wrote: »While Amsterdam Apartments took the payment. Did they supply the apartment or do they work like AirBnb?
If they are like AirBnb then that will break the link. As they are not the actual supplier of the apartment.
Good luck anyway. And if rejected take it to FOS.A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0 -
Why did you even mention Expedia when making your claim?
You paid Amsterdam Apartments for a service which was unsatisfactory.
However I don't think it is quite that simple. Did you take the matter up with Amsterdam Apartments at the time? How exactly was the apartment unsatisfactory? Were Amsterdam Apartments given a reasonable opportunity to put things right? Just because you were unhappy about something doesn't give you the right to have your money refunded. Any compensation must be proportionate to what was wrong. Unsatisfactory is a relative term; the credit card company will deal in facts. Assuming you actually stayed in the apartment that will also be considered. You can't expect a free holiday because something was 'unsatisfactory'; you would have had to pay to stay somewhere unless you slept on the streets.0 -
You might want to check the T&Cs of your booking on the Expedia website. The T&Cs should make it clear whether you were contracting with Expedia or with the apartment provider. The fact you paid a deposit to the apartment provider and then the balance on arrival, does suggest you may have contracted with them direct, and that Expedia were doing nothing more than putting buyers in contact with sellers.
Indeed, I have found the following in the Expedia T&Cs:-
Beyond establishing that side of things, you will need to provide evidence of a breach of contract/misrepresentation. Your other thread does seem to indicate that you do have that sort of evidence.1.2. Scope and your relationship with Expedia
Expedia, Inc. operates the Website which acts as an interface between you and the various Travel Service Providers offering the Services. When you make a booking for a Service using the Website, you will be entering into a contract with the relevant Travel Service Providers for that Service.
Santander's response sounds fairly typical of most card issuers these days; as soon as there is a whiff of an intermediary in the payment chain, they dismiss it without proper consideration in the hope you will give up and go away.
Good luck.0 -
Why did you even mention Expedia when making your claim?
Because I believe in presenting the full facts... Did you take the matter up with Amsterdam Apartments at the time? How exactly was the apartment unsatisfactory? Were Amsterdam Apartments given a reasonable opportunity to put things right?
That was covered in my original thread as linked in my OP.
I'm not expecting a full refund. I offered to settle with Expedia for a 50% refund. They refused and counter offered with a £200 refund which I rejected as far too little.Any compensation must be proportionate to what was wrong. Unsatisfactory is a relative term; the credit card company will deal in facts. Assuming you actually stayed in the apartment that will also be considered. You can't expect a free holiday because something was 'unsatisfactory'; you would have had to pay to stay somewhere unless you slept on the streets.
If you booked a non smoking 4 star apartment and were given a 1 star smoking apartment that stank of stale smoke, would you just shrug your shoulders and accept it?A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0 -
Have found and read the other thread.
Firstly, as I am a smoker, I am not impressed by your anti-smoking rhetoric and my honest answer about your having been accommodated in an apartment where the previous occupants had smoked is SO WHAT. You were not required to smoke. You could have opened the windows and sprayed a bit of air freshener around if it bothered you so much.
Unless you were specifically GUARANTEED a non-smoking apartment when booking (which I am pretty sure you would not have been - at the most it would have been accepted as a special request with a clause that special requests cannot be guaranteed) then you have no claim whatsoever especially as there was a question of whether the apartment was non-smoking or smoker friendly before you even arrived there..
With regard to the quality of the furnishings etc this is again subjective. 4 star for 206 Euros per-night. You probably got what you paid for.
I can see why the complaint was rejected and I believe the decision to reject it was the correct one. Not because there is a break in the debtor-creditor-supplier chain which I don't believe there was, but because the who complaint lacks merit.0 -
Thanks Terry.Terry_Towelling wrote: »You might want to check the T&Cs of your booking on the Expedia website. The T&Cs should make it clear whether you were contracting with Expedia or with the apartment provider. The fact you paid a deposit to the apartment provider and then the balance on arrival, does suggest you may have contracted with them direct, and that Expedia were doing nothing more than putting buyers in contact with sellers.
Indeed, I have found the following in the Expedia T&Cs:-
Beyond establishing that side of things, you will need to provide evidence of a breach of contract/misrepresentation. Your other thread does seem to indicate that you do have that sort of evidence.
Santander's response sounds fairly typical of most card issuers these days; as soon as there is a whiff of an intermediary in the payment chain, they dismiss it without proper consideration in the hope you will give up and go away.
Good luck.
That is part of my case to Santander.A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards