As a matter of course, many of us on HT always advise people when booking a holiday, to ensure they pay by Credit Card rather than Debit card; this is due to the added protection in the event of a problem.
I am unable to post links (someone may be able to) but two items in the Sunday Times are a little disturbing.
First in Money section someone had bought an item online. The payment was made via the company's payment agent "Nochex"
The goods failed to arrive - the company went bust. When the customer tried to reclaim from their CC supplier it was refused. According to Apacs the UK payments association, technically speaking transactions where payments are initially made to a third party rather than to the supplier are not covered by the legislation (section 75 of the Consumers Credit Act). In this case the card provider has agreed to refund the customer.
The second in the Travel section concerned someone who made a booking in July last year for return flights with Air Madrid. They did not find out until two weeks before that the company had gone bust. When they tried to recover from the card supplier they were informed that there is a time limit of 120 days on claims from the date of transaction. As they only found out in December they were outside the time limit...
Again the customer has been reimbursed by the card supplier but, it would seem the information is in the T&Cs - They supplier has also amended the T&Cs to make things clearer - It now reads "Dispute must be lodged within 120 days of the transaction date or expected date of receipt of the goods or service"
The above examples reinforce the advice given to everybody here on HT - Read the Terms and Conditions very carefully - Do not assume what someone else says is right.
fwh
ADMIN - Please move or repeat in other sections you consider relevant.
Thanks for the info. fwh.
I've mentioned in a couple of my posts over the past year about the complexity of section 75 protection when dealing with an agent or third-party.
There's some info. buried in the Consumer Credit Act details (on the web) that I've cut and pasted in the past but I cannot understand the details fully as the wording is complex.
I hope that disreputable Tour Operators don't try to avoid responsibility by using a third-party payment agent.
The 120 day ruling is a worry if you book far in advance.
I've mentioned in a couple of my posts over the past year about the complexity of section 75 protection when dealing with an agent or third-party.
There's some info. buried in the Consumer Credit Act details (on the web) that I've cut and pasted in the past but I cannot understand the details fully as the wording is complex.
I hope that disreputable Tour Operators don't try to avoid responsibility by using a third-party payment agent.
The 120 day ruling is a worry if you book far in advance.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article1654073.ece
Think the above is the one FWH is referring to - scroll down to JP.
Think the above is the one FWH is referring to - scroll down to JP.
So how does the 120 day rule apply if, as was stated "It now reads "Dispute must be lodged within 120 days of the transaction date or expected date of receipt of the goods or service" ". From this I would assume that if you book in advance, for example today I book and pay with my VISA for for an October break costing over £100, then you have 120 days from the transaction date (i.e. from today) OR the expected date of receipt of the goods or service (i.e. 120 days from the abortive October break when I discover the operator has gone belly-up)?
Cheers,
Jet
Cheers,
Jet
I was going to ask the same question but thought the answer to be too obvious, so didn't post it.
You just beat me to it.
Mark
You just beat me to it.
Mark
I agree that it is a little ambiguous - the problem would seem to be that the person, who booked, had, for whatever reason not been informed the company had gone bust. They tried to recover the money through the Spanish government and Air Madrid before contacting the Credit Card Company.
Booking flights from one foreign place to another - Madrid to Costa Rica - with a foreign airline is obviously one factor.
I cannot blame the CC supplier. They do offer protection, but there must be some sort of limit on their liability. The problem is that we all book many months in front. This is the first time I have ever seen this condition reported.
I think the question that needs answering is how do we stand.
An example might be that when we returned from Cyprus last October we decided to book for October this year. The deposit was made by CC - just like many others do - assuming that that gives protection. The 120 day period from the booking being made has passed. I have not however reached the date when I will receive the goods/service.
Do I still have protection?
Reading the article and the change to the T&Cs I would say I have.
I would repeat my comment from my original posting. Never ever assume what someone says is correct. Check the T&Cs and ask the CC supplier if not sure.
fwh
Booking flights from one foreign place to another - Madrid to Costa Rica - with a foreign airline is obviously one factor.
I cannot blame the CC supplier. They do offer protection, but there must be some sort of limit on their liability. The problem is that we all book many months in front. This is the first time I have ever seen this condition reported.
I think the question that needs answering is how do we stand.
An example might be that when we returned from Cyprus last October we decided to book for October this year. The deposit was made by CC - just like many others do - assuming that that gives protection. The 120 day period from the booking being made has passed. I have not however reached the date when I will receive the goods/service.
Do I still have protection?
Reading the article and the change to the T&Cs I would say I have.
I would repeat my comment from my original posting. Never ever assume what someone says is correct. Check the T&Cs and ask the CC supplier if not sure.
fwh
This is the way I read it, I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong. 
When your card has be cloned or fraudulently used, then you have up to 120 days to claim "chargeback" proceedings.
However, the 120 days for goods not being delivered starts after you realise the goods won't be delivered .so, if you book a holiday 9 months in advance and the firm goes "belly up" a month before departure, then you have 120 days from the time the firm went "belly up" and you realised that you were not going to receive the goods/holiday.
Finally, a banking survey concluded that cases of claiming "chargeback" for fraudulent unauthorised transactions outside the 120 day rule is very low and you are treat no differently.
That little word "realising" makes the difference.!
click here
click here
Sanjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
When your card has be cloned or fraudulently used, then you have up to 120 days to claim "chargeback" proceedings.
However, the 120 days for goods not being delivered starts after you realise the goods won't be delivered .so, if you book a holiday 9 months in advance and the firm goes "belly up" a month before departure, then you have 120 days from the time the firm went "belly up" and you realised that you were not going to receive the goods/holiday.
Finally, a banking survey concluded that cases of claiming "chargeback" for fraudulent unauthorised transactions outside the 120 day rule is very low and you are treat no differently.
That little word "realising" makes the difference.!
click here
click here
Sanjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
The problem here is that Madrid Air went bust. The customer found out two weeks before travel date. Under the T&Cs you would assume that there was no problem. The goods/service was not due to be delivered until two weeks later.
What the article does not make clear is if the claim was originally refused because 120 days had expired from booking. 120 days had expired from Madrid Air going bust or because they pursued a claim against the Spanish government and Madrid Air before informing the CC supplier.
There is a lack of information on this one.
I posted having not come across this clause before. Perhaps if there is a member of HT who has a better understanding they can advise us.
fwh
What the article does not make clear is if the claim was originally refused because 120 days had expired from booking. 120 days had expired from Madrid Air going bust or because they pursued a claim against the Spanish government and Madrid Air before informing the CC supplier.
There is a lack of information on this one.
I posted having not come across this clause before. Perhaps if there is a member of HT who has a better understanding they can advise us.
fwh
This is the link for the Air Madrid problem that is now available online.
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/your_say/article1649604.ece
fwh
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/your_say/article1649604.ece
fwh
Thanks for digging that out fwh - pretty conclusive that the problem was the Building Society's poorly worded internal process rather than the legislation. The customer got his money back and the 120 day limit clarified - result!
Cheers,
Jet
Cheers,
Jet
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
Similar Topics
-
credit card or debit card
Posted by OSCARBEN in General Holiday Enquiries, Hints and Tips
-
New credit card
Posted by Derwentrocker in General Chat
-
credit card please help
Posted by madmadge in General Holiday Enquiries, Hints and Tips
-
Use of credit card
Posted by Schnittelein in Turkey Discussion Forum
-
Using credit card to pay for a holiday
Posted by bridd in General Holiday Enquiries, Hints and Tips