 Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| masmith wrote: |
| One of the most interesting threads I've read in a long time. I am sorry to hear of this situation, apalling behaviour by Ski Activity ........... |
I don't see it as appalling; a 10% swing in the currency market could wipe them out, for all we know. From what I understand, TO margins are so tight that they could run each holiday at a loss if they don't pass the surcharge on. What they are doing may possibly be in breach of the Package Holiday Regulations (though we are only getting magic_hat's side of the story, and I am always wary of Trial By Snowheads) but it is very understandable. |
Each to their own then. IMHO if they act outside of their t&c's without any legal basis, essentially trying to pull a fast one on the customer (probably to save their own skin) and then they are (according to OP) very hard if not impossible to get hold of, then frankly, that is in my opinion is apalling customer service. Changing online viewable T+C's without also notifying existing clients is also rather shoddy.
What you're sying is the contract is not worth the paper it's written on ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
masmith, we have only magic_hat's version about what happened with the on-line T&Cs. Moreover, a company has every right to vary its t&cs as it sees fit - ask any credit card company. Whether the change of t&cs in turn affects an existing contract depends on individual circumstances. I really don't think forums should be used as pseudo civil courts. Giving advice to someone who feels aggrieved is one thing. Condemning the other party's behaviour as 'appalling' is another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
achilles, They do NOT have the right to change the T&Cs after you have made a contract for a single supply.
With contracts of "indeterminate duration", such as Credit Card contracts, utilities contracts, etc. they cannot change the T&C to your detriment without allowing you to cancel without detriment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
AxsMan, exactly.
alex_heney, if the t&Cs state that a contract payments will be related to t&Cs published at the time of payment, I think that would be binding, unless a court ruled that it was an unfair clause - and I think the court would be looking at precise wording to determine that. As we are relying on one party's version of events, I cannot see how we can comment further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| achilles wrote: |
AxsMan, exactly.
alex_heney, if the t&Cs state that a contract payments will be related to t&Cs published at the time of payment, I think that would be binding, unless a court ruled that it was an unfair clause
|
Which would be absolutely certain if challenged.
That is one of the sample unfair terms given in the regulations.
"(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| masmith, I really don't think forums should be used as pseudo civil courts. |
OK, that maybe your opinon, how does that effect how I or others wish to use this forum?
| Quote: |
| Giving advice to someone who feels aggrieved is one thing. Condemning the other party's behaviour as 'appalling' is another. |
expressing an opinon, that's all, don't get too serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, er, but he would have. If the terms state that the amount payable is variable, it is up to the consumer to enter or not into the contract in the first place. Unless you know of case law that says differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
achilles, Nope.
If the contract says that the amount payable is variable, then that is fair enough, provided it is spelled out how it can vary, and provided the variance is in accordance with other laws.
But that is not at all the same thing as saying that the payment will depend on the T&C in force at time of payment.
They can change the amount of the payment, in accordance with the rules in the T&C when the contract is made, but they cannot change the rules for determining the amount after the contract is made. Which is what changing the T&C amounts to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, Hmm. So a lot depends on the original T&cs wording. I have always had contract lawyers holding my hand when needed. When I was running government contracts, Contracts Branch ruled the roost, and everything I did had to be either subject to contract, or without prejudice. Working for my present company, things are a little less formal - but even so we refer to legal advice where there is doubt. We simply don't know enough here to form a judgement in this case, IMV, and it's pretty pointless to do so, anyway.
Legalities aside, I have a lot of sympathy for a small TO caught by such a large currency fluctuation - and I don't think their behaviour is necessarily appalling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
AxsMan, £32 x 8 in my party is £259 that i have to find. Not that easy when you're trying to find money for a hundred other things all at the same time. I then have to chase round everyone in the group, listen to them whine and moan about being asked for more money and get it back off each person. I accept what you are saying about £32 not exactly being make or break stuff, but does this mean we should just pay it regardless? If they shouldn't be charging, they shouldn't be charging it - regardless of how much it is. When i organised the holiday for everyone (and what a pain in the backside that was) we set a limit on how much we wanted to spend per person and i chose the holiday based on that. For an extra £64 per couple i could have got us something better.
achilles, I understand what you are getting at - I sometimes take people on forums with a pinch of salt, however i can assure you that i have not come on here and started a thread about a situation i have made up in my own head. I have been trying to find a way of accessing cached pages of the T&Cs so that i can print links to the old and the new ones, but can't figure out a way of viewing the cached pages for a specific URL. As i said earlier, i have printed out copies of both sets!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
achilles, I understand your support for the TO, but i was fully paid up back in december. If they sit on my money (earning interest) for a few months, then realise that the exchange rate is not so good is it fair to hit me with the bill for that? As mentioned previously, what if the exchange rate had gone the other way? Would they have written to me and said "hey, good news, please find enclosed a cheque for £259". Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| magic_hat wrote: |
| I have been trying to find a way of accessing cached pages of the T&Cs so that i can print links to the old and the new ones, but can't figure out a way of viewing the cached pages for a specific URL. As i said earlier, i have printed out copies of both sets! |
Have you tried here? http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Based on that it is difficult to see any legal basis for the surcharge. They would in my view as a lawyer only have the right to change the price if their ts and cs permitted it. I would seek to speak to TO before you pay it. If they hold you over the barrel send a letter as highlighted above doing it under protest . I think you are doing exactly the right thing involving ABTA. They hung on to the money and could have paid when the exchange rates were higher
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
As someone else has previously mentioned, it was perfectly clear to all, especially those in the travel industry, that the pound was taking a hammering at the time when magic_hat paid his full balance in December. I'm not sure how much of the 10% or so drop has occurred since then? Had www.skiactivity.com issued the surcharge at that stage then I'd like to bet this thread would not have been started - magic_hat would have had the opportunity to consider if his holiday was worth the premium or if he wanted to go elsewhere. Instead, they wait until the cash is safely in the bank then apply unreasonable pressure to magic_hat and his/her merry band. Not acceptable and I for one am glad that magic_hat has brought this practice to my attention.
I wonder how this particular TO's return bookings ratio will loook next year ? If they've applied this surcharge to all clients there's gonna be a lot of unhappy campers ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| masmith wrote: |
| As someone else has previously mentioned, it was perfectly clear to all, especially those in the travel industry, that the pound was taking a hammering at the time when magic_hat paid his full balance in December. I'm not sure how much of the 10% or so drop has occurred since then? Had www.skiactivity.com issued the surcharge at that stage then I'd like to bet this thread would not have been started - magic_hat would have had the opportunity to consider if his holiday was worth the premium or if he wanted to go elsewhere. Instead, they wait until the cash is safely in the bank then apply unreasonable pressure to magic_hat and his/her merry band. Not acceptable and I for one am glad that magic_hat has brought this practice to my attention. |
Exactly. Had they notified me in December I would have been able to choose whether to pay the extra or cancel or switch to an alternative holiday. Telling me at this stage means that I don't really have that choice (well, i can cancel at this stage but i'll lose 55% of the holiday cost!).
Found it, tried it - the work Firewall thing won't let me get to it -
Address: www.archive.org
Page: /web/web.php
Reason: Proxies & Translators
If there is a legitimate business need for access you should raise a change request in the folowing catagory
Will give it a go from home later
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| magic_hat wrote: |
AxsMan, £32 x 8 in my party is £259 that i have to find. Not that easy when you're trying to find money for a hundred other things all at the same time. I then have to chase round everyone in the group, listen to them whine and moan about being asked for more money and get it back off each person. I accept what you are saying about £32 not exactly being make or break stuff, but does this mean we should just pay it regardless? If they shouldn't be charging, they shouldn't be charging it - regardless of how much it is. When i organised the holiday for everyone (and what a pain in the backside that was) we set a limit on how much we wanted to spend per person and i chose the holiday based on that. For an extra £64 per couple i could have got us something better.
! |
er £32 X 8 = £256 (at least on my calculator  )
I do understand your point though, but at the end of the day a trip to the 3V is going to set you back what £700 - £1000 per person? Of course no-one wants to pay any more than they have to but if currency fluctuations make things cost more, c'est la vie. I'm not sure it's worth getting that worked up about, not going through the pain and anguish of lawyers and courts (I'm sure the lawyers will disagree but then they would wouldn't they), just to get back £32 per head.
I'm not sure what you would have got 'better' for £32 each, but suspect it wouldn't have been much (and that would probably have gone up too!). Be honest, was price your main concern when booking? If so why didn't you pick Bansko?
BTW I don't blame you for venting on here at all (see my whinge about Thomson flights for an example of me letting off steam!), I suppose what I'm saying is don't let the lawyers turn this into something that takes over your life. Vent and move on, enjoy the week, and don't waste too much of your life worrying about £32 - you can't take it with you, so it's just coming off the kids inheritance anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
AxsMan, If this did get to court (and the companies would be stupid to let it), then it would be a small claims track case, and no lawyers should be involved, on either side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
AxsMan, It's £32 and some pennies each 
I picked the 3V because that's where i want to go... others in the group were more concerned by price than location (the new skiers) and would happily have gone to Bansko because they might not know any different. I took the agreed budget and shopped around and found the best i could for the price. The extra £32 per person would have got us a nicer chalet in a slightly closer to the slopes location.
I posted the thread initially to get some feedback and see if anyone else had been affected. It has turned into a bit of a monster, but i have been grateful for some of the comments and assistance. I am pusuing it with Ski Activity (unsuccessfully so far) mainly as i would just like an answer as to where in their T&Cs they believe gives them the right to charge this.
I have spent far more time on this so far than i would like to have done for the sake of £32. Like you suggest, is it really worth it? Truth be told, probably not - but once you've started and set off your emails....
I'll tell you this though - It’s the last time ever that I organize a group trip – talk about more trouble than it’s worth!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AxsMan, magic_hat, It's got to be done on a 'My way or the Highway' basis... no 'suggestions' 'comments' or 'feedback' are tolerated when I do them. Anyone who thinks they can do a better job, gets the job. Otherwise, shut up, turn up and pay up 
Sorry - getting OT...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you had of joined the € we wouldnt be having this discussion would we? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Ordhan, yes, because some of us that are skiing in Switzerland have also had surcharges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that arguing about whether it's worth pursuing £32 when you're spending £hundreds on a holiday to 3V anyway, is slightly missing the point.
If (and I say IF, as knowing what forums can be like I am not assuming anything) the company is acting outside of the law and indeed outside of their own Ts & Cs under which the contract was agreed (or changing them covertly, thus acting outside of the law anyway), then I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and yes I do think it's pretty appalling.
Maybe £32 isn't much to some people, but for those who have to budget down to the last £ for a holiday (yes even in the 3V) it makes a difference. And it's rather a large leap of logic to assume that everyone who goes to the 3V is loaded. Advising someone to just 'suck it up' when we know nothing of their personal circumstances is somewhat presumptious as is pointing out how much someone is likely to have already spent on a holiday (Oooh look, my first Snowheads rant!).
And even then, it's hardly the point, the law is the law, and if a company has no scruples about acting outside of it for small amounts, who's to say they wouldn't do the same for larger amounts. Only by pointing it out and pursuing it do you make it not worth THEIR while to try and treat their customers in an underhand manner and hope they will get away with it.
I have sympathy for any person or TO hit by currency fluctuations, but I do think that in (apparently) breaking the law and fiddling their own Ts & Cs to illegally pass it onto customers, they are behaving appallingly (to use an emotive word ).
Caveat: I know we are only hearing one side.
Anyway, here's hoping for a satisfactory and speedy resolution  .
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned before - Ski Activitys Ts&Cs are covered by the Laws of Scotland and not England - which is worth bearing in mind before taking any advice from the 'armchair solicitors'
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
ropetow, they are based in Perthshire.
I think if you were getting that stuck in, you'd be consulting a 'real' solicitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
AxsMan, OK I've calmed down now, but you did say he probably shouldn't go to the 3V if £32 is an issue, I'm guessing your tongue must have been firmly in your cheek at that point .
Anyway here's (still) hoping for a satisfactory resolution!
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
magic_hat, Glad you managed to get it sorted. I think you have got the fair outcome and also hopefully Ski Activity won't now find themselves in the same position again as you have alerted them to the fact that their T&C's were outdated. Hope you enjoy your holiday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
magic_hat, top effort, and eventual credit to the companies involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
magic_hat, great news. I suspect you won't have been the only one kicking up a fuss either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Helen Beaumont, no. Let's hope it doesn't hit Ski Activity too hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
as a lawyer, i love the way they referred the matter to the legal team rather than doing what was clearly the decent thing 
anyway, sounds like the right result has been achieved and hopefully the TO now understands that if your assets are in one currency and your liabilities in another there is a risk which they ought to cover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, is it clearly the decent thing? It looks as though it's the legal thing. However, whilst the consumer can become the underdog, he can also be the one 'screwing over' rather than the one 'screwed over'. In this case, whilst the t&cs should have been right first time (and that is probably the main lesson for SA) the wild fluctuation of the Euro is an unusual circumstance, which could hit a small company hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
magic_hat, pleased for you ... although I wouldn't rush too quickly to praise the people at SA .. had you not kicked up the fuss there's no chance in hell they would have removed the surcharge. In the end it was they who were pushed into a corner, not you. Really, they had little choice once they were made aware of the facts and they were prepared to listen.
Smaller TO's who could be hit hard by unusual circumstances (such as wild fluctuation in exchange rates), really should pay more attention to their advertised and published T+C's ... be it on their own website/publications or those of their associates, in this case Iglu. Sorry if this doesn't please some, but I don't have too much sympathy with them for that, it is, at the end of the day, their business to make sure they get these things right. Maybe an expensive mistake on their part and I'm sure one they won't be repeating in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Arno, is it clearly the decent thing? It looks as though it's the legal thing. However, whilst the consumer can become the underdog, he can also be the one 'screwing over' rather than the one 'screwed over'. In this case, whilst the t&cs should have been right first time (and that is probably the main lesson for SA) the wild fluctuation of the Euro is an unusual circumstance, which could hit a small company hard. |
of course it is! they are a business. they also get to set their payment terms and their general terms and conditions. these very rarely get negotiated - it's take it or leave it. they have every opportunity to protect themselves against currency fluctuations (doesn't need to be hard - you could just put your money in a Euro account at the start of the season, quote your price in Euros or you could do more sophisticated things if you don't actually have money in hand). they haven't given the consumer any opportunity to protect themselves by warning that the price is subject to currency fluctuations.
if a business goes bust because they make bad decisions, there is no reason why people should feel sorry for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
| ..........if a business goes bust because they make bad decisions, there is no reason why people should feel sorry for them |
magic_hat may if SA goes bust after he's paid up and before he goes on holiday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
, but this seems something of a storm in a teacup to me. If £32 per head is make or break stuff then you should probably not be heading for the 3V in the first place. I mean that's barely more than a round of drinks for 6 in most bars there 
