 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dippy wrote: |
Skiworld update - incase anyone interested.
Basically not getting anywhere at all with a refund - still offering credit note or deferral only.
I have asked them to confirm if their credit notes will have the same backing as ABTA are currently advising - waiting to hear. |
Yes the RCN (Refund Credit Note) will have ABTA and ATOL backing in the event of financial insolvency. The monies are 100% guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| snowdave wrote: |
It's interesting the different responses from banks/card companies.
A mate raised with Amex that his holiday company (unnamed, since this thread is supposed to be about the good guys!) was refusing a refund, voucher or similar, basically telling its customers to get lost. He got through on the phone straight away, and Amex immediately raised a query, credited him the funds, and have given the provider 20 days (I think) to prove it did provide the holiday (tough to do when it didn't!).
In contrast, my credit card company has shown no acknowledgement of any paperwork or messages. |
Visa and Mastercard actually have different contractual wording regarding charge backs. So their approaches may differ depending on the individual circumstances. If flights are involved with any other element of a holiday then the supplier must be ATOL registered with the CAA - so they are responsible for refunding if your holiday didn't proceed. If you were one of the very unlucky ones in resort (say France on Saturday 13 March - off the top of my head) then your holiday did proceed and this was a curtailment and your recompense would need to come from your insurers. The Principal/tour operator/ATOL holder would be responsible for getting you home safely. Dont forget that they would be paying extra to get you home on top of all of their costs for that week that they would have paid out. If they just provided accommodation then that is a different matter and depends on their contract but most likely would be a force majeure clause and in reality little legal obligation to refund as they didn't cancel the holiday but a third party (FCO/local authority.WHO) prevented you from travelling. Snowfinders have been hit with a clause 75 charge back even though we refunded the client. We had no notification from anyone of this charge back. Sounds unbelievable but such are the times we are in. What will happen now, I guess, is that they will refund it back to us once the client admits it was resolved or we prove so. Basically, even if you receive funds via a charge back they can then reverse it just as easily - so beware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Snowfinders, Barclays tells me that at present, claims being processed date from March 10th, so it is currently about 6 weeks behind. Whether this improves or deteriorates further will depend on whether staff in India are allowed to return to work. This may affect how long any of these processes take; at least mine is now "in the system".
The situation I and my mate are in is that the holiday company hasn't provided the service (cancelled our trip 4 weeks in advance) and is declining any kind of refund. The contract contains not one but 3 force majeure clauses, which contradict each other, and hold as much water as a collander. One states that FM will not trigger compensation, but mentions nothing about refunds, another states that if FM causes the customer to cancel, they get a full refund, and another states that if FM causes the operator to cancel, we should refer to the other FM clauses. Our operator is deliberately misunderstanding a requirement not to compensate as meaning no need to refund. It's also claiming that a ski pass and accommodation deal isn't a package so it's outside PTR.
My recollection of the chargeback process is that very early on, the merchant is asked if it provided the goods/service, and if not, was it at the customer's choice or the merchant's choice. I don't think there's a box to tick that says "the Government made me do it", so it will be interesting to see how that gets handled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@Snowfinders, Barclays tells me that at present, claims being processed date from March 10th, so it is currently about 6 weeks behind. Whether this improves or deteriorates further will depend on whether staff in India are allowed to return to work. This may affect how long any of these processes take; at least mine is now "in the system".
The situation I and my mate are in is that the holiday company hasn't provided the service (cancelled our trip 4 weeks in advance) and is declining any kind of refund. The contract contains not one but 3 force majeure clauses, which contradict each other, and hold as much water as a collander. One states that FM will not trigger compensation, but mentions nothing about refunds, another states that if FM causes the customer to cancel, they get a full refund, and another states that if FM causes the operator to cancel, we should refer to the other FM clauses. Our operator is deliberately misunderstanding a requirement not to compensate as meaning no need to refund. It's also claiming that a ski pass and accommodation deal isn't a package so it's outside PTR.
My recollection of the chargeback process is that very early on, the merchant is asked if it provided the goods/service, and if not, was it at the customer's choice or the merchant's choice. I don't think there's a box to tick that says "the Government made me do it", so it will be interesting to see how that gets handled. |
That sounds to me like a straight case for your insurers to pay out being honest. It isn't a package so covered by PTRs. I cant see a section 75 being successful but I'm no expert. I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Snowfinders, Accommodation + ski pass contractually bound together is one of the very definitions of a package...!
Failure to provide contracted service is sufficient for a chargeback and/or S75, so I'll see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@Snowfinders, Barclays tells me that at present, claims being processed date from March 10th, so it is currently about 6 weeks behind. Whether this improves or deteriorates further will depend on whether staff in India are allowed to return to work. This may affect how long any of these processes take; at least mine is now "in the system".
The situation I and my mate are in is that the holiday company hasn't provided the service (cancelled our trip 4 weeks in advance) and is declining any kind of refund. The contract contains not one but 3 force majeure clauses, which contradict each other, and hold as much water as a collander. One states that FM will not trigger compensation, but mentions nothing about refunds, another states that if FM causes the customer to cancel, they get a full refund, and another states that if FM causes the operator to cancel, we should refer to the other FM clauses. Our operator is deliberately misunderstanding a requirement not to compensate as meaning no need to refund. It's also claiming that a ski pass and accommodation deal isn't a package so it's outside PTR.
My recollection of the chargeback process is that very early on, the merchant is asked if it provided the goods/service, and if not, was it at the customer's choice or the merchant's choice. I don't think there's a box to tick that says "the Government made me do it", so it will be interesting to see how that gets handled. |
(1) It is definitely a package.
(2) Under international law force majeure refers to unforeseen event or irresistible force beyond the control of the state - well the state was clearly in control of whether or not ski resorts were closed so, by definition, it isn't force majeure. Slightly bizarre I know but a lawyer explained it to me much better than that the other day while laughing. In any case, even if it was deemed to be FM, it does not free them of responsibility for their non-performance, it only delays it. Tell them to FM off.
(3) Remind them of the law but a charge back should work. If the issuer doesn't play ball there is always moneyclaimonline.
(4) Insurers have been kind of told by the Govt to pay out even though nearly all policies don't need to cover the circumstances (precisely because there are the PTR to protect consumers, so why underwrite for it?) Not sure how that will play out because insurer will strongly resist and rightly so. I don't want MY premium to go up because YOUR tour operator broke the law - if you get my gist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Pruman, thanks, yes, totally understand the liability chain and that's what I'm working my way through.
FM is almost impossible even in corporate law between highly educated parties (even 9/11 wasn't viewed as sufficient for WPP to trigger Material Adverse Change in the most well known case) so no way will it stick in consumer law, even if it was remotely well drafted (which mine isn't). However, the downside of MCOL and any legal approach is it's all well winning the legal case, but then you need judgement, then you need to collect, and for that the operator needs to remain solvent. This is actually relatively expensive (despite MCOL seeming cheap, costs can build), slow, with low chance of success - it's easy to recommend MCOL but in this situation I'd caution against it given low likelihood of getting any money back.
In the end, this will all fall back on the financial services industry - the acquirers (that'll be everyone's cost of using credit cards going up) and the insurance industry - that's who underwrites the ABTOT and ABTA bonds as well as the travel policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Snowfinders wrote: |
| .... . most likely would be a force majeure clause and in reality little legal obligation to refund as they didn't cancel the holiday but a third party (FCO/local authority.WHO) prevented you from travelling. .... |
Not referring to your organisation, but in general....
(1) "force majeure" may void a contract, but it doesn't allow the party who happens to be sitting on the money to keep it, either way.
(2) Or "a third party prevented the hotel from providing the service contracted to". You can't really have (1) and also argue this, but if you're arguing this, it works the other way around just as well => it's not relevant.
I think you could try to argue that the customer was liable for some of the unavoidable costs of the contract which directly arose from it, but I'd not bet you'd win. I'd argue that those are simply costs of being in business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@Snowfinders, Accommodation + ski pass contractually bound together is one of the very definitions of a package...!
Failure to provide contracted service is sufficient for a chargeback and/or S75, so I'll see how it goes. |
I don't honestly think it does. The PTRs are not that explicit. Where does it end by means of a package? You book a hotel and a bottle of champagne on arrival, or massage, or ask the hotelier for a manicure, etc. Regardless, best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
@Snowfinders, Barclays tells me that at present, claims being processed date from March 10th, so it is currently about 6 weeks behind. Whether this improves or deteriorates further will depend on whether staff in India are allowed to return to work. This may affect how long any of these processes take; at least mine is now "in the system".
The situation I and my mate are in is that the holiday company hasn't provided the service (cancelled our trip 4 weeks in advance) and is declining any kind of refund. The contract contains not one but 3 force majeure clauses, which contradict each other, and hold as much water as a collander. One states that FM will not trigger compensation, but mentions nothing about refunds, another states that if FM causes the customer to cancel, they get a full refund, and another states that if FM causes the operator to cancel, we should refer to the other FM clauses. Our operator is deliberately misunderstanding a requirement not to compensate as meaning no need to refund. It's also claiming that a ski pass and accommodation deal isn't a package so it's outside PTR.
My recollection of the chargeback process is that very early on, the merchant is asked if it provided the goods/service, and if not, was it at the customer's choice or the merchant's choice. I don't think there's a box to tick that says "the Government made me do it", so it will be interesting to see how that gets handled. |
(1) It is definitely a package.
(2) Under international law force majeure refers to unforeseen event or irresistible force beyond the control of the state - well the state was clearly in control of whether or not ski resorts were closed so, by definition, it isn't force majeure. Slightly bizarre I know but a lawyer explained it to me much better than that the other day while laughing. In any case, even if it was deemed to be FM, it does not free them of responsibility for their non-performance, it only delays it. Tell them to FM off.
(3) Remind them of the law but a charge back should work. If the issuer doesn't play ball there is always moneyclaimonline.
(4) Insurers have been kind of told by the Govt to pay out even though nearly all policies don't need to cover the circumstances (precisely because there are the PTR to protect consumers, so why underwrite for it?) Not sure how that will play out because insurer will strongly resist and rightly so. I don't want MY premium to go up because YOUR tour operator broke the law - if you get my gist. |
1. I'd dispute that. As I stated before in above post
2. I'd dispute that.
3. Maybe but depending on the end supplier's contract that may not be the case. Was the principal a tour operator or just a chalet/hotel owner? There is a difference albeit blurred these days.
4. Really? I'd be interested to know the details of any insurance company ignoring there clauses on the suggestion of the government.
Insurance premiums will go up and rest assured that holidays will be more expensive following this.
PS. Not trying to be argumentative just explaining that it isn't as cut and dry 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Snowfinders, the regulations are quite helpful in that respect - in the 2015 PTD it was clearly set at 25% of the value, in the 2018 legislation the 25% limit was not specified, but with 25% having been so clearly defined in 2015 I'm confident that would remain as a relevant threshold. A ski pass is even given as a specific example in the legislation. That's why I said it it was "one of the very definitions of a package".
From the legislation:
"Examples of other tourist services given by PTD 2015 (Recital (1 ) include admission to concerts, sports events, excursions or event parks, guided tours, ski passes and rental of sports equipment such as skiing equipment, or spa treatments"
" this only leads to the creation of a package (or LTA) if the ‘other tourist service’ is either (regulation 2(6)):
i. Advertised as an essential feature of the combination, or;
ii. Accounts for a significant proportion of the value of the combination.
Recital (1 of PTD 2015 states that if the ‘other tourist service’ 6 accounts for 25% or more of the value of the package then this should be indicative of it forming a significant proportion of the value of the package. “Value” is not defined in the 2018 PTRs although it will often coincide with the purchase price. In order to prevent circumvention, the intrinsic value may have to be considered where the price of the main service is artificially high, and the price of other tourist services is artificially low in order to bring the other tourist service below the significance threshold."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If it's the case that selling a room and a pass constitutes a package (something I'd dispute and would be up to the courts to decide) then I think everyone in travel may as well pack up and go as the risks as excessively high for low returns. It's prohibitively restrictive and if enforced would reduce service levels to the end user as accommodation providers wont dare do a thing for their clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Snowfinders wrote: |
| If it's the case that selling a room and a pass constitutes a package (something I'd dispute and would be up to the courts to decide) then I think everyone in travel may as well pack up and go as the risks as excessively high for low returns. It's prohibitively restrictive and if enforced would reduce service levels to the end user as accommodation providers wont dare do a thing for their clients. |
I keep putting this link up which spells out what one's rights are under the law. If you read it through you will see exactly what constitutes a package and when you are entitled by law to a refund. And yes, if accomodation and a ski pass is bought as a single transaction then that is a package.
This supercedes the 2015 legslation. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9780111168479
Note. The legislation covers refunds not compensation which is a separate matter and used by some companies to obfuscate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
For a slightly shorter version, here is the simplified ABTA version:
What is a package holiday?[b][/b]
A package is defined by The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 if you booked your holiday before 1 July 2018, or by The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 if booked after 1 July 2018.
If you booked your holiday before 1 July 2018[b][/b]
The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 define a 'package holiday' as follows:
1. The holiday must cover a period of at least 24 hours or involve overnight accommodation.
2. The holiday must consist of a combination of at least two of the following components:
-Transport (for example, flights, trains, coaches and ferries - free transfers from the airport to a hotel would not be included)
-Accommodation (this should be significant - it would include a berth on a cruise ship but not on a cross-channel ferry)
-Other tourist services that form a significant proportion of the package (for example, car hire).
-The holiday must be sold at an inclusive price.
Package holidays are required by law under the Package Travel Regulations to be financially protected.
Still confused?
A package holiday contains one contract, and this covers all of your travel arrangements and is clear on your confirmation invoice. If you're still not sure what you've booked, you should check with your travel company.
If you booked your holiday on or after 1 July 2018[u][/u]
A package holiday can come in many different forms and can be sold in different ways – from a ‘ready-made’ package (where the different travel services are put together for you by the travel company and offered at a single price) to many tailor-made trips (for example where you select different services from a range offered before paying for them together). However, they will all have the same level of financial and legal protection.
A package holiday must cover a period of at least 24 hours or involve overnight accommodation and is a combination of at least two different types of travel services, which are listed below:
-transport (such as a flight, coach or train but not transfers from an airport)
-accommodation (such as a hotel, villa or apartment)
-car rental
-a tourist service (such as a tour guide or a trip to a historical attraction) where this is a significant part of the holiday, either because of its value or because it is an essential part of the trip.
It counts as a package holiday if your travel company:
-Has asked you to pay a single price through a single payment
-Has let you select a combination of services – such as a flight and accommodation – before you agreed to pay for them
-Charged you an inclusive or total price for all the services you bought
-Advertised or sold the travel services to you as a package or using a similar term
-Sold you one travel service; and then transferred your details, including your payment details to another company, which you then booked another travel service through within the space of 24 hours.
https://www.abta.com/help-and-complaints/frequently-asked-questions/what-package-holiday
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I'd imagine a ski lift pass could very easily be defined as a "tourist service".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@porkpiefox, indeed, a ski pass is explicitly defined as such in the guidance notes for the 2018 PTR as I highlighted above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| snowdave wrote: |
| @porkpiefox, indeed, a ski pass is explicitly defined as such in the guidance notes for the 2018 PTR as I highlighted above. |
Ahh, but that would require me to fully read your post, in order to see that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@porkpiefox, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It's been a while since I checked in here. Has anyone got anywhere with Snowchateaux regarding lift pass/ski hire refunds? They were promised straight away but we've received nothing. As I paid by Visa debit card I am going to call my bank today and get them on the case. I can't be faffed with delay tactics any more, I've got plenty of other things on my plate. It's not like Snowchateaux are refunding accommodation costs anyway  ; they shouldn't have any problems refunding money for ski hire etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Scam, if your operator didn't provide the holiday, and isn't refunding, then what is stopping you going for the full amount when you speak to your bank? However, beware that Visa debit chargeback rules are probably the most merchant-friendly.
As I posted earlier, it's also worth noting that there's possibly a very long wait on a complaint via a bank - mine is quoting 6 weeks+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
We all booked flights separately so in our group of 4 are all doing different things for those (I personally am awaiting a promised EZY refund, and have an outbound 'open' ticket to Geneva with Swiss, lol). From Snowchateaux, the accommodation was paid on my credit card and SC are refusing to refund so we are all pursuing insurance claims. Initially tried the bank but they said to go for insurance first (of course!).
It's the 4x lift pass/ski hire on my debit card that I paid SC separately - which they promised would be refunded 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Snowfinders wrote: |
| If it's the case that selling a room and a pass constitutes a package (something I'd dispute and would be up to the courts to decide) then I think everyone in travel may as well pack up and go as the risks as excessively high for low returns. It's prohibitively restrictive and if enforced would reduce service levels to the end user as accommodation providers wont dare do a thing for their clients. |
It's only a package if sold together at an inclusive price. Selling accommodation, and then going back significantly later (i.e. not within say 24/48 hours) to offer to assist in getting lift passes, booking lessons etc is not be a package. But it does mean the elements have to be priced completely separately, so rules out those 'free ski pass' or similar offers which are accommodation discounts dressed up to look like something else!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Scam, if you paid on a credit card, that's higher up the liability chain than the insurance company, so you run the risk that the insurance company bats this back at you/the bank. Since chargeback has time limits (vary by provider) you may want to push it harder with your bank in the meantime.
If you make clear to Snowchateaux that you will charge back the ski passes if they don't refund promptly, that may spur more action - chargebacks cost the merchant money (the scheme charges them fees) so they'll be keen to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Today's principal developments in the refund/non-refund saga point to the growing scale of the crisis ... since the more weeks that holidays are cancelled the more consumers' money is accumulated and at stake/at risk ...
Daily Mail ...
"TUI EXTENDS HOLIDAY CANCELLATIONS TO ALL BOOKINGS FOR NEXT SIX WEEKS AS BANKS AND AIRLINES ARE ACCUSED OF BLOCKING £7BILLION IN REFUNDS OWED TO TOURISTS"
| Quote: |
- Airlines accused of illegally withholding refunds that should be paid in a week
- Some victims say they have been goaded into accepting credit-note vouchers
- Others describe refund processes as unclear, complex or time-consuming
- MPs to investigate the issue in series of hearings with aviation bosses next week |
The Sun ...
HOLIDAY HELL. BANKS BLOCK '£7BILLION IN HOLIDAY REFUNDS' LEAVING THOUSANDS OF HOLIDAYMAKERS OUT OF POCKET DUE TO COVID CANCELLATIONS
| Quote: |
The consumer group Which? says that the number of people using its free chargeback and Section 75 tools has soared to 100,000 since March, compared with 1,000 in January and February this year.
"While it is a very difficult time for businesses, the coronavirus outbreak has also put people’s finances under considerable pressure, and they deserve to get their money back if they want a refund for a cancelled event or trip, rather than a voucher or the option to rebook," said head of money at Which? Gareth Shaw. |
ABTA ...
"ABTA URGES GOVERNMENT TO EXTEND SALARY SUPPORT SCHEME FOR TRAVEL COMPANIES"
| Quote: |
ABTA is stepping up its ask to the Chancellor to extend the government’s salary support scheme for the UK travel industry, in recognition that travel companies will emerge from the current crisis much slower than other sectors of the UK economy ...
... Under the furlough scheme companies can apply for assistance with staff wages being paid by HMRC, 80% of wages are covered up to a maximum of £2,500 a month. ...
... However, the existing rules are overly restrictive and ABTA urges Ministers to relax the requirement which prevents furloughed staff from carrying out even non-revenue raising duties. Travel agents and tour operators are much needed right now, to assist with the disruption Covid-19 has caused travellers. Enabling these staff to go back to work will provide immediate benefits to customers whose holidays have been affected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@Scam, if you paid on a credit card, that's higher up the liability chain than the insurance company, so you run the risk that the insurance company bats this back at you/the bank. Since chargeback has time limits (vary by provider) you may want to push it harder with your bank in the meantime.
If you make clear to Snowchateaux that you will charge back the ski passes if they don't refund promptly, that may spur more action - chargebacks cost the merchant money (the scheme charges them fees) so they'll be keen to avoid. |
For the accommodation I initially went to my credit card company who told me to raise it with my travel insurance. So I've done that.
The lift passes/ski hire were paid by Visa debit card separately to SCX. I've just got off the phone to my bank who have raised a dispute under 'services not provided' so we shall see. I will tell SCX I have raised a dispute in the vain hope that gives them a kick up the **** to just refund me my monies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I just had a very helpful and interesting conversation with my travel insurance (AXA, bundled with my credit card).
1) I only filed the claim yesterday, they called today to run through and explain process. That puts them in "the good guys" box already for me. They have gone from 200 claims/day in normal times to 3,000 claims/day at present so things are a little slow.
2) They are generally expecting to pay out on most claims where it would have been against Government advice to travel, since standard policy wording is that you must not travel/are not covered for travel against Government advice.
3) Finally - they are very clear - you have to prove:
a) the provider has refused to refund, and
b) that you've been down chargeback and S75 with your payment provider.
Only after that will your claim be processed. They were clear that chargeback and S75 should pay out before insurance. They are also allowing 30 days for refunds from providers, rather than trying to hold them to 14 days as they view this as impractical. Of course, other insurers may take a different view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Seems the Competition and Markets Authority is getting ready to step in ...
| Quote: |
Help could be at hand for the tens of thousands of holidaymakers who’ve been refused refunds by their tour operators or have been fobbed off with vouchers and credit notes.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) says it will take holiday companies to court if they continue to flout the law and refuse to give customers cash refunds, which they are obliged to do under the terms of the Package Travel Regulations.
|
Full piece: https://thetraveljournalist.co.uk/help-for-holidaymakers-refused-refunds/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowdave wrote: |
I just had a very helpful and interesting conversation with my travel insurance (AXA, bundled with my credit card).
1) I only filed the claim yesterday, they called today to run through and explain process. That puts them in "the good guys" box already for me. They have gone from 200 claims/day in normal times to 3,000 claims/day at present so things are a little slow.
2) They are generally expecting to pay out on most claims where it would have been against Government advice to travel, since standard policy wording is that you must not travel/are not covered for travel against Government advice.
3) Finally - they are very clear - you have to prove:
a) the provider has refused to refund, and
b) that you've been down chargeback and S75 with your payment provider.
Only after that will your claim be processed. They were clear that chargeback and S75 should pay out before insurance. They are also allowing 30 days for refunds from providers, rather than trying to hold them to 14 days as they view this as impractical. Of course, other insurers may take a different view. |
Very early doors in this whole saga I contacted my insurers (also a bundled annual bank product) and informed them of a potential claim. Flights, ferry, ski pass and daughters school trip, all merged together as there were integrated into one two centre Easter hol. I said however I hoped it would come to naught as I was hoping for each individual piece to be sorted by the provider, the lady I spoke to assured me I was covered if it came to it, but also was grateful (for want of a better word) that I acknowledged they were a last recourse.
It's maybe 5 weeks on now and the airline, ferry Co and TO for the school trip have all done the correct thing and refunded. Ski pass is still up in the air, but tbf it was an annual pass with a repeat customer early bird discount, so I won't moan if I get nothing but would hope for maybe an extra discount on next year (CdMB though, so I won't hold my breath).
Insurers are not imo there to pay out on services not provided under a contract, that's what refunds (via banks only if necessary) are for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Insurers are not imo there to pay out on services not provided under a contract, that's what refunds (via banks only if necessary) are for. |
Agreed and a point I've made repeatedly in many previous posts is about the liability chain - it starts with the operator, then moves onto chargeback and/or Section 75 via card company, then insurer. Operators and agents are desperately (incorrectly) telling people to go to their insurers first because they'd rather not have to wear the chargebacks.
However, whilst I agree with the point you make, I'd observe that insurance companies can (and do) only expect reasonable mitigation. Otherwise, they would be telling all their clients to take providers to court, and then if they failed in that, to take the credit card company to the Ombudsman and then court, etc. It's important for people to start a claim (as I've done) before you time out on being able to file it (mine was 30 days after event), and then pause whilst waiting for other wheels to turn.
I wonder if this will turn into the next PPI for the banks - for years they have been (and still are) marketing aggressively the benefits of the protection that a credit card gives you, so if they don't pay out, it could come back to bite them when the regulator eventually gets back to a more "normal" phase of working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| ... Insurers are not imo there to pay out on services not provided under a contract, that's what refunds (via banks only if necessary) are for. |
| snowdave wrote: |
| ... [the next PPI for the banks]... marketing aggressively the benefits of the protection that a credit card gives you, so if they don't pay out .... |
It's interesting to contrast these two attitudes.
On the second, Section 75 is for Credit Cards, which is not at the discretion of the card company.
Chargeback is different but still forms part of the contract between customer and bank.
Your bank/ card issuer would simply lose in court should they try to not honour either.
The first is much closer to PPI in that insurance company advertising seems to suggest they actually insure
this sort of thing, something bolstered by the fact that they've all started explicitly excluding it in the future 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Travel insurance is designed to cover your own costs - if you have to cancel because of illness/etc, or if your stuff gets nicked, or if you need medical treatment, etc. I have never seen it advertised as covering your tour operator failing to supply the holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
1gunsalute - lots of insurance policies cover the risk of "curtailment" and list the circumstances under which a claim should be payable, all things being equal. You are quite right very few if any policies offer cover for the tour operator failing to supply the 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?
|
|
Yes, curtailment is usually covered for situations where you have to curtail for your own personal reasons
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Two interesting interviews this morning:
1. With Simon Calder, recommending that holidaymakers (or, rather, non-holidaymakers) pay the balance on holidays that very likely won't go ahead ... so that travel companies are obliged to pay full refunds. Bizarre but true? - discuss. The interview was on ITV, reported by the Daily Express:
"BRITONS WARNED 'PAY HOLIDAY INSTALMENTS' NOW OR RISK FORFEITING REFUND FOR CANCELLED TRIP"
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1276364/coronavirus-holiday-refund-holiday-instalment-travel-news-uk
2. With Michael O'Leary, explaining the airline's tactics in the face of the CV-19 shutdown, international competition and airline subsidies. But he also said some interesting stuff about refunds and the timescales that are likely to be involved in processing many millions of them. The interview went out on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hq1f
Finally ... updated info. on how one ski travel company - Ski Miquel - is communicating with its customers, roughly 6 weeks after the crisis erupted ... "we are pleased to confirm that all our guests and staff were successfully repatriated last month following the sudden closure of our resorts" ... and 40 years since Ski Miquel was founded (it says here). Over to 'Ralph, Managing Director' ...
https://www.skimiquelholidays.co.uk/
| Quote: |
Please remember we are a small family-run business and our own tour operator liability insurance does not cover any financial liability on our part to refund holiday costs ...
... Should you require Ski Miquel to provide a credit or a refund for the main holiday cost, please contact us with confirmation of the rejection of your insurance claim and we will provide you with a link to enable you to complete our online credit/refund request form ...
... Please note that if you pursue a refund through your credit card company and a chargeback is made to Ski Miquel, we may need to charge an administration fee for dealing with this, so we would urge you to contact us directly with your refund request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Has anyone had a refund off Swiss Air yet? I've had an email (after phoning them twice) confirming that a refund is/will be payable-just wondering what the likely time scale might be? Expecting weeks/months it must be said, but just wondered if they had started the process. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
After a month, am still waiting to hear from barclaycard in response to my s75 claim against Swiss Air.
The flights (heathrow - geneva, last week of march) were not cancelled, they actually flew, and on time. Just without any brit skiers as opposed to returning swiss residents and others with 'compelling reasons' . Because that was the Swiss gov't clampdown.
Swiss Air are part of the Lufthansa group which also includes Austrian (Air). I had booked a non skiing trip with them in mid May. These flights have been cancelled. Austrian are trying very hard to get people to accept rebooking credit but I have persisted in requesting a refund from them directly. No money or formal confirmation yet but my partner managed to get through to their HQ in Austria on the phone and they said our refund will arrive after another month or so.
The Austrian govt had completely banned all flight entry by UK citizens. Interesting that the UK gov't hasn't, as far as I know, banned or even restricted incoming air travel from Austria or any European country (& hardly any non European countries). I think this tells us something about international relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I needed to phone a couple of times to chase up my initial request but I got eventually confirmation that a refund would be due but with no indication when it would happen. But my flights were actually cancelled which makes things clear cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A HUGE thank you to everyone who has posted sensible advice on this thread. I managed (after quite some effort) to get all my refunds sorted and now my son & family would appear to have done the same.
Here's to next season!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I have now received a full refund of the Inghams holiday booked through Ski Solutions. From first contact it took nearly 6 weeks of doggedly chasing different people at both companies in attempts to obtain information and better still, clear commitment to a refund - responses were any of non-existent, very delayed, contradicting content of Ts&Cs, or unreassuring: overall it was a stressful period so it was a huge relief to have the money back in my account.
My overall verdict is "Could have done better" though they did come through in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that refunds are seemingly now starting to flow ? Related to all the negative press\Consumer bodies flexing their muscles ? Dunno ? My refund from BA turned up today for a 20th March flight. I had to spam their inbox on Instagram to get a response, which initially was that the refund had been processed before but had had been ‘rejected’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
