 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Well done... bow, scrape, doff, doff, tug, tug
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Bet there's a TO reading all this and thinking "We're doomed Captain, we're all doomed" . . . or just
Oh F***!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Masque, No .. they're probably having a good giggle at what they can get away with ...
Beginning to understand that I've been referring to punters unnecessarily as customers all these years. Id never appreciated so many (more than zero) expected, nay wanted, to be treated badly ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Boredsurfing, .. it's 'Going Gold' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The resolution of (construction) disputes is based upon the simple idea that the party that has been wronged should be 'put back in the position as if the the default had not occured', so in this case it would mean there is no financial loss, i.e payment for all expenses incurred and the rebooking the same holiday at an acceptable date this season, or in financial terms the offer of a sum of money that equates to doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
If a TO sells a and it is at a market rate then I do see if the trip was £200 in jan or £500 at half term, it is still at the market rate for that time, and i do not see if the deal included for the cost of eating caviar and drinking champagne every night instead of beer and bread, has any bearing on the liability of the respective parties. |
It doesn't make any difference to whether they are liable, and I don't think anyone has suggested it might.
What it probably does make a difference to is how much the additional compensation (on top of a refund) must be to class as "reasonable". |
the quantum of any dispute is not governed or limited buy the original agreement value, if a plumber fits a toilet and blocks the drainage which in turn floods the entire street, the compensation is not subject to the fact that the plumber had a £100 contract. Likewise the fact that a holiday may be a cheap holiday should not restrict the level of compensation to anything below that which is justly or rightly deserved
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Kruisler wrote: |
just wanted to say this thread should be shown as an example of how to vent/deal with problems with dignity.
|
Scrap that... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| The resolution of (construction) disputes is based upon the simple idea that the party that has been wronged should be 'put back in the position as if the the default had not occured', so in this case it would mean there is no financial loss, i.e payment for all expenses incurred and the rebooking the same holiday at an acceptable date this season, or in financial terms the offer of a sum of money that equates to doing this. |
Only renting the chalet, not building the bloody thing. The OP has had his money back. He's been offered compensation. Where's the financial damage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Bode Swiller, he should be put back in the position he was in before the TO defaulted, which means a holiday in the same chalet at a later convenient date, or the equivalent compensation for him to book such a holiday, after all he is the one with 'clean hands' in this dispute, and any one who finds themselves in the judicial system 'with clean hands' is in a good postion
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
The resolution of (construction) disputes is based upon the simple idea that the party that has been wronged should be 'put back in the position as if the the default had not occured', so in this case it would mean there is no financial loss, i.e payment for all expenses incurred and the rebooking the same holiday at an acceptable date this season, or in financial terms the offer of a sum of money that equates to doing this.
|
Good point, but this form of restitution is not possible in this case - the horse has already bolted - and that is why, traditionally, compensation is an additional remedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drkpower, cross posted
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
the quantum of any dispute is not governed or limited buy the original agreement value, if a plumber fits a toilet and blocks the drainage which in turn floods the entire street, the compensation is not subject to the fact that the plumber had a £100 contract. Likewise the fact that a holiday may be a cheap holiday should not restrict the level of compensation to anything below that which is justly or rightly deserved
|
Not governed or limited by it, but price is a RELEVANT factor in the determination of the amount of compensation. As i have said previously, the equivalent Irish legislation uses the price of the package as the determining factor in providing for the LOWEST LEVEL to which the TO, in its contract, can limit compensation (twice the cost of the original package price).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, he should be put back in the position he was in before the TO defaulted, which means a holiday in the same chalet at a later convenient date, or the equivalent compensation for him to book such a holiday, after all he is the one with 'clean hands' in this dispute, and any one who finds themselves in the judicial system 'with clean hands' is in a good postion |
You are assuming that the OP is 100% in the right. We don't actually know. And there is no equivalent week really as 1st week of Jan is about as low as low season can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The customer is always right, Swiller. It's surprising to have to remind you of this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Bode Swiller, later convenient date for the customer not equivalent week, because it is the TO wo has defaulted
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
drkpower, sorry but whilst I am sure it was all a good read I had no intention of reading all that has passed between you and AlexH , but the setting of a 'lowest' level of compensation is not a bad thing I suppose, I am just surprised that under any reasonable legal system that compensation can be limited/set in any way because it is impossible to pre-judge a situation that has not even occured and may well be punitive or a penalty on the TO. This is then an interesting point, because if it effectively becomes a 'penalty' which is something that does not site easy with the law and I am not sure whether it can be enforced, well this is the case under construction law anyway 
If I bought something like a Tag Heuer watch in a sale as a cheap deal and it needed replacing becasue it was faulty, then I should get a replacement - simple really, and if the item is not in stock then I will wait for it and have it later, or accept a better Tag, but please do not give me a Seiko or my money back, I simply want what I bought in the first place, and this is all that the OP seemed to want - the holiday that he had booked, irrespective of how much he paid for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops, customer has accepted their money back in full. They are now arguing that the compensation isn't high enough. That's the argument right now as far as I can tell. Replacement holiday "at a convenient date" doesn't enter into it. All such possibilities are ancient history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| If I bought something like a Tag Heuer watch in a sale as a cheap deal and it needed replacing becasue it was faulty, then I should get a replacement - simple really, and if the item is not in stock then I will wait for it and have it later, or accept a better Tag, but please do not give me a Seiko or my money back, I simply want what I bought in the first place, and this is all that the OP seemed to want - the holiday that he had booked, irrespective of how much he paid for it. |
Yes, but he accepted his money back. Game almost over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, in which case I would recommend checking how much the same holiday costs later this season and provide the refunded sum as payment for the holiday, or expect the difference in price by way of compensation so he will be able to book something equitable with someone else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| If I bought something like a Tag Heuer watch in a sale as a cheap deal and it needed replacing becasue it was faulty, then I should get a replacement - simple really, and if the item is not in stock then I will wait for it and have it later, or accept a better Tag, but please do not give me a Seiko or my money back, I simply want what I bought in the first place, and this is all that the OP seemed to want - the holiday that he had booked, irrespective of how much he paid for it. |
Yes, but he accepted his money back. Game almost over. |
Nope
The compensation is an additional remedy ON TOP OF the right to a refund so its still available to him (unless he signed something sneakily drafted by the TO which is quite possible).
And as clarification Rayscoops, that limitation i referred to earlier (of twice the holiday price) is the lowest ceiling on compensation that a TO can include in a contract with a customer; in other words, from an Irish TO, a customer can get anywhere BETWEEN 0 and an amount that equates to twice the price of their holiday BUT NO MORE THAN THAT. What Nielson's do is say, you can get amount between 0 and £25 and then you can feck off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drkpower, is that enforceable under law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, in which case I would recommend checking how much the same holiday costs later this season and provide the refunded sum as payment for the holiday, or expect the difference in price by way of compensation so b able to book something equitable with someone else |
I'll try one more time... the OP accepted a full refund! Game over. If he'd wanted to go down your route he needed to refuse the money and somehow escalate the dispute and make demands re getting the holiday he wanted. He didn't do that, he accepted the dosh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| drkpower wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| If I bought something like a Tag Heuer watch in a sale as a cheap deal and it needed replacing becasue it was faulty, then I should get a replacement - simple really, and if the item is not in stock then I will wait for it and have it later, or accept a better Tag, but please do not give me a Seiko or my money back, I simply want what I bought in the first place, and this is all that the OP seemed to want - the holiday that he had booked, irrespective of how much he paid for it. |
Yes, but he accepted his money back. Game almost over. |
Nope
The compensation is an additional remedy ON TOP OF the right to a refund so its still available to him (unless he signed something sneakily drafted by the TO which is quite possible).
And as clarification Rayscoops, that limitation i referred to earlier (of twice the holiday price) is the lowest ceiling on compensation that a TO can include in a contract with a customer; in other words, from an Irish TO, a customer can get anywhere BETWEEN 0 and an amount that equates to twice the price of their holiday BUT NO MORE THAN THAT. What Nielson's do is say, you can get amount between 0 and £25 and then you can feck off. |
yes, he's now only arguing about the compo... and we're not in Ireland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
Boredsurfing, maybe they made him an offer he couldn't refuse  |
Mr Bremner is strangely quiet now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Bode Swiller, I believe there is still some legal course of action that he could follow even though he has accepted his refund for the holiday, but it may not be within the confines of his 'agreement' and requires that he has not signed anything that said something like 'full, final and legally binding settlement of all issues pertinent to the dispute'. It is not over until the carbohydrately challenged female has sung her last gasp
The fact the he has had his dosh does not preclude another 10 pages here either 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boredsurfing, I sent him a PM and suggested he entered the Montalbert-Villaroger Paradiski Challenge and that you were handling all lodging and transfer requirements. Hope that was OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
rayscoops wrote:
Bode Swiller, in which case I would recommend checking how much the same holiday costs later this season and provide the refunded sum as payment for the holiday, or expect the difference in price by way of compensation so b able to book something equitable with someone else
I'll try one more time... the OP accepted a full refund! Game over. If he'd wanted to go down your route he needed to refuse the money and somehow escalate the dispute and make demands re getting the holiday he wanted. He didn't do that, he accepted the dosh.
|
Incorrect - they were obliged to offer a full refund and his acceptance of same DOES NOT prejudice his right to compensation which is an ADITIONAL REMEDY under the legislation (irish and english)
| Quote: |
drkpower, is that enforceable under law?
|
Rayscoops, not sure which bit you are referring to? Im tempted to direct you to the last 5 pages of crap but i wont....... The twice the price of the package bit is in the Irish legislation only - the English equivalent is a limitation which is "not unreasonable" and Nielsons have a limit of £25 - is it reasonable....? good question....? i dont think so but what do i know.....
| Quote: |
and we're not in Ireland
|
Well, you cant have everything.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
rayscoops, I'm sure, if he and the other 10 wanted to, he could make a career out of complaining to Neilson / Fast Track and even pulling together a legal case, but a proper lawyer would tell him to go and get a life. He booked an extremely cheap holiday, it went wrong (not his fault), he was offered an alternative (and, let's face it, Les Arcs is actually a good place for a mixed group and not that different to Courchevel), he didn't refuse it he simply decided to "no show" and cost the TO 11 aircraft seats and accommodation costs, he accepted a full refund and, while all this was going on, decided to tell not quite the full story to the general public, labelling the TO's efforts "a fiasco". If I'm the judge the first thing I'd say is "what are we doing here?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
drkpower, is any limit on compensation enforceable at law, whereby it has not be set in legislation or does not have some statutory history?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| drkpower, is that enforceable under law? |
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1992/Uksi_19923288_en_1.htm
Regulation 13, para 3 - Assuming you accept drkpower's interpretation as to whether that actually applies in this instance.
I don't believe it as clear cut as he thinks, but fully accept it may apply.
It would be up to the courts to decide what the minimum level of cpmensation would be.
The ABTA rules also state that the TO MUST offer "reasonable" compensation on top of a refund in this situation, and that definitely does apply, but is not enforceable by law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| drkpower wrote: |
| Incorrect - they were obliged to offer a full refund and his acceptance of same DOES NOT prejudice his right to compensation which is an ADITIONAL REMEDY under the legislation (irish and english) |
if you read what I say, you'll see that i'm agreeing that he can still go for compo... but it ain't going to add up to much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Bode Swiller, are involved in the travel industry in some way or another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
rayscoops, a leading question M'lud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| If I'm the judge the first thing I'd say is "what are we doing here?" |
Your Honour, the Old Bailey was double-booked. We have therefore transferred you to Ilford County Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK you "legal eagles" let's turn the table and get a little hypothetical shall we? (Everyone other than rayscoops, alex_heney, drkpower can now turn to page 46)... What if I was about to book 400 people on a business conference to one of Neilson's summer sporty resorts but, on the strength of the OP's very public comments, decided to withdraw and go book with someone else thereby losing Neilson £250k. If the OP had in fact gone OTT and deliberately and unfairly put Neilson in a bad light (ie damaged their reputation), would Neilson have a justifiable case against the OP to seek damages?
Hey, I said it was hypothetical but I await your manuscripts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't travel insurance the mechanism by which one covers any consequential losses due to holiday cancellation?
Whilst anyone should seek as much compensation as possible (in proportion to the TO's negligence in preventing/catering for overbooking), I'm not sure a TO should be obliged to provide it beyond refund of the customer's administrative costs incurred in the process of arranging/cancelling the package. NB that's an ethical 'should' rather than a legal 'should'.
For example, what if the customer had made a £1,000 deposit on a heliskiing trip? (let's say such things are possible from Courchevel)
And what if given an oligarch rush on Courchevel accommodation the TO could source no alternative in the same resort that would be within even twice the price of the deal they had made with the unscrupulous supplier? Should a TO be forced to provide an alternative in the same resort no matter what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
OK you "legal eagles" let's turn the table and get a little hypothetical shall we? (Everyone other than rayscoops, alex_heney, drkpower can now turn to page 46)... What if I was about to book 400 people on a business conference to one of Neilson's summer sporty resorts but, on the strength of the OP's very public comments, decided to withdraw and go book with someone else thereby losing Neilson £250k. If the OP had in fact gone OTT and deliberately and unfairly put Neilson in a bad light (ie damaged their reputation), would Neilson have a justifiable case against the OP to seek damages?
Hey, I said it was hypothetical but I await your manuscripts... |
What are you doing to us!! do you hate us that much that you want to put us through another 10 pages of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| Isn't travel insurance the mechanism by which one covers any consequential losses due to holiday cancellation? |
Yeah but the cancellation would need to be for things like illness or injury prior to the trip, or death of a loved one etc. I don't think this would count as a cancellation, more of an alteration. In the US I read that they now have travel insurance with a "cancel for any reason" benefit which would have covered this scenario but only for the price paid less an excess no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
