andy66 wrote:

denny.53 wrote:

Yes but £117 per person to Tenerife is believable

whereas £23 for TWO people for THREE weeks in CUBA isn't.!

Is £117 per person believable ? Really ???? For 2 weeks AI at a 5* That £8.36 per day , not even taking into account the flight , what would you get for that ? A loaf a bread and bottle of lambrini , not really an expectation of 5* AI

Obviously it wasn't true either , as the post from Bellybally unravels the story , but the point was that it Thomas Cook , obviously mis pricing and annoying people ( because they are not updating the obvious mistake quickly )

At what point though does something become a believable price ? Seems a bit harsh to criticise the OP for believing £23 for 2 for 3 weeks , which is ridiculous but then finding the Tenerife price believable .

If £8.36 per day is unbelievable for a short haul holiday how much less believable is 50p per day for a long haul holiday

I would have more respect for the OP if they admitted they knew they were trying it on to see what would happen than try and make us believe they thought this was a genuine offer not a misprice.

Some selfish people aren't going to be happy until the likes of Thomas Cook go bust and then all of the rest of the more genuine holiday makers who are prepared to pay a fair price for their holidays suffer exorbitantly high prices because there remains only one big name in the business who can then charge what they like.

Before computerisation people would have been told it was a typo and expected to get over it and book at the proper price, and not whinge on at the injustice of it all, and ask for Compo.

Just wondering, if, as Tucker says above, you book a holiday and when you get home decide you don't want/ cant afford it, does the fact that you haven't yet received booking/contract comfirmation allow you to escape the penalties of cancelling.
Somehow I doubt it, I imagine that as soon as you click "accept" or if in the shop sign the paperwork, then you are committed.
Why is it fair for the supplier to be held to differing conditions, which are effectively a second chance at repricing a holiday.
OK, the figures quoted above are stretching credibility a long way but it is quite fair for a prospective customer seeing the prices as a marketing tool to encourage early bookings or fill empty seats/.beds that are already contracted to.
We frequently see adverts portraying holidays from £29 etc. and only when reading the conditions etc do we find the true cost, so if the 'small ' print doesn't clearly indicate this then we should be permitted to assume we have found a one off bargain.
As a matter of fairness......if I were to book a holiday for £1000 pp, should I expect the travel agent to inform me that the same holiday was available to me at a cost of £750 at the agent next door?
Obviously not, they would argue that it was up to me to check before accepting their offer.
In the same way it should be up to them to check before making an offer.
In the comparison with a simple shopping trip, if an item was mispriced and the till operator permitted the sale, would it be fair for the stores manager to chase you down the street wanting to cancel the sale?
Or would it be a "done deal" with a contract in place once money had changed hands, which is effectively what happens when you put your card details on line and click "accept" or "go ahead".
After all that is said , i do agree that the OP is unlikely to benefit anymore than the discount voucher, which it has to said is not a bad result at all!

Much depends on the nature of the confirmation that is received when making an on-line booking - it's not always a confirmation that the booking has been accepted but onlly that is has been received. I've never booked a package on-line with Thomas Cook to know if this is the case with them or not but the complaints that often arise with some on-line TAs happen because the customer has assumed that the email confirming what they have booked is confirmation that the booking has been accepted.

The T&Cs on Thomas Cook's website makes it clear that prices are not 'live' and can change between submitting a booking (ie the customer asking to buy at the price offered) and the booking being accepted (ie the TO agreeing to sell it to the customer for the price quoted on the website). In this instance we never got the full details of what the 'confirmation' exactly was confirming because the OP took umbrage at the advice offered by other members.

SM

The T&Cs on Thomas Cook's website makes it clear that prices are not 'live' and can change between submitting a booking (ie the customer asking to buy at the price offered) and the booking being accepted (ie the TO agreeing to sell it to the customer for the price quoted on the website

I accept this ,but, it simply gives the seller carte blanche to, if they wish, give everyone an artificially low price and then when you book , inform you that the price has increased.
Of course you can simply refuse the newer higher price but there is an opportunity for the operator to increase the price by a small amount, e,g, £25-£50, and after you have done al the research you may simply say OK .
If these companies, selling their OWN products desire to trade via the internet it should be up to them to ensure that the price you see is the price you pay.
I accept that someone like. eg On the Beach etc will not have access to live prices but Thomas Cook should have access to their own live prices.

We never got as far as finding out whether this was a Thomas Cook package where they were also the Tour Operator (TO) or whether it was a holiday where they were acting as a Travel Agent (TA) only putting together booking with different components coming from other operators. From what I can see on the website both situations could apply. As Cyprus100 has explained most TOs websites and other reservation systems work on being updated once every 24 hrs only, usually overnight when there is going to be the least traffic. When you think about it, the possible booking permutations going on at any one time with both customers and shop staff and other TAs all searching the site for not just complete holiday packages but flight only and accommodation only bookings etc are endless which means that not only would it have to be a very sophisticated web design to cope with it but constant updating on a 'live' prices site could become very frustrating for the consumer as a possible option disappears mid-booking as another customer bags the last 2 places available etc.

This is before you add in that most banking still operates on an overnight reconciliation as well. When we make a debit card transaction it might appear to leave our account immediately but it doesn't appear as Credit in the sleeps account for up to 3 working days. Even when transferring funds from my account to my brother's, both held at the same branch of the same bank, to be sure that it was credited immediately to his account I had to withdraw the money from the ATM, go into the branch with the cash, fill in a paying slip and pay it in over the counter! Writing a cheque out and paying it into his account or writing out a withdrawal slip for my account and a paying in slip to his meant that he couldn't always withdraw it immediately even though the bank knew that I had the funds in my account to honour the transaction!

SM

del949 wrote:

......................... it simply gives the seller carte blanche to, if they wish, give everyone an artificially low price and then when you book , inform you that the price has increased.

That implies Thomas Cook gives out thousands and thousands of artificially low prices to everyone and the reality is they don't

The case cited here appears to be a web site pricing error showing a holiday to Goa at 50p a day (have holidays ever cost that anytime in the last 40 years?).

Having priced up endless holidays on Thomas Cooks web site and been on a couple of their packages, they show the kind if prices a reasonable person would expect to pay e.g.2 folk to Red Sea for a week AI £1000, 4 folk to Mexico AI for a fortnight £5000 etc

The quote implies some kind of conspiracy to consistently offer bogus deals. Thomas Cook are a massive company and if they did that Trading Standards and other Authorities would be on them like a ton of bricks, whereas they won't be on them for one off pricing errors.

This is before you add in that most banking still operates on an overnight reconciliation as well. When we make a debit card transaction it might appear to leave our account immediately but it doesn't appear as Credit in the sleeps account for up to 3 working days

that is so, but YOU will be committed as soon as you press "accept", not when they receive the funds.
Why should it be different to them?

That implies Thomas Cook gives out thousands and thousands of artificially low prices to everyone and the reality is they don't

No. it doesn't imply anything of the kind.
It simply states that am operator COULD do that and be withing their terms and conditions and apparently within the law.

I am not trying to say that the TO's are on the fiddle or doing anything wrong or illegal, merely that the rules seem to be rather one sided on this issue.

My point was that 'live' systems don't really exist because it is extremely difficult to work in real time - not about the T&Cs. If people don't like them then they have a simple answer - don't book with that TO.

SM

but the same rules and issues RULES apply to all of the TO's.
So it wouldn't matter which one you chose.

You still haven't defended the issue that the vendor gets a grace period whereas the customer doesn't.
Once you sign or agree, regardless of any mistake on your part, you are committed.
It may be that the TO has a genuine problem in maintaining live prices etc. but I confess to wondering that if the 'live' price came up lower would they then be as keen to rectify the discrepancy.
I don't say what they are doing is wrong merely that there is an unfair balance in WHEN the contract exists.

I've made no attempt to defend the T&Cs because I feel no need to - my previous comments have all related to whether it was reasonable for the OP to assume that she was being quoted a genuine price and whether TO websites can/should display live prices.

However, since you ask, I think that the scenario that Tucker describes is not directly equivalent because what he is describing is not a genuine mistake but a case of someone booking a holiday either knowing or not checking whether they can afford it or not. Should TO/TAs be expected to refund deposits to people who book things that they can't afford to buy? Do any retailers do this? No, if you can't afford to pay the balance you lose the deposit whether it is a holiday you booked, a sofa you ordered, or a house contract you can't complete because you foolishly paid the deposit to secure it before you knew whether you could get the mortgage or not.

SM

I didn't ask you to defend the TC's, just to defend the balance of the timings of when a contract is agreed.
On one hand the customer is committed when he presses accept but the vendor is not and can refuse or renege even when he has apparently (in moral terms) accepted the booking.
Regardless of what is written in the TC's it is simply wrong that a contract can be finalised on one side only at a specific time leaving the other contractee to alter their end of the deal..
Quite clearly we are not going to agree on the principles involved here, and I agree that I am arguing principles rather than legalities or even practicalities.
Just to confuse matters even more, some TO websites encourage you to "book now" as the pricing is live and may increase in minutes, surely if you then click "accept" you are entitled to assume that you have made a firm booking based on a live price.
If they actually consider that the price may be different when they check shouldn't they say "check now for the current price".

As far as your points re the customer making a mistake and not being able to afford the holiday.
Surely a fairly safe comparison would be a hypothetical situation whereby the customer books an expensive holiday in good faith and gets home to find a letter saying he has lost his job/ income.
Would he have the right to a grace period after booking so that he can check he can still afford the deal and have the right to cancel without loss?
Clearly he wouldn't, once he has signed the deal is binding...but apparently only on one side!

You seem to be saying that we should accept that a TO may make a mistake in the pricing and be able to walk away from it, but a customer who makes a mistake in the pricing shouldn't.

del949 wrote:

Surely a fairly safe comparison would be a hypothetical situation whereby the customer books an expensive holiday in good faith and gets home to find a letter saying he has lost his job/ income.

His holiday insurance would cover this though??

Del, I honestly don't see what is unfair about the OPs position - she booked via a website that makes it clear that it doesn't show 'live' prices, must have clicked to say that she accepted the T&CS and that the final price could be higher, which it was and was then given the choice of either a refund of monies paid at that point plus a discount voucher for use against a future booking or to pay the actual price.

Whether T&Cs are fair or not is for each customer to decide for themselves whenever they are thinking about whether to make a booking or not. If they think that they aren't fair then they shouldn't click to accept them. If they click to accept them then they need to understand what they have agreed to and that it is binding. Sometimes I think the T&Cs are fair and so I will proceed, sometimes I think that they aren't and hence there are some companies that I will never deal with. I also think that some companies are unscrupulous (not just in the travel industry) and I won't us them on principle either.

If enough people refuse to accept what they think are unfair T&Cs or boycott companies they regard as not trading fairly, or at the very least actively campaign for a change in the law, the companies will soon have to change their tune if they want to remain in operation. As long as customers keep using a company there is no incentive for them to change their practices. Complaining after the event when you have agreed to accept the T&Cs will never get you anywhere.

SM

We booked and paid and got our confirmation. 3 hours later we got a phone call to say that there had been an obvious mistake and that they would not be honouring the price they asked us to pay an additional £3000+ or to cancel.

but they didn't click to accept that the final price could be higher.
They clicked to accept an offered price and received confirmation that the TO had accepted their booking.
They had paid for and completed their side of the agreement.
3 hours later (not 2 mins or 10 mins but 3 hours)they received the call cancelling.
Would you agree that if you purchased on the high street, then went home and 3 hours later you received a call from the shop saying "sorry, we got it wrong, please bring back the goods you bought", you would have the right to say "tough, a deal is a deal".

Where the unfairness (in my view) comes into play is that the customer is not allowed the same period of grace to review the deal.

I agree that in this case the dream of a really cheap holiday was a bit of a stretch and also that the £100 voucher was still a good result, I also agree that the T&C's would cover this, but it doesn't make it a fair way of dealing. A deal should be when both parties agree on a price and make payment.
The fact that the payment does not arrive with the seller until later is immaterial, as the customer is committed at the point of pressing the accept button.

Yes, there is a good chance that they did click that they realised the final price could be higher because the timing is such that they what they probably received was confirmation of the booking being received, not that the booking had been confirmed at the price stated. The very first paragraph of the T&Cs on the Thomas Cook website states:

The holidays, flights, cruises and prices you may have seen on our website or e-mail, are not live. Although prices and availability are updated very regularly, holidays, flights and cruises are subject to availability and prices can change at any time. When you make a search on our website for a specific holiday, flight or cruise, our website will then check the live availability and price with the tour operator/cruise operator/airline, therefore please allow for changes to occur before your final price is confirmed. Credit card charges may apply. See booking page for full details. Homepage pricing includes all applicable online discounts.

But none of us can be sure because the OP never stayed long enough to clarify exactly what the confirmation she received was. It is standard practice for a price not to be final until the payment invoice is issued and we do not know whether this is what the OP received or not. But if she was phoned within 3 hrs of placing the booking then the odds are that the invoice hadn't been issued because this would have only happened when the system was updated overnight. Everything suggests to me that what she received was confirmation of placing the booking, not of it having been accepted and the final price agreed but I guess we will have to differ on our interpretation of the incomplete facts provided by the OP.

SM

Agreed in part, but my main grumble was not around the facts of the OP but more that the basis of WHEN the contract is finalised is skewed in the TO's favour.
If the document issued at the time of purchase (confirmation of booking) is not a contract then the customer should also have the right to walk away without penalty until the contract (invoice) is actually issued.

My biggest complaint against most Holiday companies terms & conditions is the difference between what the customer pays for cancellation against what the Holiday company pays if they cancel or change your holiday!
The customer can pay 100% ( ok may have travel insurance to fall back on) the travel Co. may pay you £40-£50! where is the fairness in that.And before any member tells me it has always been this way, i know this and have accepted them for years but it still is not fair.

Regards
Alan

My point I made earlier about whether a price is genuine or believable is that I find the offer made to the OP for £23 obviously a mistake and agree with others on this , but then another example of £117 for 2 weeks 5* AI is found sort of mmm believable ? Or at least debatable , whilst I agree that a LCC could possibly fly you to Tenerife for that , perhaps even including a bag in the hold ( I assume staying in a 5* you would want a change of clothes ) that would mean free accommodation and food / drink .
But then it has to be believable because someone has actually had a 2 week 5* AI holiday in a resort with a similar flight time , for a very similar price and I have no reason to not believe their statement , what I do find unbelievable is that it seems they are providing you with a holiday and in effect paying you to go ..... Because if you were at home you would be buying food and drink and they are giving it to you for free because the price you have paid would only really cover the flight .

I find both examples unbelievable , to me it just not even logical that they can be sold for that price and there must be a pricing error , but then if someone has actually got a holiday of a high standard like 5* AI for 2 weeks for a really crazy price then perhaps it's not too unbelievable to expect that " anything goes "

I also think the OP knows the price offered was probably a mistake , but when you are phoned / contacted that its an error , you then think , ah it's been brought to their attention and you don't expect it to still be advertised at that price or to be able to purchase it again for that price , most of us would would expect to find a pricing error in a shop and the retailer does have the right not to sell at that price ( they might honour it ) but you have no right to have it for that price , you would then see them remove the offending price ticket or item from sale so the same mistake doesn't happen so why can't a big company like Thomas Cook tap a few keys on the computer to rectify the error instead of still advertising/ selling an item they now know is incorrectly priced ?

But then it has to be believable because someone has actually had a 2 week 5* AI holiday in a resort with a similar flight time , for a very similar price and I have no reason to not believe their statement , what I do find unbelievable is that it seems they are providing you with a holiday and in effect paying you to go ..... Because if you were at home you would be buying food and drink and they are giving it to you for free because the price you have paid would only really cover the flight . .

I can't see any info on when Denny got that bargain holiday in Turkey and such deals are probably very far and few between these days but in the past it was more common to be able to get packages for less than the cost price because TOs would try to cut their losses on last minute vacancies. Many will now have the hotels really screwed down and will reserve rooms on the basis that they only pay for those that are occupied but in the past, to get the best prices from the hotel they needed to make a block booking and pay up whether the rooms were occupied or not. Faced with the situation where a plane could be going out with empty seats and having to pay for rooms that were also going to be unoccupied it makes sense to try and recoup some of that loss by offering a rock bottom price for a latish booking. Better to get something than nothing at all and to keep reducing the price until something eventually sells if you are having to pay suppliers for it anyway.

But other factors can influence TOs offering 'loss leaders' too. For example, I seem to remember coming across real bargains to be had for Tunisia in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Tourist confidence had taken a real knocking and even though it was perfectly safe once again to go bookings were clearly really slow. The only explanation for some of the deals was that hotels were offering the TOs beds at prices that would no way cover their costs in an attempt to kick start the tourist economy again.

Similarly, in the early days of their joint ventures with European hotel chains, the Cuban government, even though they owned (and still own) a 50% stake in all hotel developments (even those marketed solely under to partners' label) waived their right to their share of the profits in return for prices being kept low so that Cuba could be established as a tourist destination. Chains like Sol Melia were happy to agree to this as they were still guaranteed their profits (which accounted for 50% of the total profit of the whole company!), the TOs were happy because they could sell AI holidays at seriously tempting prices but still make their money and tourists loved it because Cuba AI holidays were amongst the best value longhaul holidays at the time. In effect their holidays were being subsidised by Cuba in order to establish the industry. A good call on their part when you now see just how much tourism contributions to the economy.

So the main reason why I thought £12 pp for 3 weeks in Goa is unbelievable is that they would be losing even more money by selling it at that price (their basic overheads for processing the bookings would probably exceed that) whereas the other examples cited suggest that at least the flight costs where possibly being covered and the holiday would not be a total loss to the TO.

SM