It looks as though this has now ended hapilly for me. First Choice sent me what looks like a standard letter stating that as I had cancelled my holiday I would lose the deposit, the amount of which was printed on an acompanying invoice - this being £99. Therefore it looks as though I will not have to pay the additional amount they were asking for.

From this I can only assume they either have no recorded evidence to prove I was told about the low deposit scheme, or they do have recorded evidence but proves what I have said all along that I was not told about the low deposit scheme.

This has definitely left a bad taste in my mouth and I will never use First Choice again. If anyone wants an example of how not to treat customers then this is it. It seems from all the posts that the low deposit thing causes a lot of problems, which begs the question why do travel agents bother with it - is it really of benefit to the customer, or just a hard sell technique? I have yet to find details of the low deposit scheme in a brochure, so presume it is only offered in store.

Thanks again to everyone who offered advice or opinions. I hope anyone else having a problem with a low deposit gets their issue resolved successfully.

Congratulations Velcro
Shorty

Congratulations Velcro, I am pleased that you managed to get the issue resolved to your satisfaction.

I have yet to find details of the low deposit scheme in a brochure, so presume it is only offered in store.

You wont find details of this in a tour operators brochure as it is a booking incentive offered by travel agents to customers to get them to book up there and then. The full deposit is paid to the tour operator by the travel agent, which is why they normally insist on a signed low deposit form, without one (your case highlights this) the travel agent will lose the difference between the low deposit offered to the customer and the full deposit owed to the tour operator. This is why they were chasing you so much for it and were reluctant to let you off of paying it, it will go down as a shop loss.

I hope this clears things up for you

Sorry to add a note of dissent but whilst you have got away with only £99 you did by paying a deposit enter into a contract. Whilst you may be disenchanted with the TO or the agent it should be considered that they are in business. I often wonder if people consider the effect of cancellation of bookings and the knock on effect. If you look nearer to home a great many people suffer due to late cancellations. Some of our members in the motor trade know what I mean. The booking for 8.30am that decides not to bother. Employees still have to be paid. Bookings turned away. loss of profit. Dentists charge for no show - do you still object to that? - What about Hairdressers Doctors etc who complain at the cost of cancelled bookings or no shows. I do feel that when someone books something that they should not gripe, if, when they change their minds, they still have to pay.

fwh

Hi,

Seems to me that when a Hol is booked, it should be made clear if you are paying a Deposit as required or a low deposit ie. a deposit on HP. with the remainder of the deposit payed as and when. For all HP things it must be made clear. Everyone knows the aveage sort of deposit. If you are asked to pay much less than this, most people would query it. You don't get anything for nothing these days.

Cheers

Dave

Hi fwh, have to say that I feel your phrase "you have got away with £99" implies some underhand behaviour on the part of velcro, that they have pulled a fast one somehow. From my reading of the original post this seems rather unfair. Velcro's point was that they were never told that the £99 was a special low deposit, so understandably thought this was all they had to lose if they cancelled. They had signed nothing and been shown no contract. I'm not trying to start a row I just don't quite understand why you feel they have "got away" with something?
Cheers, Shorty

FWH - you obviously believe I am completely in the wrong and I take exception to you suggesting I have "got away with only £99". I have not got away with anything and in fact have LOST £99.

My gripe with First Choice is the way they handled the case. When I explained I could get the same holiday £600 cheaper they said they could not (would not?) match the price and before I even mentioned cancellation, THEY TOLD ME that if I cancelled I would have to pay the "remainder" of the deposit, which was the first time they mentioned the low deposit scheme. They then rang several times and sent letters requesting payment and eventually sent a legal threat.

It may have been that they couldn't match the £600 difference but they didn't even make a token gesture such as knocking some money off the total and maybe giving free travel insurance. They were not prepared to listen, they were not prepared to make a gesture of good will and they were not prepared to prove that they had informed me that the low deposit scheme had been explained to me - which they would not have been able to do as it was never explained. That is not customer care. As it stands (based on what GoingPlacesGirl says) they could be nearly £400 out of pocket because of their lack of customer care and because they will now have to pay the "remainder themselves" - thats bad business.

Like I say this "low deposit" scheme is nonsense, it is effectively a hard sell and there are no written details in any brochure, as GoingPlacesGirl mentions. You tell me anywhere else outside the travel industry that deploys a "low deposit" scheme - I bet you cant name one.

Your other point about late cancellations are irrelevant really, as I have never said I objected to losing my deposit of £99 and I have not had a gripe about losing it (as you suggest). My objection is the low deposit scheme was not explained and I was not told I was effectivly paying a "part deposit". If people make late cancellations for dentists, hair dressers etc then yes I agree they should be compensated, but then again they clearly state what you will be charged for late cancellation. In any case mine was not a late cancellation, it was cancelled after a few days and I am sure the holiday will have been sold to someone else.

Read my posts and the details are all there for you to see. I can only assume you work in the travel industry and are displaying proffessional pride, but please don't try and say I am not telling the truth or have acted in an unsavoury manner.

Good for you Velcro!!!

Well done!

There's nothing like good service.................and THAT was nothing like good service

I am so pleased Velcro that you got the right result after all that hassle and well done!!!

I know if someone had mentioned a low deposit to me, my next thought would have been, oh good, nice! I certainly wouldn't be thinking, ahh, but when do I have to pay more deposit!!! Surely a deposit is a deposit is a deposit.....and like you, I would be aware that I would loose that deposit should I cancel, but would never dream that a company would want more money!!!!!!

Perhaps the travel industry should start calling it a part deposit rather than a low deposit.

Again I applaud you

Not sure where fwh is coming from. If people cancel at the last minute as per the local services quoted then there are knock on effects as you say.
If this holiday had been cancelled at the last minute or after the full amount had been paid then there would have been no arguments about how much was paid, but the case in question was an early cancellation well before the booking was passed to the hotel or airline. Most of the associated costs would have been staff time trying to prove that more money was owed.

I also saw on an earlier post a mention of eclipsedirect and it is worth noting that I fell foul of that web site.

I booked the holiday and was charged a deposit no problem. My daughter then started getting worried because an agent had told her about lowcost deposits so I phoned eclipse to clarify the situation.

I was told that I had agreed to pay a low cost deposit and also to pay the difference due as I went through the web pages.

No I didn't as I would the have been aware of any costs and dates.

Funnily enough you can not get to this supposed provision of information unless you actually book so there is no way to verify the claims made by eclipse, but hopefully I made such a fuss they have plugged the gap now.

Worse as far as I was concerned was the fact that they were not going to tell me that I "owed" this money or when it was due.
I had no problem with the deposit or the amount but I feel that knowing it is due and when is a basic neccessity.

I complained that this was bad service but I don't think it got anywhere.

Beware because I think the web site terms and conditions actually state that if you take the low deposit option you are liable for the rest but nowhere in the transaction did it actually state that I was choosing the low cost deposit, or what the difference was, because I was looking for it. I assumed it was the normal deposit but felt it was surprisingly low!

For future reference:

Schedule 9b of the Package Travel Regulations requires that all the terms of the contract are set out in writing or such other form as is comprehensible and accessible to the consumer and are communicated to the consumer before the contract is made.

In other words, any conditions attached to "low deposit" offers which are not made crystal clear to the customer prior to entering into the holiday contract are unenforceable.

Hi Velcro, glad you got the result that you wanted and deserved if as you say you were not informed at the time of booking about it being a low deposit.

However I disagree with you that First Choice should have price matched or knocked a few quid off AFTER you had booked your holiday.

It may have been that they couldn't match the £600 difference but they didn't even make a token gesture such as knocking some money off the total and maybe giving free travel insurance. They were not prepared to listen, they were not prepared to make a gesture of good will and they were not prepared to prove that they had informed me that the low deposit scheme had been explained to me - which they would not have been able to do as it was never explained. That is not customer care. As it stands (based on what GoingPlacesGirl says) they could be nearly £400 out of pocket because of their lack of customer care and because they will now have to pay the "remainder themselves" - thats bad business.

At the end of the day, First Choice (travel agency) probably do offer a price match guarantee but not against direct tour operators bookings and the holiday has to be exactly the same.

Surely the onus is on you as the buyer to check whether you are getting the best possible deal, after all you would not buy a tv from currys and then see the same tv in comet cheaper and go and demand a price match at currys, they would laugh you out of the shop! surely you would have checked other retailers prices before you bought the tv in the first place.

And I suspect First Choice would have been a lot more helpful had you really been unable to go on the holiday, instead of wanting to cancel and book with their competitor, after all as other posters have pointed out, travel agencies are businesses, although I think some people would rather think not!!

Good luck with your holiday and I hope you have a nice time wherever you end up!

Thing is if you buy a TV from Dixons and 2 weeks later find it £200 cheaper in Comet, would they refund the difference. Possibly if Comet were cheaper at the time of purchase but I bet Dixons wouldnt do this a couple of weeks after - so in the same context, why should First Choice?

If you see something and agree to pay a price then the deal is done, you cant go back afterwards and tell the agent you've seen it cheaper then expect a refund or discount.

Having said that, good on you Velcro for getting it sorted. As I said in a previous post, I work for First Choice and am sorry we have lost a customer, its not a true reflection on the company, it seems the individuals involved were a little "terms and conditions" happy.

Anyway, heres to you having a good time wherever you are going.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS ALL!

This low dep is all very interesting. I booked through Direct Holidays and nothing was mentioned about low dep, no contract conditions etc. I was only informed that a 90 pound dep was required with a 270 in 8 weeks time and then the remainder ona few months.

So if i were to cancel i would have to pay the whole dep even though I was told nothing of this when booking over the phone -and i can prove this.

I was thinking of cancelling as i hear in sept 2005 another review is being made by the bank to see if they will continue supporting them- which i hope they do- i am nervous as this is a wedding holiday and i have the added pressure of my quests turning up half way round the world and I'm not there because the travel company have gone bust.
Please advise

Recieved invoice today and on the back it states: Booking conditions- The invoice is based on the terms and conditions of bookings. Copies are available on request and are also contained in the broucher or leaflet.(i have neither of these)
In the event of the purcheser not having already signed a copy of the companys bookings form then he shall be deemed to have accepted the companys terms and conditions? Does this mean i have accepted them even if i have not been informed when booking?

Does this mean i have accepted them even if i have not been informed when booking?

No. See my posting earlier up this thread.

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties; in this case, between a tour operator and a consumer.

The only booking conditions and/or terms which are valid and potentially enforceable by the tour operator are booking conditions and terms which a customer either viewed or had pointed out to them before entering into the contract.

A tour operator has no right to apply any terms and conditions to the contract at a later date which the customer did not view or was not told about before entering into the contract, as once a contract has been entered into, the terms and conditions cannot be varied by either the customer or the tour operator without the other parties consent.

Any booking conditions that tour operators attempt to impose on their customers which seek to interfere with the rights that consumers enjoy under consumer protection law, or which seek to restrict such rights when a tour operator breaches the contract are invalid and unenforceable, also.

Mrs J Thinking of booking my 2006 hols with direct holidays this week, as it's a really good price, and want to guarantee a free childs place, but like some other ht members, I am worried that if the bank doesn't help them out in sep 2005, and they go bust, what would happen? Obviousely I will just pay deposit,which is about £350,but would I get this back if they did go bust? Thanks. BBB.

mrs j

would that mean if i could prove that no booking condition were read out to me thus is did not agree to any- I may be able to cancel without paying the full dep?