Judith - I don't think gaz was referring to a refund of the pemium upgrade more Mark's claim for loss of enjoyment.

OK point taken, but I do find the tone of his posts rude. Maybe I'm just too polite to tell anyone to 'grow up'.

Lol. I know what you mean but I must admit the older I get the more forthright I seem to be getting.

Perhaps people should read the letter carefully.

It states;

In our binding contract mutually entered into on the 26th November 2008 we were meant to be provided with Premium Star Class seats and associated services on both our outbound and return flights to Aruba.

The TO were in breach of contract when they failed to provide the seats.

It is not a defence to say that they had changed the aircraft. Having sold X number of seats, for which they had been paid, then it was their responsibility to ensure that they could meet the requirement. If some seats were found to be unusable then it could be viewed as an unforeseen incident, but in this case not only did they not supply what had been promised to the OP but also failed others with whom they had also contracted to supply. People do need to remember that both parties are legally bound to comply with the contract and each may be entitled to claim back not only the monies paid for the goods/services but also entitled to seek compensation from the other party for failure to do so.

Unlike many complaints posted here on HT and elsewhere the claim is not for compensation based on a perceived wrong, food not to someone's liking or location of hotel for example, but for a failure to supply a contracted service.

Most claims for compensation are filed without specifying exactly what is being sought. In this case it is very specific. There is already a tacit acknowledgement of liability with the reimbursement that has already been made. The sum is incorrect being less than the charge made. If they had refunded the correct amount then the claim for compensation would have been more difficult.

Like many things the scales laid down are often binding in law. Either party is entitled to seek variance. Of particular note is the fact that in most cases the scales are what have been decided by the supplier and not by law.

fwh

Reading Mark's letter and what he is asking for, I think the 1/14 comp is based on what travel solicitors have recommended in the past and have settled for on behalf of clients in the past.

A kind of Industry standard for this type of thing.

Therefore I can't really see anything wrong in requesting this.

It's an exemplary letter.

People often come on and write a two page whinge (which we do appreciate does make them feel better) but fail to say what it is they require from the company and ultimately will not move their case forward.

You need to be upfront and say what you want so that negotiations can begin somewhere. That's what Mark has done so I don't see any problem.

A refund to my debit card for £ 400 was made on the 3rd June - one full week before we flew back.

So the company must have known a week before that the seats weren't going to be available?

Glynis,

At least a week beforehand and most likely before we even set out on our outbound journey did First Choice know we were not going to be sitting in the premium section on the way back.

If the lack of premium seating was due to a "last minute change of aircraft", then I perhaps could see their point of view. But somebody deliberately choose to change aircraft.

We go on holidays at least twice a year. Have done so for the last 20 or so years and this is the first time I have found reason to ask for compensation.

Mark

gazthomas,

A holiday is not just a commodity that is being sold to you. Just have a look at how they are marketed. Just look at how the premium upgrades are marketed and sold. It is all based on extra enjoyment to your holiday. Make it more comfortable and other terms the marketing departments put together to make you purchase it.

Being told on your last night that these "special" bits are deliberately being taken away from you did cause upset and distress and marred the holiday. No it didn't spoil it, but it certainly put a dampner on it and the whole holiday experience sold to us (including the paid for upgrades) wasn't as described and expected.

Mark

It does seem that with First Choice having made that £400 refund on the date they did, they have kind of shot themselves in the foot.

Hopefully this should further endorse the validity of your claim.

Doe

I've read this thread with interest (and some sympathy).

I agree about the composition and tone of Marks' letter - I've read on here & other websites some appallingly long, emotional, ranting complaints.

I too agree about the cheek of First Choice in not refunding HALF of the premium paid, that to me is rubbing salt into wounds.

From reading some of Dazbo's comments on the Flight forum, I guess they maybe substituted a First Choice plane with a Thomson one as the FC has double Premium seating.
I think if it had been a technical problem and the choice was between being delayed for many hours or even days but having the proper plane (and Premium seats) or flying back quicker in a replacement aircraft, most people woul have chosen the latter.
However, as FC refunded the £400 at least a week before the return flight, they probably have (as doepsmc puts it) shot themselves in the foot.

I wonder how FC decide who is going to be 'bumped' out of Premium in these cases.
Do the earliest bookers get the seats?
Or those who paid the most?
Or do they pull the names out of a hat?

Well if they had any sense they would bump the people who paid less meaning more profit!!! Knowing First Choice though, they probably did it alphabetically or with a pin, a blindfold and a list of names!!!

I wonder if it's those who were 'destined' to be in the missing seats ie seats 4A B C etc

They are normally done on a last in first out basis.

We were told those that booked last were downgraded. However, I have email evidence from other travellers that this is not quite true

Mark

It does however raise a further question in my mind. The flight out had the requisite number of premium seats. I assume they were all full. Not every person would necessarily be going for 14 days. How many people were actually bumped? Was the reason for the change of aircraft because they had not sold all the seats, which would mean empty seats going out or coming back. Were they actually playing the numbers game rather than having to change aircraft for some reason. Because the refund was made prior to the holiday I suspect that is nearer the truth.

fwh

The replacement plane had more seats with a few spare seats (some 20) available. I guess that the same number of people that travelled outbound returned back. Only one flight a week operates between Gatwick and Aruba.

Mark

It's an excellent letter, however i'd be surprised if you received any distress compensation, but again there is no harm in pursuing it.

However, one point - the way the letter reads to me is that your last night was ruined because you were made aware of the downgrade the previous day.

Therefore would you have been happier and not pursued 'distress compensation' if they had not told you until you arrived at the airport?

Having personally been downgraded at the aircraft door I think it could be worse!

A couple checking in before us were told at the check-in desk, stood their ground and refused to move and were not downgraded afterall. So perhaps them telling us at check-in would have resulted in us not being downgraded too as we would have done the same and we were the second one in line.

Letter duly posted off (signed for) after work and when I got home, a letter in the post - this time on Thomson letterhead. The letter reads:

Thomson would like to welcome you back from your recent holiday. Please accept our sincere apologies for not being able to offer you the premium service on your flight.

Further to the letter you received at the airport, please find enclosed a cheque for £ 200.00. This is a refund of the premium-seating supplement you paid for that was not received.

So the story so far:

- Credit to my debit card of £ 400.00 from First Choice. No correspondence other than a revised confirmation invoice with credit adjustment without a description.
- A cheque for £ 200.00 from Thomson.

At this rate I am going to need an accountant to establish what is what

So Thomson in the letter received today are saying that I am only being refunded £ 50.00 per person. Or is that in addition to the £ 100.00 per person already refunded by First Choice?

Even the two added up, don't come to the £ 165.00 per person paid.

Incidentally, the letter from Thomson is dated 4th June 2009 with the envelope it arrived in post dated 11th June 2009.

I can foresee this turning out to be a little messy.

Mark

This does look messy and a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing! Did you infact receive the letter at the aiport to which they refer?

Perhaps you shouldn't bank the cheque until they give you a breakdown of exactly how they arrived at that amount as I seem to remember someone telling me that if you bank a cheque you are deemed to have accepted their settlement (I am not 100% sure about this, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong)