I'm not understanding this, but perhaps its too early in the day for me . Are you saying that the girl is getting back what she paid ie £350? Is she trying to get the full £800?
The money will have been refunded to the account it came from?

I think I'm understanding this the same as you Fiona i.e. the new girl bought the holiday for £350 but seems to want the £800 back which the original girl paid

I think lawfully any money paid has to be refunded the way it was paid. If the original girl paid on her debit card then it would have to be refunded to that debit card.

I'm interpreting this as I think shirley h and Fiona are. If that is the case I would have thought £350 back (the cost her paid in the first place) is fair and reasonable.

Me too!!! the girl who only paid £350 can't really expect to get £800 back,she would have got a very cheap holiday at the other girls expense,but,as the holiday didn't go ahead I think its fair that she gets back what she paid.

No I think this is how it should be read!

They have changed the date of their holiday (all be it via a refund and a new booking) the girl who paid £350 paid it for the original holiday. The girl who didn't want to go accepted the £350 for the holiday!
Now the money has been paid back from thew TO, everyones looking to book again only one of them now only has £350 to book with!
So basically she bought an £800 holiday for £350!
The original girl would have lost out by just cancelling so was probably quite happy that someone was willing to pay £350 for it!
Now the money has been returned to the original girls bank account she expects to keep the remainder from the £350! Which does seem a bit unfair!
But she might see it as if she hadn't decided to cancel the holiday she would have got ALL the money back anyway but how is anyone supposed to think that this weeks ash would happen?

It's a tough one.
What I don't understand is why the money went into the first girls account when a lead name was changed? This first girl now has nothing at all to do with the holiday!

Surely it would have been refunded the same way that it was paid,if by debit or credit card it would go back the same way,the TO would not have the second girls account details.

My reading of the situation is that the original lead name, Girl A, seems to have pulled out a month before the holiday and after the full cost of it had been paid for. Rather than lose the full amount and so as not to jeopardise the holidays of ehr friends, she cut her losses by agreeing to accept £350 pounds from the replacement Girl B and the names were changed with the TO. As far as the TO/TA is concerned the money they received was all from Girl A and hence any refund was repaid back to the account they received the money from in the first place. Hence why Girl A received the full amount from them. This is very fortuitous for her, she has not only received back the £450 she thought she'd lost as a result of having to pull out of the holiday but the full £800 and has decided that the decent thing to do is to repay the £350 that Girl B paid her to take her place. Regardless of the legal rights and wrongs of it, it seems to me that if this is the case then Girl B is not out of pocket - she's received exactly what she paid out and Girl A has unexpectedly not lost out either after all and it's a win-win situation for both of them.

If I buy something in a sale at less than 50% of the original cost but for some reason have to return it eg it's faulty, than I only get back what I paid for it - not what it would have cost at pre-sale prices. I don't think that this situaion is that different. And if I buy something from a friend for half what she paid for it because eg is is the wrong size and I then return it to the shop and do then get the full price repaid for it - I personally would feel morally obliged to offer her the difference between what I actually paid her and what the shop has refunded me. I can see no reason why I should profit from her original misfortune is buying the wrong size!

SM

SM

Some further thoughts, if Girl A pulled out for reasons that meant that she was recompensed for her loss on the holiday by her holiday insurance then it wouldn't be fair that she makes a profit on this either and perhaps they should split the 'profit' between them?

If you paid £15 for a t-shirt, didn't like it but couldn't get your money back as you'd lost the receipt so you then offered it to a friend for £6.50 as it's better than nothing, would you expect the rest of the money if that friend sold it for £15?
I don't know, maybe I would want the money!

Just seems to me though that girl B was maybe doing her a favour in the first place as £350 is better than nothing!
Maybe girl B couldn't afford £800 and was talked into going at £350! So now she's got her money back yes but maybe can't afford the new price of the new holiday!

Also doesn't it cost to do a name change? Who's stumped up for that?

Reading the post by SMa It would appear to be a reasonable scenario. Perhaps in some ways an upside to the ash problem. Is it fair? I suppose it depends who you are. The girl who pulled out is not surprisingly happy yet the girl who replaced her feels cheated. But then life sometimes can be unfair.

Chivas69 does raise a very valid point on the insurance aspect. Did girl A make a claim? If she did then she is guilty of a criminal act.

Not a great deal of information for us to go on here so all we are really doing is speculating.

fwh

Actually having thought about it. If I was the one who originally pulled out, and the one who parted with £800. If the holiday then got cancelled I'd expect my £800 back! Afterall, everyone else would have got £800 back.
The girl paying £350 now has the £350 back. It's now a new holiday and maybe she should pay the same as everyone else! If it's too much then the others have (had) a chance to rebook without her!

If there was a name change charge maybe the one who pulled out should pay that back out of her £800! Unless the TO gave that back too!

More info is needed!

I agree with the above, why should the second girl be entitled to the £800. If the first girl gives her the £350 then everyone is back to equals and surely that is the fairest way?

SMa's post makes a lot of sence to me, girl B was lucky to get such a cheap holiday but girl A would never have known that the holiday would be cancelled and she would get her money back, in my opinion she acted corectly

i must admit on first reading I thought the entire holiday had cost £800 and girl A was only prepared to refund the money paid to her by girl B, in which case I thought cheeky begger!!

But now I think I agree that it seems girls A has acted correctly in that she refunded what girl B paid for her holiday. Why should girl B receive £800 when she only paid £350? It's not girl A's fault she doesn't have the money to pay for a new holiday, and she shouldn't be expected to pay girl B the full amount when it isn't what girl B paid for the holiday in the first instance!

well I guess we'll never know as davey seems to have disapeared!