thanks kimi....think we both posted at same time.....maybe some some info on that post to help our poster.....something he can use from some one who won similar case to quote to TA that may help him get something back....tweetie

I also considered the post re Mexico but discounted it. The application was returned 3 times according to the OP and that is very likely the reason he was not able to obtain it in time.

The website does say allow 8 weeks for processing - that assumes there are no queries. Personally I don't think Thos Cook are to blame. They cannot second guess the issuing authority or know the application would be returned 3 times.

fwg

According to legal scholar Sir John William Salmond, a contract is "an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties".

If I am right an agreement can be verbal as well as written in forming a contract...hence phone calls now being recorded...

This is just my mental ramblings and not educated fact....but

If holiday was booked on condition that there would be no problem aquiring a visa and the fact that cause for enquiring was pakistani origins of one of the people wishing to book....would this then not be deemed part of the contract if the holiday was then booked on the stength of the advice given from a trained booking clerk who was recieving a commission therefore being paid for her services indirectly....if advice was faulty and there was a problem which subsequently resulted in the loss of the holiday...would this not be classed as breach of contact and negligence on the travel assistants part whose advice had been relied on in the making of the decision to book...

for example...if a man went to a specialist climbing shop to purchase a new type of rope he had never used before....he had bought ropes before but not that type....he asked advice from a trained assistant if rope was suitable for the area he was to climb in....as could be a problem due to his weight....adding if any concerns he would buy another type of rope.....the trained assistant said yes and checked also with another collegue......when subsequently the advice given was wrong and the rope didnt take the mans weight and snapped ...man suffered injury..... the advice given would have been negligent as given by trained assistant who should have gone further in checking suitability of rope when man expressed concerns ....and assistants knowlege was relied upon in making the decision between that rope and an alternative...how would this be veiweby the courts

When I did o level law we were told negligence was an omitence in a duty to care....and we have a duty of care to our neighbour.....our neighbour being any one who took our advice and suffered a loss because of it......thats a very simple way of putting it

hi fwh....the booking clerks correct response should have been.....as your case is not a staightforward it would be best if you rang the embassy ect and checked things out before you book as you will loose your holiday if there is a problem....tweetie

TweetiePie
But was the booking clerk actually aware that the OP's visa application wasn't straight forward?

The OP says in his first post that he is half Pakistani, does not have dual nationality and no other passport.
He's also said that he told the Travel Agent that he was a British passport holder - but did he actually also tell them that he was half Pakistani?
If he didn't, he omitted a vital piece of information that may have resulted in him being given different information than he actually was given.

If Kal intends taking this further, he needs to be sure he's on firm ground with every element of his complaint.

I do agree that it would have been so much better for the Travel Agent to not accept the booking until he'd checked out visa requirements.

kal1980....did you pointg out to booking clerk you were half pakistani.....did you say that was what was why you were asking about visas....tweetie

I think we have another problem here that people may not have considered. We have no legal right to ask someone for personal details because of the colour of their skin. Should someone do so then they would be breaking the race relations act. The agent could not refuse to accept a booking because of a persons nationality or skin colour as that would be discrimination. Only if a country specifies that people of X nationality will not be permitted to enter can they ask questions of the persons origin.

Reading what has been said the visa application was returned 3 times. Why? On one occasion we are told it was because of the nationality of the persons father. But for what reason was it returned on the other occasions and how long did it take for him to return it.

Whilst it is unfortunate that this has happened I think there is much more to the matter than we are being told. The agent could have no idea what restrictions may be placed on the issue of the visa by the issuing authority. They are able to advise that you require a visa. They can say that normally for the holder of a British passport there is no problem.

How expert do people want agents to be? Or should I say how much are you prepared to pay? because the level of training that would be required would be expensive and the costs would be passed on.

Even in the other case referred to we have not seen the judgement so it is just supposition that the agent as at fault. The court may have found other reasons in the case for making his decision.

With respect to all we can only express our own personal opinions based on what someone posts.

fwh

I think they need to consider the point that the statement about not finalising travel plans before the visa has been obtained is as relevant to the agents as it is to the traveller. A professional agent selling holidays to India should have known that. And it doesn't really need much training in the branch because the company could have put the correct warning in the brochure or verification question on the computer so that the person at the desk just had to read a simple question - have you already got the visas? before continuing or not as the case may be.

for example...if a man went to a specialist climbing shop to purchase a new type of rope he had never used before....he had bought ropes before but not that type....he asked advice from a trained assistant if rope was suitable for the area he was to climb in....as could be a problem due to his weight....adding if any concerns he would buy another type of rope.....the trained assistant said yes and checked also with another collegue......when subsequently the advice given was wrong and the rope didnt take the mans weight and snapped ...man suffered injury..... the advice given would have been negligent as given by trained assistant who should have gone further in checking suitability of rope when man expressed concerns ....and assistants knowlege was relied upon in making the decision between that rope and an alternative...how would this be veiweby the courts

Unfortunately this isn't a good analogy because he would have been provided with the technical specification for the rope and no more because the safety of ropes depends on so many things that are outwith the shop's control eg the way it's stored, whether it has ever been stretched, the sort of cliffs you intend using it on (some will abrade the rope far quicker than others) etc that climbing ropes are sold on the understanding that you are going to use it for doing risky activities and using this rope will make it safer but it doesn't carry the guarantee that it won't fail if you fall off. The only recourse to law that you have is if you can prove that the product was faulty and should never have been sold at all. And in the case of this holiday the product wasn't faulty and the staff do seem to have given a similar 'buyer beware' warning in that they do appear to have said that the buyer did need to check out for themselves the arrangements for obtaining a visa.

Or perhaps it is a good analogy after all because you would be sold the rope on the understanding that it's your responsibility to store and use it properly but in the end you use it at your own risk. And stating that they didn't expect that you would encounter problems obtaining a visa but that you should check this for yourself sounds like a similar caveat that gets them off the hook to me.

I think that the problem that others have alluded to re Mexico was different because the purchaser was never advised to check out the visa situation for themselves - just given an assurance that the OPs wife didn't need one and hence didn't discover there was a visa problem until they tried to check in for the flight. After all this time it will be hard to prove what the actual words used were but there's a world of difference legally between being told 'You won't have problems getting a visa' and 'You shouldn't have any problems but check the website for more information about how to obtain one'.

SM

fwh
I wasn't saying that the agent should have asked Kal about the colour of his skin or refuse to accept his booking.
But if Kal didn't volunteer this information, Thomas Cook may say that their agents weren't given the full facts and so the mis-information they gave wasn't their fault.

I'm not sure that the OP actually says in any of his posts that his application was returned in the first instance because his father is Pakistani.
He says:

the applications were sent back three times with them wanting more information

but doesn't enlarge on what additional information was requested. Or whether he sent it.

Kal has said (in his 3rd post) that he knew that his application would take 7 -8 weeks and they did apply in plenty of time, so I'm confused about what went wrong with his application.
Of course, if he'd got his visa, this thread wouldn't exist, Kal would have had his holiday in Goa and the fact he was misled by the Travel Agent wouldn't be an issue.

The VFS website (imho) is quite confusing about what is required for applications like Kal's.

Kal mentions that Thomas Cook wrote to him to say:

A few weeks later they replied and said that the advice we were given was correct and Thomas Cook has done nothing wrong and would not take the matter any further.

Given the situation as described by Kal, this sounds a really strange response, especially as he says:

We questioned the Thomas Cook advisor about Visa's and we were told that we would have no problems with obtaining one as we were both British passport holders. We said that if she was certain that we would have no problems then we would book a holiday to Goa. She double checked with her colleague who also said we would have no problems

It doesn't sound (to me) like the advice they were given was correct.

As Fiona knows (as the mod on the Goa forum), Indian visa applications don't always go smoothly.
Applications have been returned because the applicant is a journalist or member of the Police Force - even with a full Bristish pasport and of British origin.
Also because one parent only is travelling with a child. In THOSE cases, VFS require:
Consent letter signed by both the parents, even if mother or father is travelling along with the child.
Photocopy of mother & father's passports along with the copy of their current Indian Visa if already holding one.
Copy of the child's birth certificate.
In divorced cases, Child Custody Letter from court in respect of the child is required.
In case of Single parent-Birth Certificate and Solicitor's letter, Council benefit letter will be required.

There was one lady (I think on TA) who only got her child's visa after a mad dash to the VFS centre by her neighbour to collect it and deliver it to the aiport where they were waiting to check in.

As a fairly regular visitor to Goa, I'm well aware of numerous problems with visas, dating back a number of years.
Given this, I just can't understand why Travel Agents persist in giving advice on obtaining them.

Several years ago, Olympic holidays website had incorrect details on how to obtain an Indian visa. They said postal aplications were accepted - but they weren't, it had to be in person.
I emailed their Admin department half a dozen times to tell them they were giving incorrect information, but it still took them 3 months to change it.

I guess the real question is 'Does Kal have a reasonable chance of getting a result on this?'.
Personally (and unfortunately) I'm not sure that he does, and certainly not on the 'racial discrimination' charge by VFS and HCI.

I asked why and was told by the gentleman that it was because my dad was Pakistani. He told us that I probably wouldn't get the visa in time for the holiday but we decided to pay for them to be processed just in case.

An interesting quote from his post. He was told that he may not get his visa in time but decided to go ahead. I fail to see how he can blame Thos Cook when he had been told that.

fwh

fwh
you said in one of your earlier posts

Whilst it is unfortunate that this has happened I think there is much more to the matter than we are being told.

The OP said (in separate posts):
He'd checked on the VFS website and so knew about the 7-8 week processing time for him (post 2):

We booked the holiday in December 2008 and were due to fly to Goa on 1st March 2009. We found out online that the visa's were for 6 months for my girlfriend and 3 months for myself and they started from the date they were issued and not from the start of the holiday so we first started the application process in mid-December as even with the 7-8 weeks it stated on the VFS website for people of Pakistani descent, that should have been more than enough time to get the applications done and also made sure that the visa's did not run out whilst we were still over there.

Yet Kal said in his first post that he was told of the 7 week timeframe when he went to London with 3 weeks to go before the holiday:

In London we were told that my girlfriends application would take 3 days to process but mine would take 7 weeks! I asked why and was told by the gentleman that it was because my dad was Pakistani.

Also, if Kal's application had already been in the system for quite some time, why would it take a further 7 weeks?

Steve8482

When we first went about applying for the visas (mid-December), the VFS website had information on it stating that I would
need documentation to prove who I am. They requested a letter from my employer, one months bank statement and a letter/
booking confirmation from the holiday company. We sent all these to them originally it was a week or so before christmas
but when they sent them back asking for more it was a few days into January which incidentally is when the 7 week rule
came into place. So when I first applied the 7 week timeframe was not in place. We have contacted a solicitor so we
are going to see if court is a viable option.

Prettypollycat

When we asked about the visa's we clearly stated that the reason for us asking was because I am half Pakistani/Irish.
She then asked me if I had a British passport to which I said yes, she said we would have no problems. We double checked
and did say that becuase India and Pakistan do not get on, this is why we want to doubly make sure we would have no
problems. She checked with her colleague who agreed.

The additional info VFS asked for was a a signed declaration from myself to state that I do not hold a Pakistani or ID
card and they also wanted another referee in India even though I had spoken to someone on their £1 per min "helpline"
who told me to just put the name of the hotel I was staying at as I didnt know anybody else over there. I only ever spoke
to someone on the helpline for advice. I never spoke to anyone regarding the application as it was only ever with them for
a week before they sent it back again.

When we went to London we knew it was a 7 week timeframe with only 3 weeks to go. As we had no other option we thought that
we should go down and explain our situation and maybe get it in time, we wanted to make sure that we had done everything
that we could possibly had done. When we spoke to the gentleman, he said my girlfriends would be with her within 3 working
days but mine would take at least 7 weeks. I did ask why and he said it was because I was of Pakistani descent and
because of the problems ongoing between Pakistan and India (at least I couldnt fault his honesty). I asked what was done
differently with my application compared to my girlfriends with hers taking 3 days and mine taking 7 weeks. He told me that
hers is straightforward and could be done straight away but mine is more complicated and had to go from VFS in Middlesex
to the Indian High Commission in London and then to the Home Office in Delhi before going back to the High Commission
and then to Vfs before coming back to me. I felt that this probably would take 7 weeks and accepted his explaination.
Three days later I received my passport back with a note stating that although I have applied, they have sent my passport
to me until they have made a decision to grant me a visa. They also said there was no timescale for this.

One last thing, although we applied in mid-December, the application was not in their system as it got returned so many
times. The date it eventually went into their system is 3 weeks before the holiday, when we brought it down to London.
As I have already stated, we only went to London on the off chance that we may still get one in time. Obviously by this
time we new that we could either give it up as a bad job or go down and see if we could push the application through
quicker as there was nothing else we could of done.

As far as we are concerned, our gripe is mainly with Thomas Cook. If we were given the correct visa advice then we would
be in this situation. We would have just booked another holiday. I believe that if a travel agent is selling a holiday to
any destination then they should know about visa's and entry requirements. I agree with steve8482 who states that something
simple as a pop up question on their screen or a message in the brochure could of helped prevent this.

Also, Im sorry if any of my posts are confusing. It is a very difficult subject to try and explain because there is so much
detail to try and put down. If I would of put the whole story from conversation to conversation quoting what everyone had
said then I thought it would be too much for people to take on borad at once. Sorry!

Thanks to all of you for your replies and advice.

Kal
Thanks for your clarification.

From a layman's point of view (me), it seems that you did everything right, from giving the travel agent adequate detail about your parentage (AND giving reasons for your concerns) at the time of booking to providing the additional information to VFS in the first instance.

I agree that your issue is with Thomas Cook rather than the Indian High Commission (who I guess can set whatever immigration rules they wish to) or VFS (who really only work to the rules set out by HCI).
I can't understand, if you sent everything that VFS said they needed, why they then asked for EXTRA information.
However, I've read similar experiences to yours both on here and on TA.

When you received the letter from Thomas Cook stating that the advice you were given was correct and TC had done nothing wrong, is that all it said or did they give a more detailed explanation?
I'm assuming that in your letter to them you wrote everything that you've done in your latest post.
Did you tell them that if the 2 travel agent employees had advised you that if YOUR application process wouldn't be as simple and quick as your girlfriend's, you would have booked an alternative holiday?

I too agree that if travel agents are not 100% sure about the information they give regarding immigration requirements, they should limit their advice to telling people they require a visa and the responsibility of checking further is with the potential customer.
However, from a Travel Agent's viewpoint, that's not necessarily going to put money in their till.
For what it's worth, I feel you've been treated really badly, but that unfortunately won't hold water in a court.

It's a real shame that Ros is retiring as a quick phone call to her office might just have let you know if you had a strong case.

I don't think it's so much that your posts are confusing, it's more that as you re-read things, you notice different statements.

In a nutshell if it really the fault of the agent if such documents cannot be obtained in time though? Is it not like booking a holiday prior to having a passport?(ie you are told not to do it)

I have no idea by the way it's just my first thoughts that come to mind while reading this thread and I assumed that the onus was always on the passenger.

It is the agents fault if they sell a confirmed holiday when the authorities are saying don't do it until the visa has been obtained. I wonder how many Indian holiday brochures have the official advice printed in them.

It is the agents fault if they sell a confirmed holiday when the authorities are saying don't do it until the visa has been obtained. I wonder how many Indian holiday brochures have the official advice printed in them.

The problem with this is that holidays to Goa & Kerala go on sale many months before departure date.
For example, I can book for Goa departing 23rd April 2011 (the last charter departure for the 2010/2011 season).

Indian tourist visas are usually only granted for 6 months duration.
Although they do a 12 month visa, there is no guarantee that you will be granted one.
Even if you pay the 12 month fee, they do not refund the extra you've paid if they only grant a 6 month one.
This is fully documented on the VFS website.
Sometimes people who apply for a 6 month visa are only granted a 3 month one, rarely with an explanation why.

Visas start from the day of issue not the date of travel so almost nobody booking a holiday to India after the end of October 2010 will be in possession of a valid visa.
If I booked that holiday on 23rd April 2011, I'd not be applying for my visa until after the end of October 2010 - and that's assuming that 6 month visas will still be available. There are rumours that maybe the norm will be 3 month ones.

I don't know how many brochures have the official advice in them but one tour operator's website has the following message:

Visa applications for Goa have now been outsourced to VF Services (UK) Ltd. Applications may be made online at http://in.vfsglobal.co.uk/ by post or in person and take 7 to 25 working days to obtain depending on where and how your application is submitted and your passport.

So even that isn't totally true because even though Kal has a full Bristish passport, the VFS website states 7-8 weeks for him.

Even if all brochures have correct advice, there is no guarantee that when you come to book a holiday that the information will still be correct.

Here's why:
High Commission of India have a habit of changing the rules with little or no notice.
Several years ago, (before the outsourcing to VFS) they announced (only a couple of weeks before they implemented it!) that postal applications would no longer be accepted.
People had to travel to HCI London or Edinburgh, CGI Birmingham or one of the visa surgeries held in major cities around the country to apply in person.
Even then, after many people had been waiting for over 8 hours, they just arbitrarily closed the doors.
In fact, at the Bradford surgery and also at CGI Birmingham this caused so much ill-feeling that people stormed the centres and police were called.

Only this January, HCI announced that there had to be a 2 month gap between visits, even for those people who had valid visas.
Goa is a place that many people visit several times a year.
Lots of people who'd already made travel plans and were IN POSSESSION OF VALID VISAS were refused entry to India - some refused boarding by the airline in the UK, others detained at Immigration in India and put on the next flight home.

I'm explaining all this (even though it has no direct relation to Kal's situation) to show how easy it can be to fall foul of the HCI rules, even though you are sure at the time that everything will be fine.

In fact, thinking further, even if Kal had been given totally correct advice by the Travel Agent at the time of booking the holiday, by the time he got to the stage of applying the situation could have changed.
In THAT case, the Travel Agent would not have been at fault - and Kal might still have lost his holiday

Good post - that is exactly the problem with Indian visas. Things can change almost overnight. India is not an easy destination to get to- purely because of the visa problems. Even when we have had straightforward visa applications, we have had members fretting for weeks with no sign of their passports and visas in the post. Its something all TAs should be well aware of and give advice accordingly.

hi...I was following the goa forum out of interest ...still do sometimes...its a really interesting forum...and was reading all about what prettypollycat has posted...it seems like a nightmare situation...and very risky to book for goa when the visa situation is the way it is....even the people who know the ropes and go many times each year to goa have problems....its a shame as these people take stuff out with them for schools ect....if things dont improve... when the die hard loyal goa lovers ...who battle there way out year after year can nolonger go....it will be a poorer place for their loss...as others who would have replaced them will be put off going due to the beaurocriousy....and goa will loose much needed revenue.....tweetie