With respect to everyone who has tried to help may I just add a note of dissent?

This is not the first time we have had a complaint on HT about someone having to pay charges when people have pulled out of a holiday. I do agree that in this case there is some doubt regarding liability due to age.

I personally find it difficult to reconcile a letter from a parent giving permission for someone under age go on a holiday, being an agreement for their child to become the lead name and guarantee payment. My opinion (not as a lawyer) it is not legally enforceable.

My concern is more to do with the number of times we have heard similar tales. Not on age, but simply because someone finds themselves in that position. People do have to take responsibility for their actions otherwise all of us who book and pay for holidays are penalised.

Holidays are like any other product or service which we buy. The company selling them to us do so in good faith. Just because friends fall out does not absolve them from liability. If TOs, or any other business are to charge reasonable prices, they do need some protection otherwise how are they to continue to sell us something at an affordable price?

Low deposit schemes are way of easing the financial burden when booking a holiday, but I wonder if it is not time they were banned.

fwh

A bit I suppose, but I for one would not like to see low deposit schemes banned.

I have used these responsibly over the years many times and they have helped me and my family to budget.

I always know the date when the balance of the deposit has to be paid by and do so accordingly.

I really don't see why they should be banned just because some people can't be bothered to read the small print.

As usual this would be a case of those of us who use a 'perk' responsibly losing it because of others not bothering with the detail.

Personally I don't think they will be banned anyway as they are a useful marketing tool in times when money is tight and travel agents and tour operators need to 'pull out all the stops' to get folk through their doors.

I have read with interest this thread, and am very glad that in my opinion the last two posts have summed the situation up very well. I personally would not allow any child of mine to to responsible as the lead for a group of teenagers and if some one has acted as guarantor then at the end of the day the buck stops with them and they must pay. no if's no but's.

Sorry

Dave

Holidays are like any other product or service which we buy. The company selling them to us do so in good faith. Just because friends fall out does not absolve them from liability. If TOs, or any other business are to charge reasonable prices, they do need some protection otherwise how are they to continue to sell us something at an affordable price?

I agree, in this case I unusually have some sympathy with the travel company, but fair's fair. I'm one of the first to suggest having a go at them if I think they are at fault.

Peter

My opinion is that if you wrote a letter giving your permission for a 17 year old to be the lead name then in theory you are acting as a guarantor. In any other situation if you are acting as a guarantor then you are responsible for any payment owing should the person you are acting as guarantor for default.

I don't really see why this should be any different because it is a holiday.

It is usually made very clear in the terms and conditions that if you pay a low deposit and then subsequently cancel you are responsible for paying the full deposit.

Pippa

...and i bet all this was explained fully by the Tour operator??? I doubt it very much!!! Small print again!

My feeling is that very strong pressure should be brought to bear on the other members of the party to pay their share. They may not be legally responsible but they are definitely morally responsible for paying their own deposits. Apart from anything else it would teach them a lesson not to mess people about!

I don't see that the issue is that of the party being under 18. The booking was accepted with the OP as guarantor.

What I see as the issue is that they didn't pay a full deposit. I can't see how the holiday contract exists for the whole party if only a part deposit was paid - and a low one at that. I hope that Ros can sort this out as surely there isn't an actual booking in place - unless for the numbers who have paid a deposit. So I'm asking the same as silverpixie - a deposit has not been paid so how can they be chasing for it? Unless the TA promised them their booking without the deposit and is now covering her/his back for making a booking without taking deposit?

I think you are right S&C (and silverpixie) sounds like there is really only a booking for 4 people not 8 people and the low deposit is a bit of a red herring.

If only 4 people paid a deposit, either low or full, then surely only 4 are actually booked on the holiday.

Sounds a bit of a mess really. I can't see how the travel agent could demand the balance of a low deposit for the other 4 if they never paid the initial deposit in the first instance as there is no contract in place. Hope Ros can sort it out for the OP.

Of coarse they can demand the rest of the low deposit.
The booking was made for 8 people.
If the rest don't pay its up to the lead name to chase it up and sort it out.
What they should have done was the lead name should have collected the deposit from everyone and then went in and booked it.

Of coarse they can demand the rest of the low deposit.
The booking was made for 8 people.

But how can this be, Littlebopeep. As I understand it, only enough deposit was paid to cover 4 people. If I went to book for a family of say 6 and said "sorry, I only have enough money on me to pay deposits for 3" I don't think the TA would take a booking for 6. Am I missing something here?

Hi
I am sorry if I have caused some confusion with some of you,but when the four girls went into the TA three of them were 17 and one was 18.Although they would all be 18 when they travel,the three girls needed a letter from parent giving permission to go on holiday which I did for Rachel.I only knew she was lead name when the letter came addressed to her demanding the deposits for all eight.Why did they not put the 18 year old as lead name? Surely the booking should not have been made for eight,when only four were in the TA at that time.
The low deposit was £40.00 per person.Only one of them had money on them that day and paid £40.00.Rachel paid her deposit the following day and the other two a day later again! The other four then changed their minds and never went into the TA to pay their £40.00.
I do feel that it is not all Rachels fault she feels terrible, some of the blame should be with the TA
I hope this clarifies some of the issues mentioned.
Bye for now
Ceri

Not all have to be present to make a booking. Once a booking has been made and the confirmation invoice has been issued a contract is established irrespective of any monies handed over.

Mark

In the past a T.O has held a booking on an option for 24 hours before it is finalised or expires and without any money changing hands or any contract being agreed .Is this what has happened in this case maybe? Some of the girls paid the deposit whilst it was within this period escalating it to a confirmed booking.

Not all have to be present to make a booking. Once a booking has been made and the confirmation invoice has been issued a contract is established irrespective of any monies handed over.

Of course you are right in that Mark but what I don't understand is how the travel agent managed to get a booking for 8 people through the system when only 4 of them paid any deposit. I could understand it if the four had paid a full deposit because that would cover all of them for a low deposit but they didn't.

Unless of course the TA used their own commission to pay the missing deposits to confirm the booking.

Sometimes sales targets are more important than commission.

I'm not too sure. I suppose it is similar to the low deposit scheme which is - in my opinion - just a tool to get customers to book a holiday now rather than later. Perhaps somebody working in the industry can explain when the monies actually get handed over from the travel agent to the tour operator as this might give us a clue whether the travelagent had to dig in their own pockets to make up the difference of the other 4 people.

Mark

Hi

I work in the industry so i will try and explain as best i can what OUR t&c's are when it comes to low deposit schemes.
When a holiday is booked and the customer has decided to take advantage of the low deposit scheme, we have to take the low deposit - say £40 per person at time of booking. so lets say the full deposit per person is £100 and we have booked 2 people, then we have taken £80 at time of booking and this leaves £120 of the total deposit to be paid at a later date. Now, when we do these low deposits we ALWAYS have to take either a post-dated cheque for the remainder deposit or take customers card details for security purposes.
We have to advise the customers that the card will not be used at any time UNLESS they fail to pay the remainder deposit as agreed. The customers have to sign an agreement to this. If they are not happy with this then the other option to them is to just pay the full deposit.
The TO will take the FULL deposit from us so in theory we are paying the remainder £120 on behalf of the customer which is why we take the cheque/card details as security.

With regards to the under 18 being lead name on a booking, then as far as im concerned we cant accept that booking. when booking with US the lead MUST be 18 yrs or over. there can be people travelling under 18 (varies from TO-TO the actual t&c's) but we must take a letter of consent from a parent/guardian.

I hope the OP gets it all sorted
bbntt

Hi Ceri

I guess you will be taking advise from Ros, but your 'get out' could be the fact that if one of the party was 18, surely they should have been the lead name. If this is an error on the part of the agent it could be a legitimate reason to cancel the contract. I'm no expert in travel contracts but it does seem odd, despite the fact that your daughter had a letter from you giving permission to book that they would use her as the lead. I would hope there's a loophole there somewhere.
Goodluck, as someone once said to me a retrospectoscope is a wonderful thing, it's easy to see in hindsight what they should have done, I just hope it all gets sorted.

Pam

If one girl paid money on the day of booking the holiday then why did they not make her the lead name. It all sounds one big mess to me.