NO refund from CC company eventhough I paid the full amount with it. Had refund a few weeks ago from CAA. CC company stated it would pay, only in the event of CAA refusing.

This is something that has always intrigued me

1. You pay through loaded charges to be ATOL protected

I also notice that some companies are now showing :

From Virgin (Important Information - April 2009)
1 pound per person of the cost of air holiday package is paid to the Civil Aviation Authority to provide ATOL protection for you. This means that the money paid for these arrangements is fully protected.

I would have thought that, as a charge for protection has been levied through ATOL / CAA ,they are the ones responsible for the cover - not the card company. It is, after all what you have paid for.

Surely, legally, the card company only becomes responsible if you do not receive what you pay for - i.e. no product and no cover.

Whilst not claiming to be a legal expert, indeed this is something that should be referred to Trading standards as the CAA / ATOL seem to constantly refuse to honour a service for which they have received payment.

Any thoughts / opinions on this?

Peter

Exactly our point Peter. We are not legal experts but feel ATOL/CAA are in violation of their responsiblites to us the paying public. If we have to go to the credit card company to claim surely their business should be deemed unsound, they should have looked into these points of law before issuing promises and guarantees it is irrelavent how someone pays they are covering you as soon as they take the premium, because it is their business to. They are just trying to get out of such a big pay out and are tentatively trying everyway possible to see what they can get away with. We are finding that nobody will actually put a signature to anything. So shouldn't we have the choice to take the cover, we thought we were covered and look what we are having to go through, this surely amounts to legal extortion. We feel we are being conned as we have always done everything in good faith and would expect the same in return. Now they have to actually honor a commitment they are running around like headless chickens, I am an electrical contractor and should I welch on my guarantees in this manner, I would be out of business and prosecuted by now. If the CAA are allowed to get away with this it is a complete sham, and will set a president. Surely this would mean that the credit card companies would be liable for everything as this seem to be the way most people pay, this could put a lot of insurance companies out of buisness and open up a can of worms.

Regards John

Don't knock it. The current £1.00 charge has been introduced to top up the funds of the CAA/ATOL which have been severely depleted in the last 12 months. According to reports there are a number of companies who have not renewed with ATOL - the CC might be the only way some will get any money back.

The credit card protection is valid on transactions over £100 and up to £30,000 even if all you paid was the deposit. There is no protection for those who pay by cash, cheque or debit card.

fwh

Hi fwh,

Don't knock it. The current £1.00 charge has been introduced to top up the funds of the CAA/ATOL which have been severely depleted in the last 12 months. According to reports there are a number of companies who have not renewed with ATOL - the CC might be the only way some will get any money back.

Unfortunately I am knocking it. If ATOL is meant to mean anything then they should provide what it says on the tin - protection - this is what is being paid for.

Cheers

Peter

ATOL protects your 'package holiday'. The £1 ATOL levy was only introduced in 2008 due to a deficit in the existing bonding.

They may have got the stranded holiday makers home but they were a small percentage of the paying public that were hit.

Not sure of percentages, but when XL Leisure Group ceased trading on 12 Sep 08, ATOL had arranged a total of 94 repatriation flights by 14 Sep 08, which carried over 22,000 customers of the failed holiday company XL. A further 30,000 people that were on holiday at the time of the collapse were able to continue their holidays in the knowledge that ATOL would arrange their flight home.

I disagree with the op, and still think ATOL do provide what is on the tin. People don't read the tin to see it's contents and travel companies put sticky tape over the tin and say "no that's not a complete ATOL tin - we filled it with a dynamic packaging, it doesn't contain an ATOL holiday. But not our business to refund you, go to ATOL anyway".

"The credit card protection is valid on transactions over £100 and up to £30,000 even if all you paid was the deposit. There is no protection for those who pay by cash, cheque or debit card.

fwh"

Not true actually ..You are covered on a debit card such as the Nationwide Debit card because it has the Visa symbol on it" ..They are part of the Visa Chargeback agreement which covers you and they have paid up when companies have gone bust in the past.. It is a voluntary agreement however, whereas the credit card one is a legal obligation

johnhainsby

Why care who pays your refund as long as you are refunded, there are plenty who booked a flight direct with XL who are getting nothing back unless they paid be credit card. I would be grateful if i was you to get your money back from anybody.

You don't say if you booked your flight direct, or via a travel agent. Did you know if you booked direct you are not covered by atol and if you booked through a travel agent you are, so if you booked direct could be the reason why you were refunded by the credit card company. I understand it if you are not covered by atol then its your credit card company who is responsible to refund you. If section 75 wasn't there then you would really be moaning.

First time I have heard somebody moan even though they get a refund.

FWH

I agree with hotel slayer on nationwide debit card and having the visa sign on it, you can claim money back.

The CAA's website with info on the XL Group and claims http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1804

It says: This webpage sets out information to update XL claimants on the claims handling process. It provides updates as new information for claimants becomes available and explains the issues that have affected our ability to handle claims as quickly as we would like.

I agree with hotel slayer on nationwide debit card and having the visa sign on it, you can claim money back.

I was aware of that when I posted - BUT - in view of the number of cards that people have and different banks I thought it best to advise as I did. It only confuses people. The obvious thing for anyone to do in such circumstances is to ask their card supplier if they are covered. There are still a very large number of people who pay by cheque or cash.

The best advice for anyone is to use the CC - then you know you are covered.

fwh

Aliceadventures - Hi,

Thank you for the link - I will not quote directly from it, in case it is covered by copyright, but under the Credit Card section it states that anyone who paid for their holiday in full, by credit card, should claim from the company that issued their card.

OK, so I'm rather dense - but it does appear to me that to claim that ATOL protects you from losing your money (and to levy a charge which is obviously passed on in the price of the holiday and which has itself been paid for by credit card) and then opt out of the guarantee by passing the buck to someone else, seems rather unethical and the ultimate cop-out.

Perhaps but does anyone know if this position has been legally challenged?

They spout on about the dangers of DIY holidays, never mentioning the protection of the Credit Card!

Peter

It doesn't say that exactly does it, I can't find that it. It states circumstances which in some some bookings which are not covered by ATOL to claim from the cc company. Not as you say 'anyone who paid for a holiday in full should claim from the company that issued the credit card'.

What is your problems exactly as I don't understand who you are annoyed at other than ATOL. If you'd been one of the people on holiday at the time, possibly you'd have a different view on things.

I am sure that the matter will have been challenged and ruled on by a court of law. The cc companies are in business to make a profit so would not be paying out if they were not forced to do so.

What does surprise me so often in the amount of debt that these companies declare when they go bust. It could be the cavalier manner in which banks have been lending in the past that is responsible. No wonder the ATOL fund was in trouble. Personally I am happy to pay 2% for payment by cc for the protection it gives. On the one occasion I have had to claim they refunded the 2% as well.

fwh

Hi Aliceadventures,

Just to clarify - the reason that you don't understand "What is your problems exactly" is that you obviously have a stance here - whereas I do not. I have no problem, merely an opinion.

When you say , "It doesn't exactly say that does it" - please read

In the absence of an agreement, Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies and everyone who paid for their holiday in full by credit card direct to an XL tour operator should claim from the company that issued their credit card.

Fairly close I would say.

BTW - I agree that ATOL appeared to be fairly helpful in assisting with the repatriation of those stranded overseas.

fwh - I too prefer to pay by card - belt and braces stuff. I do wish the travel industry - TOs, TAs, ABTA, CAA/ATOL would get their act together though. The confusion caused to many (especially regarding what does and does not constitute a package) is very unhelpful. Aliceadventures is spot on here, "travel companies put sticky tape over the tin, etc., " (more spin than....... no, I wont say it - but smoke and mirrors come to mind)

I am sure that most people just want to pay their money, secure in the knowledge that the various overseeing bodies and organisations ensure that they are covered if they purchase from an agent or operator displaying their logo. If it is difficult and cofusing, then for the sake of all concerned - simplify it all.

I will say no more here on this one. Nuff said - I'm bowing out (it's past by bed time and my cocoa is getting cold )

Peter

I don't have a stance, I do have an opinion, but HT is often referred to and guidance, I do think that if you start a thread like this it is only fair that you find others disagreeing with you, or adding their views and that is perfectly normal.

In the absence of an agreement

There is text (on the website) before your quote that clarifies when you should seek compensation from the cc company.

Taking one sentence out of the whole context changes the meaning. When another failure happens it would be wrong to have a post telling people that there are no alternative routes as the CC companies will not refund because if there was an agreement with the CAA you were covered by ATOL.

The CAA website is very comprehensive and can not be summed up as "claim off your credit card", because they are not ducking out of their responsibility but are obviously having to take legal advice as the piggy bank is getting empty rather quickly (£1 levy is not even a year old). Also note that the cc companies, even if we'd like to believe they are fairy godmothers are not, and won't refund in all cases ie, where there was actual cover by an ATOL bond with the CAA in the first instance or some other protection in place.

About 2 years ago someone posted on HT (now removed by MODS) that TR were ATOL bonded, when they are not, never have been. It stood there for years and was incorrect. Many may have booked in the past after seeing that,and thought they had bought a ATOL protected package holiday when it was a dynamic package (see TR threads after XL failure) because there are many who did think that and were surprised when they did not get claims as easily as they thought they might.

One thing we agree on for instance, in the light of Freedom Direct failure last month, that members of the public need to know what is covered and what is not in more simple terms, the way it is now is far too complicated and even some industry members look like they fail to know until they have seek legal advice. ABTA are doing that now in the light of Freedom Direct/Hays with accommodation suppliers failing to honor Agency Law for bookings that have already been confirmed and payed for. It really is beyond belief.
Also you don't have to pay through the teeth to be protected and safe and book a package holiday. You don't have to pay 2 to 2.% credit charges (you can negotiate or book elsewhere). I have done package and DIY in the past, so I am not pro or against either way to book. But I do know what is covered by ATOL and what is not and take steps to make sure my payments are secure and safe.

The growth of online site, and they way the public now book online, I think only makes it worse, you have no idea if it is a package or dynamic (items sold outside of any ATOL protection). Some agents use the customers card details, to book flights direct for their customers, with a low cost airline, which means the flight will not have ATOL cover (not purchased from an ATOL ticket agent) and by doing this you then have a direct contract with the airline, possibly without even knowing. This is common, but highly unprofessional and should not be be happening and I am sure is breaking the law (using some ones card details without consent with a third party).

Some accommodation only sites or sites like icelolly for instance have all the logos on the home page, but icelolly are not members of anything and are only a directory for travel companies. Taking bookings/leads and not entering any contract themselves. People may think they are members of all this travel associations when they see the home page, but they are not. You could set up a site just like it if you can get travel companies to use your directory. There's an idea how to add to the confusion.

And so it will gone on and this year will see more people who can't afford to loose even a penny, loosing out because of the way they are sold a 'holiday'.

Also when a cc does a chargeback, where do you think the money will come from? If the agent has gone bust will there be any money to pay the chargeback? I don't know on this point.

Sorry if there is any typos, I rushed the last bit.

Hi. I haven't read all this thread but I have just lost my money to Xcape With Us and to be honest I don't care who I get it back from. Will be going down all avenues; travel insurance, debit card and Xcape With Us but don't hold out much luck for getting anything from them. They collapsed on the
30 April and took the balance from my card on the 29 April. Not impressed . Luckily my claim will only be for a couple of hundred quid because it was a weekend away for me and my friend. Fingers crossed flight (Easyjet) and transfer (Resort Hoppa) will be OK.

The growth of online site, and they way the public now book online, I think only makes it worse, you have no idea if it is a package or dynamic (items sold outside of any ATOL protection).

I believe that there is at present a case before the courts regarding this so called "Dynamic Package" The 1975 act states that it is a package when two or more elements make up the booking. We as the general public have no idea how a company operates its business but are under the impression, that when we book a holiday "flight and accommodation" that it is a "package holiday" - the semantics that "travel agents" use escape us.

According to an article in The Sunday Times the ATOL £1.00 levy is to increase later this year to £3.00 - The £60 million overdraft they have from Barclays is being rapidly depleted.

The whole thing needs to be examined. It is apparent that some companies have been trading when they were aware they were insolvent. Yes we may have ATOL and our CCs giving protection but that is of little consolation when the company goes bust two weeks before we go. Yes we get our money back but the majority of people are not able to afford to book/pay for another holiday whilst they wait for their money to be returned.

fwh

Hi there fwh. As I said earlier, we have only lost just over 200 quid so we can afford to rebook and wait for the money. I feel sorry anyone who has booked their main holiday and lost out.