CCA Section 75 request and escalation to Financial Ombudsman?

[May Fly]

We recently had a holiday that was awful, and on our return complained to the Tour Operator (following up our complaint to the resort reps). The tour operator gave us the complete brush off, so we made a Section 75 request to the credit card company.

 

2 months later they have responded and turned down the claim. The bank claims that for s75 to apply there must be an unbroken link between debtor, creditor and supplier. In this case they claim the supplier was the hotel. Their basis for refusal is that the main complaint was the filthy, dangerous state of the hotel, and because we didn't pay the hotel ourselves (it was a package holiday) there is no 'link' between debtor, creditor and supplier as the hotel was the supplier at fault.

 

Now, anyone with even a basic grasp of contract law knows that if you subcontract part of a job, you still remain responsible for the work, and that the 'link' the bank claims is broken is in fact completely intact, but it stops at the tour operator who received our money and was responsible for providing everything concerned with the holiday. Even though the tour operator subcontracted the provision of accommodation to the hotel, they remain liable for fulfilling that contractual requirement.

 

Now, the question is, is it worthwhile pointing this out to the misguided or simply ignorant/dishonest bank employee (in which case can anyone suggest some suitable wording or legal argument?) or, as 8 weeks have now passed since the complaint I understand it can be investigated by Financial Services Ombudsman. Would a better tactic (than arguing with the bank about the interpretation of the Act) be to complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman about the Bank's incorrect and rather creative interpretation of s75?

 

Can you just imagine if the bank was correct? You had your car repaired at a garage and the parts fitted were faulty.... according to the bank not their problem because you don't have any contract with the manufacturer of the parts.... or you ordered something mail order and it didn't arrive, again, not covered by s75 because you didn't have any agreement with the courier company and didn't pay them....

Edited December 20, 2013 by May Fly

[dx100uk]

what about ABTA etc?

 

it wont hurt to ring the fos and ask them first too

 

dx

 

 

dx

[May Fly]

Don't have much confidence in ATOL/ABTA etc.

Have heard they are very biased towards the company, a

nd not sure if the dispute would be covered.

 

Am interested in people's views of the FOS,

if complaints are worthwhile,

if the correct logical decisions are reached etc,

or if they are biased towards the banks. I

 

don't really have much confidence in any of the regulators based on my experience

so am reluctant to waste time with the FOS unless it's likely to be considered fairly, by people who live in the real world.

 

Don't have any confidence in banks, we've seen in recent years how dishonest, corrupt and incompetent they are,

and the reply from the bank that there is no claim because we had no contract with the hotel doesn't really surprise me,

they'll try anything to weedle out of their responsibilities.

 

does anyone have any experience of the FOS and s75?

and does anyone have any feelinsg about it being worthwhile

arguing with the bank about their interpretation of the Act?

 

Incidentally, are banks supposed to advise customers that they can take their dispute to the Ombudsman?

 

Lastly, is this the best forum because only one response (albeit from such a prominent forum member, and gratefully received anyway) is a supprise.

 

I am sure there are many members with experience of s75 and the FOS.

 

Maybe the latter members hang out in the debt forum?

 

We'd appreciate advice as we are both in bad health and want to make best use of the limited energy we have.

[batman1956]

You need to be more specific about why your holiday was "awful". If the tour operator did not supply what was contracted to you then you may have recourse. The reason that you are not getting much response is, with all due respect, because there is not much information to respond to.

[ericsbrother]

Nomally the get out for the tour operator is if the parts of the holiday are separate,

ie you choose your flight, hotel and extras as individual variables.

 

If you booked as a package then they company is entirely liable and so the bank is thus jointly liable.

 

They are clearly listening to someone who doesnt want to pay you your refund and they are going along with that

as it is the cheaest and easiest option for them.

 

You may have to consider going the ABTA route as a protocol before using the county court but

 

formally reject the banks reasons as you booked a PACKAGE and thus the travel co is liable for everything.