CreditCards Blog

Hi, am having trouble getting a refund from Halifax Credit Card.. Have purchased a flight with XL that went bust recently, had only paid the deposit and I am under the understanding that I am entitled to a full refund for the full flight even though I only paid the deposit. They tell me today that i was only entitled to the deposit back,, help i need clarification.:money:

Did you pay the rest of the funds in cash or by an alternative method ?

Quote the relevant bits of this to them.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm

They are ******g you about !!!!

From what I can see of your thread, you say that you have only paid the deposit but you are assuming that you want them to refund you the whole amount of the flight? Why would they do that??? They are only going to pay the money back that you paid to them, nothing else! I think it is very unfair expecting your credit card company to give you what is basically free money for no reason? That is just benefitting from the companies' demise which is a bit, well...mean!!

I may have misunderstood what you were saying but that is what you have made it sound like!!

xx

OP has to explain whether he paid in full for the flight by other means.
If only the deposit was paid then that is only what he can claim back.
If he paid the balance by cash,cheque, debit card or even another credit card he can claim for the whole amount.

Hi, am having trouble getting a refund from Halifax Credit Card.. Have purchased a flight with XL that went bust recently, had only paid the deposit and I am under the understanding that I am entitled to a full refund for the full flight even though I only paid the deposit. They tell me today that i was only entitled to the deposit back,, help i need clarification.:money:

You're only entitled to claim back what you paid out. Why should you get any more?!

You're only entitled to claim back what you paid out. Why should you get any more?!
At last some fact and "common sense" on this thread, you can only claim back what you have paid.....:confused: Hello anybody in?

The OP needs to clarify if they had paid the rest of the flight and if by another means

Hi, am having trouble getting a refund from Halifax Credit Card.. Have purchased a flight with XL that went bust recently, had only paid the deposit and I am under the understanding that I am entitled to a full refund for the full flight even though I only paid the deposit. They tell me today that i was only entitled to the deposit back,, help i need clarification.:money:

does that not clarify what they have paid?

The OP needs to clarify if they had paid the rest of the flight and if by another means
Read the first post, the OP has only paid the deposit?????????????:rolleyes:

From what I can see of your thread, you say that you have only paid the deposit but you are assuming that you want them to refund you the whole amount of the flight? Why would they do that??? They are only going to pay the money back that you paid to them, nothing else! I think it is very unfair expecting your credit card company to give you what is basically free money for no reason? That is just benefitting from the companies' demise which is a bit, well...mean!!

I may have misunderstood what you were saying but that is what you have made it sound like!!

xx

The Law says otherwise ! The OP is fully entitled to claim back all she lost from the company she paid the deposit to.

I suggest she ignores most of the ill informed comments on this thread.

"The claim is not limited to the amount of the credit card transaction. Customers can claim for all losses caused by the breach of contract or misrepresentation. And this applies even if all they paid by credit card was the deposit.
So, for example, a customer who pays a deposit for goods using a credit card issued by firm A and then pays the balance using firm Bs card, has the choice of claiming for the cost of goods and any consequental losses against:
the supplier of the goods;
firm A;
firm B; or
all three.But of course, the customer cannot recover the same money twice."

Moonrakerz - the legislation you've quoted would still imply that the OP would have had to pay the balance of the flight elsewhere to qualify for full protection.

While your quote re. money back in full is accurate, it's supported with an example that clearly indicates that the goods have been paid for in full.

Have to say that I'm the camp that says you get back what you've lost - can't see the op getting back monies that weren't paid. Not going on holiday is a wrench, but I can't see how this classes as consequential loss.

Moonrakerz - the legislation you've quoted would still imply that the OP would have had to pay the balance of the flight elsewhere to qualify for full protection.

While your quote re. money back in full is accurate, it's supported with an example that clearly indicates that the goods have been paid for in full.

Have to say that I'm the camp that says you get back what you've lost - can't see the op getting back monies that weren't paid. Not going on holiday is a wrench, but I can't see how this classes as consequential loss.

You are quite correct, my apologies. :o I misread/misunderstood the OP, you can only reclaim what you paid - otherwise you are committing fraud.

The definition of "consequential loss" can be difficult. Earlier this year I successfully claimed back 1000 more than I paid (from Morgan Stanley) to cover the extra cost of seats on BA when Maxjet went bust.

You are quite correct, my apologies. :o I misread/misunderstood the OP, you can only reclaim what you paid - otherwise you are committing fraud.

The definition of "consequential loss" can be difficult. Earlier this year I successfully claimed back 1000 more than I paid (from Morgan Stanley) to cover the extra cost of seats on BA when Maxjet went bust.

Quite alright mate! Congrats for trying to bring some clarity to another thread on this board that was starting to look a little silly :rotfl:

I was just about to say that consequential loss would be a very difficult one to offer advice on, as one lawyer/judge would probably argue a totally different point from the next.

I see this in my job on a daily basis - where writing up case history/appeals case etc. etc. you often see some very odd opinions from the bench. That said, precedent is always useful when trying to make the point stick :)