Panorama Holiday Booking

dubbin

parsi wrote: »

That must be one hyper-efficient bank to get a letter out to you in double-quick time.

I don't have shares in Panorama.

I think there are people out there replying to this problem who are far too smart and patronising to us the people who booked this holiday. I am quite sure if you had booked this holiday in good faith you would not feel as we do .as previous people have said they felt it was a bargain offer as it was a September Sale,also what about all the crazy price offers from holiday and airlines , who ever thought you could fly for 1euro I rest my case.

May I add that Panaroma have been absolutly rude arrogant and un buisness like. which for a huge company is arrogant.

Nody

But that is the point; it is NOT a reasonble offer and hence if you thought you could get a flight AND hotel for a week for 98 EUR all inclusive in good faith then I got a nice red bridge for sale...

It would be the same if BMW had a new 09 5 series listed at 2.000 EUR all inclusive on their web site and you bought it claiming they accepted it so all is fair and now they should deliver. At some point you have ask if the price is reasomble and if it is not you have not entered the contract in good faith and hence the contract can be delcared null and void.

Con Matthews

Hmmmmm! Well DirtyAggie, It would appear you have the bit between your teeth on this issue. Here's my read of the situation, I too booked online and received the telephone call explaining their mistake and to be honest, it was just a simple mistake.
I think you are trying to force them to give you something that you simply are not entitled to. Why are you not letting go of the bone (which by the way was never there)?
Tell me, do you make a habbit of sueing people? Have you in the past taken action many times? Perhalps you are known a Mr & Mrs Sue-It eh?

Why not move on with your life and put the matter to bed.

dubbin

Nody wrote: »

But that is the point; it is NOT a reasonble offer and hence if you thought you could get a flight AND hotel for a week for 98 EUR all inclusive in good faith then I got a nice red bridge for sale...

It would be the same if BMW had a new 09 5 series listed at 2.000 EUR all inclusive on their web site and you bought it claiming they accepted it so all is fair and now they should deliver. At some point you have ask if the price is reasomble and if it is not you have not entered the contract in good faith and hence the contract can be delcared null and void.[/QUOTA

What price is the Bridge!---- I love red bridges , maybe we can enter into a contract( if you know the definition) Make yourself a strong cup of tea and watch the CBBC TV you would. be better off .
YOU know more than Consumers -Irish Legislation- Solicitors etc
Are you thinking of changing your profession / a commedian would be more apt,

dudara

dubbin - and other posters while I appreciate that you are emotive about this issue, I am going to have to ask posters to consider their responses before replying and refrain from insulting each other.

dudara

TBH - and I am replying here as a private individual - I cannot see how a contract was formed here when one side has admitted that there was a mistake.

To use a very bad analogy - it's like convicting an innocent man.

Con Matthews

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this year?

Grow up people.

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Hmmmmm! Well DirtyAggie, It would appear you have the bit between your teeth on this issue. Here's my read of the situation, I too booked online and received the telephone call explaining their mistake and to be honest, it was just a simple mistake.
I think you are trying to force them to give you something that you simply are not entitled to. Why are you not letting go of the bone (which by the way was never there)?
Tell me, do you make a habbit of sueing people? Have you in the past taken action many times? Perhalps you are known a Mr & Mrs Sue-It eh?

Why not move on with your life and put the matter to bed.

I have never sued anyone before in my life and would never attempt to but for the fact i realy belived this to be real.
I have taken a week off at my own expense as has my partner.
also if you were treated with the condscending attitude that i have you would probably do the same.
I ceterainly didnt want the disruption and cost of sueing when a sincere apology and small goodwill gesture wouldnt have gone astray.

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this year?

Grow up people.

by the way are you con matthews originaly dublin used to work in burtons and moved to dungarvin

Nody

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:

Sales of Goods Act 1980 Section 45 wrote:

45.—(1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.

(2) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed in any proceedings arising out of the contract that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.

[GA] (3) Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1), but where he is so liable any award under subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under subsection (1).

See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.

SCHEDULE

[GA] FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS

[GA] 1. In determining for the purposes of section 13, 31, 40 or 46 of this Act or section 55 of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) if a term is fair and reasonable the test is that it shall be a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

[GA] 2. Regard is to be had in particular to any of the following which appear to be relevant:

[GA] ( a ) The strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer's requirements could have been met;

[GA] ( b ) whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having to accept a similar term;

[GA] ( c ) whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);

[GA] ( d ) where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;

[GA] ( e ) whether any goods involved were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.

[GA] 3. In this Schedule—

[GA] "contract" includes "agreement",

[GA] "term" includes "agreement" and "provision".

Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

Is that clear enough for you why I'm saying that the contract is not valid?

dubbin

Con Matthews wrote: »

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this yea
Grow up people.

Yes you are right it is turning into a slagging match and that is not my style,
but you tell me why you are doing it, re ego trip I do not need to go on a trip just a holiday . The reason I am angry is that some people are making us out as stupid and poking fun ,do you think I have nothing better to do while I am angry at Panoromas manner in this case I do not need to be ridiculed for standing up for my PRINCIPLES.

Con Matthews

dirtyaggie wrote: »

I have never sued anyone before in my life and would never attempt to but for the fact i realy belived this to be real.
I have taken a week off at my own expense as has my partner.
also if you were treated with the condscending attitude that i have you would probably do the same.
I ceterainly didnt want the disruption and cost of sueing when a sincere apology and small goodwill gesture wouldnt have gone astray.

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

gaz wac

To be fair to both sides, to say that you couldnt get a holiday for €98 and that the OP should have know better is a bit ott! I always leave my holiday bookings till the last minute, best one was with Budget for €120 ( flights/accom/transfers). So €98 is not excatly madness and unbelievable.

dubbin

Nody wrote: »

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:
See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.



Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

Is that clear enough for you why I'm saying that the contract is not valid?

Get your facts right /the above while very interesting does not stand over payment accepted and withdrawn from bank and still to this moment has not being credited back, while i appreciate your time in downloading these facts the Irish statue book does not state as above /a holiday Price can not be changed 20 days before departure if so a holiday of the same standard or better has to be given why are you all saying different when according to Consumers rights- Irish statue law -Solicitors etc. can they be all wrong?
at this point I think this is becoming rediculous.

smelltheglove

I have to say I would have booked it straight away myself! Holiday companies do come up with special offers every once in a whil and some people get lucky, I went on hols recently and paid less than 200 for a family of 4 to stay in an apartment, ok so the flights were sperate, these were a gift but with cheap flights and a 200 apartment you never know whow lucky you can get, so i dont think it is idiotic to believe that this is actually a real deal.

On from that, I do believe that when the money has been taken for a service the service should be provided, unfortunately there are many many ways around this, I once had a situation where I gave up a €500 deposit rather than go through the hassles of arguing my rights or trying to get a company to act on the price they had initially quoted me rather than the newer more expensive price.

Sometimes it is more hassle than it is worth but I admire those that will stand for their rights and get what they paid for.

These days you can get ryanair flights for less than €50 to hot destinations, why would a week away for €98 be uncomprehensable?

dubbin

Con Matthews wrote: »

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

This is beyond a joke you are making assumptions over this person . I feel you go too far sir . ( Imperial Hotel - DUNMORE EAST- CORK)

dirtyaggie

Nody wrote: »

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:
See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.



Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

I personaly would prefer to belive my solicitor and will accept her advice
but thanks anyway

Con Matthews

Dirtyaggie are you and dubbin sisters?

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

well conlaith my dear.
i CERTAINLY remember you.
I work for a small buisness and my partner is boss in own business(still needs cover tho) children are grown and spotted holiday in the morning had cover arranged by evening Yes i am superwomem

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Dirtyaggie are you and dubbin sisters?

not that i know of

Con Matthews

well, Dirtyaggie, it would appear you know me! I have not gone by that name in a loooong time! who, prey tell, and why are you so interested in trying to draw blood from a poor stone that did nothing wrong?

Jev/N

Just to follow up on Nody's post... this issue is in relation to mistake and not misrepresentation, which is a wholly different cause of action.

dudara

Con Matthews and dirtyaggie If you want to renew an acquaintance, then please do so via PM. Keep your posts in this forum on topic and relevant.

dudara

Con Matthews

Now dudoduraas,
Back up for a minute, I don't know who i dealing with here. They seem to know me. Either way, The ISSUE still remains the same: Dubbin and Dirtyaggie (imo) are one of the same. They are trying to light a fire under a stone. Be decent and stop lying to yourself - there is no holiday, you won't be on a plane next week and if you are who i think you re it will be a very Lonely Sky because of it. OK k?

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Now dudoduraas,
Back up for a minute, I don't know who i dealing with here. They seem to know me. Either way, The ISSUE still remains the same: Dubbin and Dirtyaggie (imo) are one of the same. They are trying to light a fire under a stone. Be decent and stop lying to yourself - there is no holiday, you won't be on a plane next week and if you are who i think you re it will be a very Lonely Sky because of it. OK k?

Reason im sooo pissed is some years ago after father died we as a family decided to book a holiday to canaries for christmas as we couldnt face first one at home without him. So sisters, brothers, children and me booked.
2 months before departure one sister is told she has terminal cancer.
Travel agent would only refund her and and her husband deposit .
we all lost ours.
Wheres the compassion and humanity there.
she later died.
as regards dubin I have no idea who it is and actualy presumed to be a man

dubbin

Con Matthews wrote: »

Now dudoduraas,
Back up for a minute, I don't know who i dealing with here. They seem to know me. Either way, The ISSUE still remains the same: Dubbin and Dirtyaggie (imo) are one of the same. They are trying to light a fire under a stone. Be decent and stop lying to yourself - there is no holiday, you won't be on a plane next week and if you are who i think you re it will be a very Lonely Sky because of it. OK k?

Well said !,the ISSUE is still the same---- I must say I do not agree with your take on lighting a fire and your presumtions we are all entitled to voice our feelings and as I have said previously this does not mean ridicule for our beliefs.
I am not stupid to think we are going on that holiday at this late stage, while at the same time Panorama or their profession are always getting away with blue murder an sometimes a stance has to be taken ,I do not go back on anything I have said as I believed it and still do regarding booking etc .I am not on this forum for a laugh ! I am extremely disappointed.

Con Matthews

Well Dirtyaggie,
Not the response i expected. Is it not Kay then?

Ok, I'm sorry for you loss but as my dear old pop use to say "Two wrongs don't make a right' and besides, who in their right mind would want to go away with their family on hols.

Let this one go cause panorama have trapped your wings and hold your flight -literally!

How long has it been since you were on hols?
Me, with 11 children and a widower it's not easy to go away and my under water welding franchise has dried up so i was up for a bargain but all the same, those poor panorama people don't deserve your scorn - yes, being unprofessional is wrong but they did admit the mistake.

Let's move this along.

Con Matthews

Ok maybe you are Kay and Dirtyaggie is you husband!
I do not mean to disrespect your foolish opinions but they are quite simply...wrong!
You need to relax on a beach somewhere, drink Margaritas, watch the sunset and know that you didn't screw a travel company to get you and your crazy crazy Dirtyaggie mate there!

Or failing that, get your ass down to the Imperial hotel - you seem to know it quite well. I'll get Thomas, my eldest to babysit my kids Francis, Joan, Joseph, James, Maura, Jennifer, Michael, Geraldine, Catherine and the little light of my life...Gerard. Is it a date?

That cold north wind they call LaBies is swirling here beneath my feet......

dudara

Con Matthews infracted for failing to heed a moderator's warning to cease and desist.

dudara

darc

I find it quite amazing how people convince themselves that they are right and that they can screw over a company because of a mistake.

EVEN IF panorama had put this up on purpose to mislead people they have in their terms and conditions foolproof statements allowing them to cancel the booking and provide a refund.

Basically if they do not give you a holiday you are entiltled to a refund. They are giving a refund end of story.

You cannot claim for anything else and if anyone thought that you would get an all in holiday including flights, hotel & taxes for €98 then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

You can go to solicitors, small claims court, joe effin duffy and you will get nadder extra except your own bills for legal advice.

dirtyaggie

Hi all,

Did anyone have any joy with panorama yet?