Have to pull out of skiing holiday - options?

PaddyofNine

I was due to go skiing in the middle of January. Was hospitalised this week with a back problem, the doctor and physio have told me I can't go skiing. Bummer.

Haven't paid the full price yet (€1,400) - just the deposit of €150. Rang the ski company earlier today - they're informing me I'll have to pay a cancellation fee of 30%, which comes to over €400. I'm tight enough for cash with ++physio fees, MRI costs, etc - do I have any options? I can't get anyone else to go in my place, and I don't have travel insurance (thought my health insurance was enough to cover me).

Anyone any idea or comments?

Paulw

Guess you are SOL. Travel insurance would have covered you, but it's too late for that now.

It's an unfortunate situation, but not much you can do, except pay what is due.

PaddyofNine

I suppose - the annoying thing is I've only payed the deposit so far (€150) - very frustrating to have to fork out another €300 odd for no return.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It is unfortunate, but also a cautionary tale for all to have travel insurance.

Bepolite

PaddyofNine wrote: »

I suppose - the annoying thing is I've only payed the deposit so far (€150) - very frustrating to have to fork out another €300 odd for no return.

I'd take advice on that (through FLAC perhaps) seems odd they didn't take enough of a deposit to cover any costs they might incur.

Tippex

Bepolite wrote: »

I'd take advice on that (through FLAC perhaps) seems odd they didn't take enough of a deposit to cover any costs they might incur.

pretty standard practice that you only pay a deposit and then depending on the contract cancellations start kicking in.
Generally if you cancel outside of 10 weeks then you lose the deposit but then once inside the 10 weeks then the fees can get quite hefty
Clearly outlined on booking forms that would have been signed.

Not necessarily anything to do with the costs that the may or may not incur...

OP you will pretty much have to pay the 30% unless you can get someone to go in your place (which doesn't look likely) or if you can prove that you never signed the booking form (easier said than done)

This is the whole reason for travel insurance. the insurance company would pay out and all you would need is a cancellation invoice.

PaddyofNine

Complicating matters, a friend booked the trip for the five of us - an invoice was issued in my name (separately as I was the only non-couple member) and she payed the €150 for me.

keithclancy

Unless its in the Terms and Conditions that you can cancel in an event like this then its game over imo.

Bepolite

Tippex wrote: »

Not necessarily anything to do with the costs that the may or may not incur...

In which case it's likely unenforceable by virtue of the (unfair terms in consumer contracts) regulations. That said OP is on a bit of a sticky wicket if there are others planning to go.

My advice is pay it then take advice through FLAC.

Paulw

Bepolite wrote: »

In which case it's likely unenforceable by virtue of the (unfair terms in consumer contracts) regulations. That said OP is on a bit of a sticky wicket if there are others planning to go.

You keep going on about unfair terms in contract, in many threads, but yet have you ever seen a case won due to this when a deposit is not returned??? :rolleyes:

The OP should have had insurance. Now, the OP has no choice but to pay. I'm sure the consumer association or even FLAC will confirm this.

PaddyofNine

Losing the deposit is what I'd expected - it's forking out another €300 odd that's the killer!

Bepolite

Paulw wrote: »

You keep going on about unfair terms in contract, in many threads, but yet have you ever seen a case won due to this when a deposit is not returned??? :rolleyes:

The OP should have had insurance. Now, the OP has no choice but to pay. I'm sure the consumer association or even FLAC will confirm this.

Yes I have - many thanks for asking specifically under Schedule 3, (1)d. If you bothered to read my posts you'd see it's the extra payment I'm talking about.

Edit: OP beyond my bickering with people who prefer to attack me rather than go and have a read of consumer legislation, without wanting to go into specific legal advice, your recourse may be under Schedule 3, (1)e

( e ) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

I don't expect people to have law degrees when having a discussing consumer issues, I'm also more than happy to be put right on issues. What gets up my nose is snotty comments backed-up with sarcastic emoticons with reasoning for the assertion. If you want to question me please feel free, I'd obviously prefer if it was done politely but if you want to try and make each other look stupid I'm more than happy to oblige.

Pkiernan

OP = dont pay them any more money.

How do you think they can possibly collect more money from you if you refuse?

They cannot.

Bepolite

Pkiernan wrote: »

OP = dont pay them any more money.

How do you think they can possibly collect more money from you if you refuse?

They cannot.

His mates are also going so there might be an issue there in that it seems to have been organised through one person. I'd have said the same thing had it not been for that.

SmallCroc

Pkiernan wrote: »

OP = dont pay them any more money.

How do you think they can possibly collect more money from you if you refuse?

They cannot.

Tough on the other four who will almost certainly have their holidays cancelled and lose their deposits. Other than that, great advice.

drkpower

Bepolite wrote: »

In which case it's likely unenforceable by virtue of the (unfair terms in consumer contracts) regulations. That said OP is on a bit of a sticky wicket if there are others planning to go.

I think you are stretching considerably when you say 'likely'.

Break fees of this type have been common place in contracts of this type for many years. I've never heard of them being challenged successfully. If you have, I'd be genuinely interested to know.

On the face of it, of course, it does appear that charging 30% or 50% of the holiday price is disproportionate to the traders likely losses. After all, if the trader sells the holiday to someone else, they are quids in. But presumably, where a holiday is cancelled 4 or 6 weeks (or whatever) before departure, there is a significant risk to the trader being unable to sell that holiday which means that they lose quite a significant amount.

I suspect that the scale of the break fees charged are based on actuarial statistics which look at the % of holidays which are not sold on when cancelled x weeks before departure. Assuming that to be the case (and assuming that the industry just doesn't pick the %rates out of their arse), I can't see any reality to these charges being considered an unfair term.

And it certainly isn't likely.

Mind you, if I was the OP, and if it didn't cause problems for the others, I'd be inclined to pay nothing and see if I was chased. Or even better, try and get someone else to fill in in my place (perhaps with a few quid as a sweetener). Or go, and don't ski?

Bepolite

drkpower wrote: »

I think you are stretching considerably when you say 'likely'.

Likely was used in the context of the post it quoted. However point taken it was not meant to convey the OP would be successful, just more likely if the situation was as per the quote.

drkpower wrote: »

Break fees of this type have been common place in contracts of this type for many years. I've never heard of them being challenged successfully. If you have, I'd be genuinely interested to know.

I'm not being flippant when I say thing but I'd be interested to hear of where they've be challenged unsuccessfully. Because of the way out legal system works, unless it's the subject of an appeal to the High Court it's very unlikely to have a written judgment. This would mean an initial claim in excess of €38,092 so is very unlikely to cover the majority of consumer transactions.

Whats more likely is a well worded threat to a legal department results in a refund. I've seen it done with campers (although there is a decision on this now), and in relation to a deposit. I'm afraid it becomes pretty anecdotal as you can see.

drkpower wrote: »

On the face of it, of course, it does appear that charging 30% or 50% of the holiday price is disproportionate to the traders likely losses. After all, if the trader sells the holiday to someone else, they are quids in. But presumably, where a holiday is cancelled 4 or 6 weeks (or whatever) before departure, there is a significant risk to the trader being unable to sell that holiday which means that they lose quite a significant amount.

I suspect that the scale of the break fees charged are based on actuarial statistics which look at the % of holidays which are not sold on when cancelled x weeks before departure. Assuming that to be the case (and assuming that the industry just doesn't pick the %rates out of their arse), I can't see any reality to these charges being considered an unfair term.

Point taken, however IMHO it's worth asking after. I respect that your point of view differs and I also appreciate you took the time to express it like an adult and actually put some reasoning behind it.

drkpower wrote: »

And it certainly isn't likely.

See above. However if they are genuinely out of pocket they can easily show this to the Small Claims Court. If they are not then it's only right the OP only pays for the actual loss he has caused.

drkpower wrote: »

Mind you, if I was the OP, and if it didn't cause problems for the others, I'd be inclined to pay nothing and see if I was chased. Or even better, try and get someone else to fill in in my place (perhaps with a few quid as a sweetener). Or go, and don't ski?

Well we agree here it seems.

drkpower

You can go to the financial services ombudsman for free and I don't think he has ever found that that term was unfair.

Obviously, one can say that if a judge or the fso hasn't found against something, that it may be illegal. That of course is possible. But when you consider that these terms have been commonplace for years, that they have a justifiable reason for existing (as I posted above) and that they have never been successfully challenged, I think it is reasonable to say that they are likely to be legal.

Can't say it for certain obviously, but the sensible legal advice to anyone asking would be that they are enforceable.

Bepolite

drkpower wrote: »

You can go to the financial services ombudsman for free and I don't think he has ever found that that term was unfair.

Obviously, one can say that if a judge or the fso hasn't found against something, that it may be illegal. That of course is possible. But when you consider that these terms have been commonplace for years, that they have a justifiable reason for existing (as I posted above) and that they have never been successfully challenged, I think it is reasonable to say that they are likely to be legal.

Can't say it for certain obviously, but the sensible legal advice to anyone asking would be that they are enforceable.

The issue there is that everything common place is considered legal until it's challenged. You also over look the pest factor (and before you have a go at me for that lets not forget what you're also advocating).

In relation to travel I think I had 20 people tell me that I was talking bollocks about it being unfair that Airlines would cancel/charge more for tickets used out of sequence. I was assured it was a practice as old as air travel itself. Lo and behold when I did some digging theres a German decision on it saying airlines are acting the maggot doing this.

Each to their own but I think it bears asking the question, fair enough if you don't.

EDIT: In relation to the FSO it's not something I'd looked at before so thanks for putting me on to them. A very brief look at their website doesn't seem to be clear that that deal with travel companies, any corrections welcome of course. Do they publish decisions? I can only see the Annual report.

davo10

You said your friend paid the deposit on your behalf, probably by credit card and she agreed when paying to the terms and conditions. The company may well deduct fee from your friends card. That will go down well.

dudara

Posters - if you wish to debate the legalities and fairness of contracts, then go to the Legal Issues forum. You are clouding the waters here.

dudara

Bepolite

dudara wrote: »

Posters - if you wish to debate the legalities and fairness of contracts, then go to the Legal Issues forum. You are clouding the waters here.

dudara

Apologies and noted for future reference.

OP there may or may not be recourse over the €300, I, personally, think if you've a local FLAC that has a free slot it's worth availing of that service. www.flac.ie it's a free service and although demands on it are high if they can't help you it'll be a quick appointment, if they can you might make a small donation. That would (and should have been) my only advice.