Thomas Cook in liquidation.

[Dod101]

At least that is what is being currently reported (as opposed to administration)

I find it difficult to understand that people were apparently setting off on Saturday for their Thomas Cook holiday in the full knowledge that the Company was in big trouble and they could well be stranded. I daresay their attitude was 'Well the Government will bring us back'. Presumably there is no charge from the Government is there? Even if there is a charge the ATOL Scheme will pay. How did this culture of someone else will pay come about? It is apparent that everyone cannot be brought home at once so there will be charges for staying on I guess. No one seems to take any responsibility for themselves these days. Does anyone know how it actually works?

Dod

[PinkDalek]

At least that is what is being currently reported (as opposed to administration)

It would appear to be compulsory liquidation and then special managers:

An application was made to the High Court for a compulsory liquidation of the Company before opening of business today and an order has been granted to appoint the Official Receiver as the liquidator of the Company. ... We anticipate that the Official Receiver will make an application to the High Court for members of AlixPartners UK LLP to be appointed as Special Managers in respect of the Company, to act on behalf of the Official Receiver, ... from https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exc ... 36310.html.

I find it difficult to understand that people were apparently setting off on Saturday for their Thomas Cook holiday in the full knowledge that the Company was in big trouble and they could well be stranded. ... Does anyone know how it actually works?/quote]

The detail is here https://thomascook.caa.co.uk/customers/contact-us/

Some 600,000 customers are already abroad.

[Dod101]

Thanks PD. Should have looked there myself. So free flights home so nothing to worry about. That is obviously the attitude. As I said no one seems to take any responsibility for themselves these days.

Go to feel sorry for some of the travellers of course.

Dod

[PinkDalek]

A comment from Paul Scott at https://www.stockopedia.com/content/sma ... os-515506/

Let's hope the repatriation process is not too gruelling for its customers. Although I did read an article in the Telegraph yesterday, claiming that Thomas Cook customers in a Tunisian hotel were essentially taken hostage - locked in by security guards, if they refused to pay the hotel directly for holidays they had already paid for through Thomas Cook.

I'm not sure how many of the Thomas Cook customers said to have been stranded abroad (some 600,000) were aware of the ongoing financial difficulties.

[swill453]

I find it difficult to understand that people were apparently setting off on Saturday for their Thomas Cook holiday in the full knowledge that the Company was in big trouble and they could well be stranded. I daresay their attitude was 'Well the Government will bring us back'. Presumably there is no charge from the Government is there? Even if there is a charge the ATOL Scheme will pay. How did this culture of someone else will pay come about? It is apparent that everyone cannot be brought home at once so there will be charges for staying on I guess. No one seems to take any responsibility for themselves these days. Does anyone know how it actually works?

OK, let's say you bought a family holiday for, say, £10K, and you were due to fly out on Saturday. I'm sure you'd have been pretty nervous about the press speculation about Thomas Cook, but you check directly with them and they say everything should be fine, go to the airport and fly off as booked.

You're still nervous, but you essentially have two choices (cancellation isn't one, it's too late):

1) Don't go. You're now stress-free, and aren't going to be a burden on anyone by being "stranded" abroad. The slight fly in the ointment is that you're now a no-show, and have lost all your money, the kids are inconsolable, and you've booked a fortnight off work and now have to spend it at home. Never mind, there's always next year.

2) Go as planned. If the worst happened (and it did, of course) there's a fair chance you'll be allowed to complete your holiday, albeit with quite a lot of stress on the way over when and how you might be brought home. But after all you've paid for ATOL protection, just for this eventuality.

Not a simple choice, but I think I know what I'd do (in the unlikely event I was ever to buy a package holiday).

Scott.

[Howyoudoin]

I find it difficult to understand that people were apparently setting off on Saturday for their Thomas Cook holiday in the full knowledge that the Company was in big trouble and they could well be stranded. I daresay their attitude was 'Well the Government will bring us back'. Presumably there is no charge from the Government is there? Even if there is a charge the ATOL Scheme will pay. How did this culture of someone else will pay come about? It is apparent that everyone cannot be brought home at once so there will be charges for staying on I guess. No one seems to take any responsibility for themselves these days. Does anyone know how it actually works?

OK, let's say you bought a family holiday for, say, £10K, and you were due to fly out on Saturday. I'm sure you'd have been pretty nervous about the press speculation about Thomas Cook, but you check directly with them and they say everything should be fine, go to the airport and fly off as booked.

You're still nervous, but you essentially have two choices (cancellation isn't one, it's too late):

1) Don't go. You're now stress-free, and aren't going to be a burden on anyone by being "stranded" abroad. The slight fly in the ointment is that you're now a no-show, and have lost all your money, the kids are inconsolable, and you've booked a fortnight off work and now have to spend it at home. Never mind, there's always next year.

2) Go as planned. If the worst happened (and it did, of course) there's a fair chance you'll be allowed to complete your holiday, albeit with quite a lot of stress on the way over when and how you might be brought home. But after all you've paid for ATOL protection, just for this eventuality.

Not a simple choice, but I think I know what I'd do (in the unlikely event I was ever to buy a package holiday).

Scott.

Agreed and surely most sensible people would take that option.

I find myself on the other side of the fence, where I’ve paid them for a holiday but wasn’t due to fly out till next Month.

Should get my money back of course, eventually, but unlikely to be in time to book another holiday at the same time/place.

HYD

[Howyoudoin]

I find it difficult to understand that people were apparently setting off on Saturday for their Thomas Cook holiday in the full knowledge that the Company was in big trouble and they could well be stranded. I daresay their attitude was 'Well the Government will bring us back'. Presumably there is no charge from the Government is there? Even if there is a charge the ATOL Scheme will pay. How did this culture of someone else will pay come about? It is apparent that everyone cannot be brought home at once so there will be charges for staying on I guess. No one seems to take any responsibility for themselves these days. Does anyone know how it actually works?

OK, let's say you bought a family holiday for, say, £10K, and you were due to fly out on Saturday. I'm sure you'd have been pretty nervous about the press speculation about Thomas Cook, but you check directly with them and they say everything should be fine, go to the airport and fly off as booked.

You're still nervous, but you essentially have two choices (cancellation isn't one, it's too late):

1) Don't go. You're now stress-free, and aren't going to be a burden on anyone by being "stranded" abroad. The slight fly in the ointment is that you're now a no-show, and have lost all your money, the kids are inconsolable, and you've booked a fortnight off work and now have to spend it at home. Never mind, there's always next year.

2) Go as planned. If the worst happened (and it did, of course) there's a fair chance you'll be allowed to complete your holiday, albeit with quite a lot of stress on the way over when and how you might be brought home. But after all you've paid for ATOL protection, just for this eventuality.

Not a simple choice, but I think I know what I'd do (in the unlikely event I was ever to buy a package holiday).

Scott.

Agreed and surely most sensible people would take that option.

I find myself on the other side of the fence, where I’ve paid them for a holiday but wasn’t due to fly out till next Month.

Should get my money back of course, eventually, but unlikely to be in time to book another holiday at the same time/place.

HYD

Scrap that.

Seems that Thomas Cook ‘flight only’ breaks are not covered by ATOL.

Thankfully, the Mrs, unusually, paid by credit card, so should get money back that way. Still leaves the mess of the actual holiday, though it was a friend’s villa that they gave us for free, so no monetary loss.

HYD

[Dod101]

I have answered my own question re ATOL I think and it seems quite a sensible idea. It is in effect an insurance scheme, funded by a levy on travel companies who organise package holidays, at the rate of £2.50 per passenger. The proceeds are held by a trust and from the latest set of accounts available (to 31 March 2018) it was in surplus to the extent of £170 million with a commercial insurance arrangement for a further £400 million alongside that. It is administered by the CAA. In effect therefore all the travellers buying package holidays are paying for it although I do not know if the CAA can recover its own costs. HYD he may have already looked at it but the ATOL website is quite helpful.

Dod

[Howyoudoin]

HYD he may have already looked at it but the ATOL website is quite helpful.

Dod

The small print of our TC flight confirmation states that we’re not covered by ATOL.

Complete fluke that the Mrs put the flights on her credit card as they would usually go on the debit card but what a good warning for the future!

HYD

[Dod101]

HYD he may have already looked at it but the ATOL website is quite helpful.

Dod

The small print of our TC flight confirmation states that we’re not covered by ATOL.

Complete fluke that the Mrs put the flights on her credit card as they would usually go on the debit card but what a good warning for the future!

HYD

I usually pay for things by debit card as well but I remember reading somewhere about using credit cards for big expenses like holidays and so on so use a credit card, but, like your wife probably, I do not like the 'hangover' of having to pay a month or six weeks later. Anyway good news for you.

Dod

[Nimrod103]

HYD he may have already looked at it but the ATOL website is quite helpful.

Dod

The small print of our TC flight confirmation states that we’re not covered by ATOL.

Complete fluke that the Mrs put the flights on her credit card as they would usually go on the debit card but what a good warning for the future!

HYD

I usually pay for things by debit card as well but I remember reading somewhere about using credit cards for big expenses like holidays and so on so use a credit card, but, like your wife probably, I do not like the 'hangover' of having to pay a month or six weeks later. Anyway good news for you.

Dod

The advice for many years has been to put such expenditure on a credit card, because the protections are much greater. However, it was the case that companies usually levied a high fee for credit card transactions, but not for debit. Is that still the case?

[Dod101]

NImrod

I think additional fees were banned some time ago in the UK. I paid a hotel bill in Perth Western Australia last winter and they met the point up front when the receptionist said that she was sorry but they did levy an additional charge and she realised that most UK customers were not happy with that! So it still happens.

Dod

[PinkDalek]

The advice for many years has been to put such expenditure on a credit card, because the protections are much greater.

The s75 protection is for goods or services between £100 and £30,000 but the entire amount doesn't need to be paid by credit card to obtain such protection. Therefore in Dod's case he would only have needed to put a small part on the card, which shouldn't cause any major 'hangover' problems.

There's plenty more over at https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act and https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases/ but note from the latter where there's a third-party payment processor involved.

See also discretionary Chargeback in so far as some debit cards are involved https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback/.

[Dod101]

Thanks PD I had forgotten that but of course an advantage of using a credit card is that I at least get vouchers for a store which I can nominate from a panel. So there is an element of if not exactly cash back at least value back as well as the obvious element of free credit if paid off on time which I always do.

Dod

[swill453]

I usually pay for things by debit card as well but I remember reading somewhere about using credit cards for big expenses like holidays and so on so use a credit card, but, like your wife probably, I do not like the 'hangover' of having to pay a month or six weeks later.

I don't see that as a "hangover", I see it as a much more convenient way of managing my money. I don't need to ensure I have sufficient money in a current account for day to day spending, I simply take the money out of an interest-bearing savings account six weeks later.

The contactless facility makes it practical to use the credit card for sub-£1 purchases too, I very rarely seem to need cash these days.

The cashback I get on my credit card is a bonus as well.

Scott.

[Dod101]

I usually pay for things by debit card as well but I remember reading somewhere about using credit cards for big expenses like holidays and so on so use a credit card, but, like your wife probably, I do not like the 'hangover' of having to pay a month or six weeks later.

I don't see that as a "hangover", I see it as a much more convenient way of managing my money. I don't need to ensure I have sufficient money in a current account for day to day spending, I simply take the money out of an interest-bearing savings account six weeks later.

The contactless facility makes it practical to use the credit card for sub-£1 purchases too, I very rarely seem to need cash these days.

The cashback I get on my credit card is a bonus as well..

I agree with the logic and can see what you mean but I do not like debt which is how I see the balance on my credit card. Just the way I am made I guess. Day to day spending is just that and when it is spent it goes from my account. I much prefer that but we are all different.

Dod

[AF62]

The advice for many years has been to put such expenditure on a credit card, because the protections are much greater. However, it was the case that companies usually levied a high fee for credit card transactions, but not for debit. Is that still the case?

No, EU rules on charges stopped it, so paying by credit card became as cheap as debit cards. Some travel agents try and persuade you to pay by bank transfer, but only an idiot would do that.

Personally I pay for everything with a credit card, whether the cost is thousands or pence. Never seen a reason not to.

[dspp]

The advice for many years has been to put such expenditure on a credit card, because the protections are much greater. However, it was the case that companies usually levied a high fee for credit card transactions, but not for debit. Is that still the case?

No, EU rules on charges stopped it, so paying by credit card became as cheap as debit cards. Some travel agents try and persuade you to pay by bank transfer, but only an idiot would do that.

Personally I pay for everything with a credit card, whether the cost is thousands or pence. Never seen a reason not to.

I think you'll find that "EU rules" did no such thing. What EU rules did was prevent the charging of fees that were not reflective of the underlying costs. They also said that advertised costs for flights must be the same as the actual costs. It is up to the airlines (or the on-line retailers, etc) how these things were carried through. In the case of EasyJet they don't charge a fee (https://www.easyjet.com/en/terms-and-conditions/fees) but in the case of Ryanair it seems they still do (https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/useful-in ... entre/fees) where it says (and I am quoting from their website as of 10-secs ago):

"[Ryanair] - Card-payment fee
A percentage of the amount due for the booking. The percentage depends on the type of card and where the card provider is.
"

regards, dspp

[Dod101]

I was slightly surprised that Ryanair charge £55 per flight for oxygen. Most people need oxygen. Why not just include it in the fare?

I suppose it means special oxygen for a medical case, well I hope so.

Dod

[swill453]

I think you'll find that "EU rules" did no such thing. What EU rules did was prevent the charging of fees that were not reflective of the underlying costs. They also said that advertised costs for flights must be the same as the actual costs. It is up to the airlines (or the on-line retailers, etc) how these things were carried through. In the case of EasyJet they don't charge a fee (https://www.easyjet.com/en/terms-and-conditions/fees) but in the case of Ryanair it seems they still do (https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/useful-in ... entre/fees) where it says (and I am quoting from their website as of 10-secs ago):

"[Ryanair] - Card-payment fee
A percentage of the amount due for the booking. The percentage depends on the type of card and where the card provider is.
"

I obviously don't dispute those words being from their web site, but in fact they don't charge a card payment fee.

If you book a flight, the first headline price you see on your chosen flight is exactly the total price you end up paying, as long as you accept random seat allocation and no baggage.

Scott.