Scoot experiences

[MEL_Traveller]

The departing airport was Guangzhou. To Singapore the flight time is a little over four hours.



That definition has been added since my reservation.



The inclusion of the eight hour definition for "significant change" actually makes their interpretation of s. 9.2 even more messed up. When I referred the agent to the clause she told me that it does not apply as the time change does not result in the new flight time being more than 24 hours before the originally scheduled flight time. That information was reflected in Bankwest's letter to me ("Specifically, as the flight change . . . was a change of less than 24 hours"). But now Scoot has added in the eight hour definition. By their interpretation Scoot is actually giving themselves 24 hours leeway, not eight (remember I was told s. 9.2 didn't apply because the change was less than 24 hours difference). It actually reinforces the lay reader's interpretation of the section as it stood: if a change is made to a flight and that change is made more than 24 hours before the flight, then s. 9.2 applies.

I'm going around in circles a bit here trying to say what I want to but, now, the section can now be more clearly interpreted as 'If a change is made to your flight and that change is made more than 24 hours before your departure and the change is more than eight hours difference' then s. 9.2 applies. Of course, if Scoot's logic from March is applied to this clause, it would mean that 'if a change is made that results in your flight being brought forward by 24 hours and that change is more than eight hours' which clearly doesn't make sense. To put it another way, again applying their March interpretation, if the flight change was a departure of 10 hours prior, s. 9.2 still wouldn't apply because it's not more than 24 hours prior.

And as I've mentioned before, there's no cover, under their March interpretation, if your flight is put back; the clause, by their reasoning, only covers changes that result in the new departure being 24 hours or more sooner.

The Scoot agent, and bankwest are both wrong in their interpretation of the terms and condtions, either the ones in operation now, or the ones in operation at the time you made you booking.

An agent of Scoot cannot override the written terms and conditions. So it is easy enough for you to challenge this up the line to management if you wanted to.

However, even if management had a look, even if you took it to court, would the outcome be different?

Under your terms and conditions (applicable at the time you bought the ticket), a flight change has to be 'significant'. A change of 2 hours is unlikely to be significant.

Under the current terms and conditions the change has to be 8 hours or more. Which your's isn't, so again no coverage.

Either way it really doesn't matter. yes, the agent at Scoot is incorrect in their reasoning. Without doubt. But that doesn't change anything.

 

[Danger]

The Scoot agent, and bankwest are both wrong in their interpretation of the terms and condtions, either the ones in operation now, or the ones in operation at the time you made you booking.

An agent of Scoot cannot override the written terms and conditions. So it is easy enough for you to challenge this up the line to management if you wanted to.

However, even if management had a look, even if you took it to court, would the outcome be different?

Under your terms and conditions (applicable at the time you bought the ticket), a flight change has to be 'significant'. A change of 2 hours is unlikely to be significant.

Under the current terms and conditions the change has to be 8 hours or more. Which your's isn't, so again no coverage.

Either way it really doesn't matter. yes, the agent at Scoot is incorrect in their reasoning. Without doubt. But that doesn't change anything.

If Bankwest had fulfilled its commitments and come back to me in their own stated timeframes, and assuming the ruling was the same, I could have challenged it then, with Bankwest and possibly with MasterCard. If Bankwest had done so within that timeframe, it would still have been several weeks before the flight. It would also have given me the opportunity to pursue it directly with Scoot, escalating to a supervisor. The best case would have been I eventually got through to them and got a refund; the best worse case would have been I would have at least been given one of the four options. And if no outcome, I least would have been forced with making the decision: fly or be out of pocket. But those options - through no fault of my own, I contest - were not afforded to me.

If I took the matter to court I'm confident that a magistrate would at least view (a) the absence of a definition of "significant" (where other definitions exist) together with (b) the lay interpretation of the 24 hour period, in my favour. You argue a change of two hours is "unlikely" to be significant. I completely accept that. That's a valid opinion. But the T&Cs shouldn't have rise to opinions, particularly on such a pertinent clause. Scoot clearly agrees as they've since seen fit to qualify it.

Of course, if I was to take it to court, I'd be bringing action against Bankwest for breach of its T&Cs. Bankwest can chose to on-sue MasterCard if it wishes.

So, yes, I think there's every chance the outcome would have been different, in some way.

The fact remains, a pertinent term - "significant" - was not defined which leaves it open to interpretation. More than two hours is enough for some airlines to grant a wider range of options. Some have noted above that "significant" could refer to the inconvenience, such as getting out of bed in the middle of the night, rather than very early in the morning. Jetstar's T&Cs also include the words "significant change". But guess what? The term is also not defined. So I chatted with a JQ agent. It took some digging to get the answer, which is three hours. Yep, still wouldn't help me, but three is a long way from eight which goes to show there's a lot of room for interpretation.

But, yes. I do agree Scoot's interpretation is completely at odds with sense.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Jetstar's T&Cs also include the words "significant change". But guess what? The term is also not defined. So I chatted with a JQ agent. It took some digging to get the answer, which is three hours. Yep, still wouldn't help me, but three is a long way from eight which goes to show there's a lot of room for interpretation.

The interpretation of 24 hours is straight forward. Any change made before T-24 is subject to one of the four options provided the change is significant (or now, more than 8 hours).

Jetstar's interpretation of significant is 3 hours - is that Australia or China? It is likely Scoot's interpretation of 8 hours wouldn't be valid as an outright statement under Australian consumer law. 3 hours for an international flight is probably about right (and marries up with EU compensation). For a short domestic flight, I guess as little as one hour could be significant (business meeting for example).

Terms and conditions frequently give rise to interpretation issues. That's what courts get caught up in all the time.

The Qantas conditions of carriage don't define 'significant' either, because it will depend on the circumstances. But that's a lot easier where you have some sort of consumer law to back us up. Singapore doesn't have that.

 

[Danger]

The interpretation of 24 hours is straight forward. Any change made before T-24 is subject to one of the four options provided the change is significant (or now, more than 8 hours).

Agreed. Yet someone that's completely lost on Scoot.

Jetstar's interpretation of significant is 3 hours - is that Australia or China? It is likely Scoot's interpretation of 8 hours wouldn't be valid as an outright statement under Australian consumer law. 3 hours for an international flight is probably about right (and marries up with EU compensation). For a short domestic flight, I guess as little as one hour could be significant (business meeting for example).

It was for 3K. However, when I chatted with the agent, I referred simply to the specific section, not which T&Cs (as they vary depending on the carrier). Regardless, "significant" is not defined.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Agreed. Yet someone that's completely lost on Scoot.

All Scoot did was fail to offer you the four options, none of which included a refund. Was a voucher of use to you? You could probably still ask for that now.

That they didn't offer you the four options - and whether that constitutes a breach of the contract allowing you to cancel via charge-back - is the question.

If you put it in an Australian context. A friend of mine had a cancellation out of Hong Kong. They called Qantas who told them they were now on the flight to Melbourne via Sydney, arriving a few hours later than originally scheduled. They also offered overnight in Hong Kong with a flight the next day. But they didn't specifically offer a refund. The simple fact that they didn't offer the refund (even though it wouldn't have been an option), would that in itself give rise to a charge-back via credit card? I think Qantas would take the same position as Scoot.

 

[Danger]

All Scoot did was fail to offer you the four options, none of which included a refund. Was a voucher of use to you? You could probably still ask for that now.

I would certainly have settled for a voucher, no doubt. But that ship has sailed.

That they didn't offer you the four options - and whether that constitutes a breach of the contract allowing you to cancel via charge-back - is the question.

It breached their own T&Cs of the contract I entered into. That's a perfectly valid reason for a chargeback in my opinion.

If you put it in an Australian context. A friend of mine had a cancellation out of Hong Kong. They called Qantas who told them they were now on the flight to Melbourne via Sydney, arriving a few hours later than originally scheduled. They also offered overnight in Hong Kong with a flight the next day. But they didn't specifically offer a refund. The simple fact that they didn't offer the refund (even though it wouldn't have been an option), would that in itself give rise to a charge-back via credit card? I think Qantas would take the same position as Scoot.

I'd be very surprised if Qantas didn't uphold its own T&Cs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It breached their own T&Cs of the contract I entered into. That's a perfectly valid reason for a chargeback in my opinion.

It may be that another more significant breach of their terms and conditions might give rise to grounds for cancellation. But in this case you asked for a refund, and were told it wasn't available. You knew there were other options available (as per your original post) but didn't ask for any of those. The agent may have reasonably assumed at that point that you were aware of the options but didn't want any of them, hence didn't need to offer them to you again, or that this didn't amount to a 'significant' change therefore no need to offer them to you at all.

 

[Danger]

It may be that another more significant breach of their terms and conditions might give rise to grounds for cancellation.

There's that word again.

But in this case you asked for a refund, and were told it wasn't available. You knew there were other options available (as per your original post) but didn't ask for any of those.

Please re-read the first post:

I contacted Scoot the same day and requested a full refund. I was told that was not an option - take it or leave it. I referred them to their T&Cs which states, at 9.2:

Schedule changes: your options
If Scoot has to make a significant schedule change/cancellation more than 24 hours before your schedule departure time, we or our authorised agent will attempt to notify you per 9.1b and provide you with one of the following:​

* Rebooking at no additional charge
* A voucher
* Any other options set in out in a Scoot schedule change or cancellation policy
* If Scoot will not loner serve the destination, a refund [options abridged]​

None of the options were offered to me.

And:

Today, some 229 days after my dispute was acknowledged (and 109 days after the flight was to occur), I receive a letter from Bankwest dated 23 November stating:

"MasterCard have [sic] now ruled for the merchant in this case. They have advised that the merchant did meet their terms and conditions . . .

Specifically, as the flight change to 5.55am instead of 3.45am [note, Bankwest has this around the wrong way, but that's irrelevant] was a change of less than 24 hours (only a change of 130 minutes before the scheduled departure time), the options set in section 9.2 of the merchant terms and conditions do not apply [emphasis added]​

Your assertions that (a) other options were available and (b) I didn't explore options other than a refund are incorrect.

The agent may have reasonably assumed at that point that you were aware of the options but didn't want any of them, hence didn't need to offer them to you again, or that this didn't amount to a 'significant' change therefore no need to offer them to you at all.

Again, please re-read my first post. Section 9.2 was not an option, period. Other options, therefore, were in fact not options. As I said above, I would have taken a voucher.

 

[Abdul_A350]

I still think the chargeback was an overreach, feel sorry for Bankwest and Mastercard for having been dragged into it, and think you would have gained more attempting to deal with the airline further rather than attempting to pull a fast one.

 

[Danger]

I still think the chargeback was an overreach, feel sorry for Bankwest and Mastercard for having been dragged into it, and think you would have gained more attempting to deal with the airline further rather than attempting to pull a fast one.

Fair enough. I appreciate your opinion.

I do feel strongly that I would not have got anywhere with Scoot. Equally, I have no hesitation in holding any business to account for breaching a contract. I don't agree it was a fast one, however.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There's that word again.



Please re-read the first post:



And:



Your assertions that (a) other options were available and (b) I didn't explore options other than a refund are incorrect.



Again, please re-read my first post. Section 9.2 was not an option, period. Other options, therefore, were in fact not options. As I said above, I would have taken a voucher.

You have two issues here. (a) what constitutes a significant change to trigger 9.2. Scoot says 210 mins isn't significant. you say it is. But that's not the reason you sought the charge back. You sought the charge-back because (b) they didn't offer you the four options in 9.2.

If they don't agree to (a), they don't have to offer you (b). Therefore no breach of their terms and conditions.

 

[Danger]

I'm pleased you edited your post because what you had previously as your introductory paragraph didn't sit at all well with me.

You have two issues here. (a) what constitutes a significant change to trigger 9.2. Scoot says 210 mins isn't significant. you say it is. But that's not the reason you sought the charge back. You sought the charge-back because (b) they didn't offer you the four options in 9.2.

If they don't agree to (a), they don't have to offer you (b). Therefore no breach of their terms and conditions.

Actually, no. What constitutes "significant" is not at all at issue. You seem to keep missing the complete misinterpretation of the s. 9.2. Scoot wasn't arguing the 130 minute change was not "significant"; Scoot was arguing the new departure time was not more than 24 hours prior to the original departure time. "Significant" was never part of their consideration.

I would add there's also the absence of a definition of "significant", since corrected, which suggests Scoot knew its terms were deficient.

Yes, you are correct. I sought the chargeback because Scoot ignored it's own T&Cs that formed part of my contract with them. As I mentioned I have no issue taking any organisation to task for failing to honour a contract. And I hope to be in a position to have more to say on that on a separate matter before Christmas.

And finally there is also the issue of Bankwest's negligence (I don't use that term in a legal sense in this instance). Whether or not I had a right to chargeback, Bankwest has published guidelines - rules it imposes on itself - that it did not adhere to.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm pleased you edited your post because what you had previously as your introductory paragraph didn't sit at all well with me.



Actually, no. What constitutes "significant" is not at all at issue. You seem to keep missing the complete misinterpretation of the s. 9.2. Scoot wasn't arguing the 130 minute change was not "significant"; Scoot was arguing the new departure time was not more than 24 hours prior to the original departure time. "Significant" was never part of their consideration.

I would add there's also the absence of a definition of "significant", since corrected, which suggests Scoot knew its terms were deficient.

Yes, you are correct. I sought the chargeback because Scoot ignored it's own T&Cs that formed part of my contract with them. As I mentioned I have no issue taking any organisation to task for failing to honour a contract. And I hope to be in a position to have more to say on that on a separate matter before Christmas.

And finally there is also the issue of Bankwest's negligence (I don't use that term in a legal sense in this instance). Whether or not I had a right to chargeback, Bankwest has published guidelines - rules it imposes on itself - that it did not adhere to.

I'm missing something. In post #1 you say you immediately called Scoot and they said no refund. You don't say in your original post why Scoot said no refund (I assumed it was because they didn't think it was significant). Did they say on that initial call that it was due to less than 24 hours? That's the bit missing from post #1. (Acknowledge the reply from Bankwest states the reason as being 24 hours, but that is clearly an error on Scoot's behalf. Likely a matter of English translation.)


The bottom line is still the same, you needed to escalate the interpretation of the '24 hour' rule because if you didn't, Scoot didn't need to offer you the options and weren't in breach of their terms and conditions.

 

[Danger]

I'm missing something. In post #1 you say you immediately called Scoot and they said no refund. You don't say in your original post why Scoot said no refund (I assumed it was because they didn't think it was significant). Did they say on that initial call that it was due to less than 24 hours? That's the bit missing from post #1. (Acknowledge the reply from Bankwest states the reason as being 24 hours, but that is clearly an error on Scoot's behalf. Likely a matter of English translation.)

Yeah, fair point. My first post isn't as clear as it should have been. I should have corrected that earlier but I had assumed that the discussion that has ensued in this thread about the misinterpretation of "24 hours before departure" (which, I think, everyone agrees with me at least on that point) made that clear. But it wasn't clear enough which is my fault.

Yes, Scoot made it clear in that call (backed up by the quoted excerpt from the Bankwest letter and the Scoot paperwork included with that letter) that the reason s. 9.2 didn't apply was because the flight change was less than 24 hours.

 

[Abdul_A350]

Likely a matter of English translation.

Yes. Nobody is disputing the incompetence of the follow-up. It does not make the original claim any more valid, however.

Perhaps my interpretation has been tainted by the admission that the poster wanted to get rid of his ticket for other reasons, although that felt obvious anyway.

I just think these sort of spurious claims ultimately make things more expensive for everyone.

 

[Abdul_A350]

OK, so now I have to take back some of what I said because obviously I did not properly understand the initial post either.

I shall just bow out. Apologies for any offence.

 

[Danger]

Yes. Nobody is disputing the incompetence of the follow-up. It does not make the original claim any more valid, however.

Perhaps my interpretation has been tainted by the admission that the poster wanted to get rid of his ticket for other reasons, although that felt obvious anyway. [/QUOTE]

Fair call. As I said, though, I would have gladly taken a voucher.

I just think these sort of spurious claims ultimately make things more expensive for everyone.

This I wholeheartedly reject.

 

[Danger]

OK, so now I have to take back some of what I said because obviously I did not properly understand the initial post either.

I shall just bow out. Apologies for any offence.

Thanks for your input. I'd appreciate if you stuck around.

 

[eastwest101]

Thanks for your input. I'd appreciate if you stuck around.

So you have a few things to look at in the follow up.

1. Scoot and Mastercard unable to interpret Scoots T&Cs operating at the time correctly, I would be arguing that if Scoot and Mastercard can't understand the Scoot T&Cs then the T&Cs are defficient/faulty so would be interested to hear what comes out of this. important to note that in this case the wording of the Scoot T&Cs are not "unfair" but they certainly are "unclear", the fact that they had to be altered/rewritten would seem to support that.

2. The possibility of a buck-passing ping-pong game between Mastercard and Bankwest about their (whose failure?) failure to keep you informaed about the progress of the chargeback. Seems a bit more simple as the OP is a customer of BankWest and it seems to be BankWest which promised certain updates that were not forthcoming.

3. Your original issue with Scoot where they may or may not not have followed their own T&Cs (result may be academic if we get a result from issue# 1.)

Please come and update us if you can. I realize this may take a while.

 

[Danger]

So you have a few things to look at in the follow up.

1. Scoot and Mastercard unable to interpret Scoots T&Cs operating at the time correctly, I would be arguing that if Scoot and Mastercard can't understand the Scoot T&Cs then the T&Cs are defficient/faulty so would be interested to hear what comes out of this. important to note that in this case the wording of the Scoot T&Cs are not "unfair" but they certainly are "unclear", the fact that they had to be altered/rewritten would seem to support that.

2. The possibility of a buck-passing ping-pong game between Mastercard and Bankwest about their (whose failure?) failure to keep you informaed about the progress of the chargeback. Seems a bit more simple as the OP is a customer of BankWest and it seems to be BankWest which promised certain updates that were not forthcoming.

3. Your original issue with Scoot where they may or may not not have followed their own T&Cs (result may be academic if we get a result from issue# 1.)

Please come and update us if you can. I realize this may take a while.

Seems a fairly succinct summary of the follows ups to me.

I reckon MasterCard didn't do any interpreting of their own. That is, Scoot said the sky's green and MasterCard said okay, case dismissed. The actual wording provided by Scoot in their documentation is "in the case of the guest flight, the change in departure time is from 0555 hours to 0345 hours on the same day [emphasis added], not within the category of 9.2" [original emphasis]. Nothing there about it not being "significant" but more suggestion that the whole 24 hour thing is what they've latched onto. I actually think if Bankwest could point out the ridiculous interpretation to MasterCard they would actually realise someone was doing a rush job.

I absolutely will report back. Friday morning I was told I'd receive a call from a case manager within two business days. That deadline is fast approaching. Of course, I may need to wait 229 days!