Virgin getting very HEAVY re completed credit card refunds. Sad to see.

[knagelli]

The EU and DOT have stated a cash refund is still required. Australia doesn't have the same protection where the event is outside the airlines' control.

I agree this is the case why we are having so many discussions about TC/cash refund.

 

[glasszon]

The chargeback was lodged and closed saying VA is not willing to accept the chargeback and that I will have to do away with their refund policies , which is my case is travel bank credit.

Was it an inquiry or a chargeback? There's a big difference between the two, even though Amex staff tends to mix them together.

Either way, definitely lodge a case with Executive Customer Care team, they are based in Sydney and much easier to work with.

 

[knagelli]

Was it an inquiry or a chargeback? There's a big difference between the two, even though Amex staff tends to mix them together.

Either way, definitely lodge a case with Executive Customer Care team, they are based in Sydney and much easier to work with.

There were entries to show reversal of charges on my account. After 3-4 weeks , there were debit adjustments made to nullify the chargeback .

 

[Rob.au]

This has not been called out.

The relevant issue is that the EU has agreed that this is an extraordinary event and directly contradicts the argument that airlines are making the commercial choice to cancel flights - as you proposed in one of your earlier posts.

If the EU is agreeing this is beyond the airlines' control, the argument would probably also be successful in Australia. That means that ACL doesn't apply for the automatic right to a cash refund.

The EU and DOT have stated a cash refund is still required. Australia doesn't have the same protection where the event is outside the airlines' control.

These are not valid extrapolations from what the EU has determined. "Extraordinary circumstances" is a key concept in the EU Passenger Rights laws that specifically impacts the compensation provisions of those rights. It doesn't impact the Right to assistance or passenger choice of reimbursement or rerouting (at the passenger's option).

None of this impacts the credit card scheme rules in any way (it just means in the EU the carriers are already compelled to refund before a chargeback is necessary - in Australia we're left falling back to the scheme rules). People aren't lodging legal disputes or claims and don't need to delve into contract law. They're just making chargeback claims within the rules of their respective card schemes.

You're free to not make such a claim if you wish. I'm going to wait for a bit, but allow myself enough claim space within the rules and if at that point I don't have confidence that VA will be in a position to honour the travel bank credit (which in turn will mean I won't have much care about threats being made about Velocity membership), I'll lodge my chargeback.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

These are not valid extrapolations from what the EU has determined. "Extraordinary circumstances" is a key concept in the EU Passenger Rights laws that specifically impacts the compensation provisions of those rights. It doesn't impact the Right to assistance or passenger choice of reimbursement or rerouting (at the passenger's option).

None of this impacts the credit card scheme rules in any way (it just means in the EU the carriers are already compelled to refund before a chargeback is necessary). People aren't lodging legal disputes or claims and don't need to delve into contract law. They're just making chargeback claims within the rules of their respective card schemes.

You're free to not make such a claim if you wish. I'm going to wait for a bit, but allow myself enough claim space within the rules and if at that point I don't have confidence that VA will be in a position to honour the travel bank credit (which in turn will mean I won't have much care about threats being made about Velocity membership), I'll lodge my chargeback.

The visa rules you linked clearly state that they do not overrule government action.

So the extrapolations are potentially valid because a chargeback needs to be made on a ground stipulated by the rules. If the the failure to supply has been deemed outside the airlines' control, and the conditions of contract allow for a voucher in those circumstances, then what is the chargeback for? The airline has met its contractual obligations.

Agree that if VA subsequently goes into bankruptcy and cannot perform or honour its obligations, including travel credits, then a chargeback would be valid.

 

[a*0]

There were entries to show reversal of charges on my account. After 3-4 weeks , there were debit adjustments made to nullify the chargeback .

I had a similar experience - when Amex sent through the documents Virgin Australia supplied it was just the fare rules with the usual passenger initiated cancellation conditions. I don’t think Amex actually pays much attention to the documents the merchant is supplying...

In my case, virgin Australia changed their mind and agreed to accept the chargeback in full after they were contacted by US DOT in response to my complaint. They initially tried to fob US DOT off with they provided a refund in line with the fare conditions so I pointed out this wasn’t US DOT policy and they quickly changed their minds

I suggest you get your documents/evidence and facts in order then just need to push a bit

 

[glasszon]

There were entries to show reversal of charges on my account. After 3-4 weeks , there were debit adjustments made to nullify the chargeback .

Yeah, that's a chargeback then...., absolutely go through with the Executive Care team and take it from there.

 

[Dee#]

My partner is currently trying to get his cash back from Singapore air via Amex chargeback. Singapore cancelled his 14 April Travel to Barcelona then told him the permitted cash refund would take months.!!! Not good enough.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

At what stage does a booking for a future event become a failure to supply?

Our contract with the airline is a ticket to travel from A to B on a particular date. The terms of the ticket does not guarantee much in the way of time, flight or even a selected seat. All can be varied within reason. I suppose in the case of an unusual event one could even be sent via another airport.

If the airline cancels the ticket and doesn’t issue the contracted compensation then I suppose a failure to supply has occurred and then a charge back may be justified.

Good questions. The conditions of carriage don't guarantee a specific date. Or that you will even have a seat on the plane (overbooking provisions). The failure to supply is generally made easier because of consumer protection laws - EU261, DOT, or in Australia the ACL. The ACL says the flight must be fit for purpose and leave at a reasonable time etc etc. But once those overriding protections go, the passenger can be left in a bit of a difficult position.

 

[Rob.au]

They're potentially valid extrapolations because a chargeback needs to be made on a valid ground.

The failure to supply the service is already a valid ground under the scheme rules.

If the the failure to supply has been deemed outside the airlines' control, and the conditions of contract allow for a voucher in those circumstances, then wheat is the chargeback for? The airline has met its contractual obligations.

The conditions of contract do not have relevance under the scheme rules. A merchant cannot make conditions of contract that override scheme rules, or if they do, they don't apply. They agree to the scheme rules when they enter into a Merchant Agreement. The scheme rules do not have a provision that says "Oh you didn't provide the service but your contract says you can offer a travel credit, that's fine". The schemes have been quite explicit that this is not the case. They expect the Merchants in this case to offer a refund when asked. The Visa link I provided earlier says this in black and white.

You want to play the armchair airline CEO role that's fine, but the scheme rules are not as flowery as you're suggesting. Unless the carrier was directly prevented from operating the flight by law, which they have not been, a chargeback is valid. If the passengers were prevented from travelling by law, and that caused a drop in demand that led to flight cancellations, the charge back is valid.

People are always going to have to push harder when the Issuer and the Acquirer are the same organisation for fairly obvious reasons, but if the scheme rules for their card back them, they can and should follow through if they want a refund.

Anyway, everyone's free to make their own decisions on this one.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So if there has been no breach of contract you can apply for a chargeback and the merchant has no grounds for recourse?

 

[theblank]

In the Visa rules - for example - Dispute Condition 13.1: Merchandise/Services Not Received applies.

Curious, Do these rules definitely apply in Australia?

"The Cardholder participated in the Transaction but the Cardholder or an authorized person did not receive the merchandise or services because the Merchant or Prepaid Partner was unwilling or unable to provide the merchandise or services."
"Before the Issuer may initiate a Dispute, the Cardholder must attempt to resolve the dispute with the Merchant or the Merchant’s liquidator, if applicable"

Based on this rule and what we know, this is what happens,
A successful chargeback the merchant gets hit with a fee.
A failed chargeback the cardholder gets hit with a fee.

Chargebacks work somethng like this. Cardholder Bank contacts Merchant and gives them 30 days to respond.
If no respond, the chargeback is completed.
The merchant can respond along the lines of "this is a valid and approved purchase by the cardholder"

Cardholder should go through every effort to request refund from Airline before proceeding to a chargeback request, and have that documented.
Virgin should reject every chargeback if the customer hasnt first requested refunds and was refused.

 

[Rob.au]

Curious, Do these rules definitely apply in Australia?

Yes (except where regional specifics are noted in the rules), or where actually prevented by law.

Based on this rule and what we know, this is what happens,
A successful chargeback the merchant gets hit with a fee.
A failed chargeback the cardholder gets hit with a fee.

Chargebacks work somethng like this. Cardholder Bank contacts Merchant and gives them 30 days to respond.
If no respond, the chargeback is completed.
The merchant can respond along the lines of "this is a valid and approved purchase by the cardholder"

Cardholder should go through every effort to request refund from Airline before proceeding to a chargeback request, and have that documented.
Virgin should reject every chargeback if the customer hasnt first requested refunds and was refused.

It’s the Issuer who suffers the most consequences for accepting chargebacks where the cardholder didn’t comply with the rules, so cardholders definitely should not expect their Issuer to accept the chargeback if they haven’t done their end of the bargain, which is to make genuine attempts to get the refund from the Merchant directly and have it refused. That is absolutely a requirement before contemplating raising a chargeback. What’s helpful in this process is advising the airline that your intentions upon their refusal is to initiate a chargeback. This would be by far the quickest way. Naturally they will be under great pressure to discourage you and to refuse if they think you don’t know you can succeed. I wouldn’t be shocked if the front line have KPIs on it.

It also shouldn’t need to be said but I’ll say it... for anyone doing it, please never, ever take out frustrations with customer service staff. Especially at times like this it’s an exhausting job being a company’s punching bag even without the stress of worrying about your job, and they’re definitely not paid enough for that. No matter how long you’re on hold, no matter how much they’ve been directed to try to talk you out of it, please, please be fastidiously polite about it. You’ll feel better, they’ll feel better and you’re more likely to get the result with less angst. It’s a difficult time... be kind.

 

[Flyinfish]

The visa rules you linked clearly state that they do not overrule government action.

Is it any government action? Or Australian government action?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Is it any government action? Or Australian government action?

I don't think there is a distinction. Provided the event is outside the airline's control, and due to government action, that could be in Australia or overseas.

 

[Oliver Brown]

Hope this isn't off topic but when virgin cancelled my $4G worth of flights I put in an insurance claim via my Mastercard Westpac Black card. It usually has helpful insurance but not this time - it was rejected. I know there have rumors of this but I can confirm they are using COVID as reason.

 

[freebo]

Hope this isn't off topic but when virgin cancelled my $4G worth of flights I put in an insurance claim via my Mastercard Westpac Black card. It usually has helpful insurance but not this time - it was rejected. I know there have rumors of this but I can confirm they are using COVID as reason.

Sorry to hear it, can you let me know which insurance company this was?

 

[Oliver Brown]

I just mentioned it in case others were thinking of trying that escape route. Its going to be long haul indeed.
It was fairly easy to do the online claim at least.

MC go through Allianz Global Assist.

Here's the blurb from the letter
"We are writing to advise that we are denying your claim.
This decision is based on the fact that your policy is a listed benefit product. Which means in order for cover to be provided, your claim must arise from one of the listed coverable events. As claims arising from an epidemic/pandemic or claims arising from the voluntary administration of an airline aren’t listed as coverable, we are unable to assist with the settlement of your claim. Please also note that as Virgin Australia did not go into insolvency, your claim cannot be settled under that provision."

 

[Cubiscus]

Allianz generally have a epidemic / pandemic exclusion for travel insurance policies, whether brought or through credit cards.