Is their Word ever their Bond???

[johnomg]

G'day All

I would like the opinion of Members on this situation.

- I booked a flight with a TA and asked "can the return date be changed?"
- The answer was "yes"
- I asked a few more times before paying and each time the answer was "yes".
To be fair the phrase "subject to seat availabilty" may of been used once or twice, but no further explanation other than that.

When I went in to re-book the return flight, I was told:
- We have to pay an extra approx $2,000 for the exact date we wanted
- An extra approx $1,000 for a later date (spanning 3 weeks)
- Nothing more but the return date would be 3 weeks later than what we wanted

Obviously I was shocked to say the least, I had asked several times "can we change the flight?" and was only told "yes" or "subject to availability".

At no point did the TA or the Branch Manager explain to me that there could be a substantial extra financial cost or that the fare booked (as I have now found out) was actually a "Special Fare" with limitations on travelling. That would have influenced my decision and I may of selected a different return date to start with or paid more to have the flexibility required.

The Defence used by the Branch Manger when I protested was "it's in the Terms and Conditions" (shrugging his shoulders as he said that didn't help my frame of mind). As I have found out that seems to be the bottom line.

It now comes down to "he said, she said", "I should have known" and the fact that I signed the Terms and Conditions. I feel duped because I took the TA at their word.

So my question is:
If you asked a TA a direct question would you expect the answer you got to be full and complete or am I being Naive and this is common practise???

Personally I feel that it's Ethically wrong (at the least) to give me a Half Answer and then when I needed to change the dates inform me of the Full Answer (extra costs or a delay) and then use the "Terms and Conditions" as it being my own fault.

Regards
John :evil:

 

[Dave Noble]

All changes are subject to availability in the appropriate inventory and it sounds like they did tell you this

It doesn't sound to me that the agent was being economical with the truth to be fair and would be no different to what an airline would say

Also, if it was in the terms that you signed to it sounds like they were reasonably upfront

Dave

 

[dajop]

IMHO, they have acted legally and even ethically - they have indicated terms and conditions and noted that change is subject to availability. So you will have no recourse, other than not providing repeat business.

A "good" travel agent would however indicate that the fare you were on is a sale, and is not likely to have availability if changed etc etc ....

Now $2k seems a lot for the change ... how many people? It probably mean reticketing your whole trip- not just the return sector -in the new booking class (although not sure on this). Depending on where, you maybe better just to sacrifice the return flight and use a new ticket purchased from your departure point. Worth looking into.

 

[straitman]

All changes are subject to availability in the appropriate inventory and it sounds like they did tell you this

Agreed however expanding upon a short answer does provide more information.

It doesn't sound to me that the agent was being economical with the truth to be fair and would be no different to what an airline would say

I don't agree here though. The average 'Jo' relies upon the TA to give all the info and not just the basic facts. With all the appropriate information the client can make a real decision.

Also, if it was in the terms that you signed to it sounds like they were reasonably upfront

Dave

Agreed also. Never sign unless you have looked at ALL the T&C or you are locked in without any come back.

johnomg,

Dare we ask which TA chain or can we guess :?:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Johnomg - please get in contact with your local consumer affairs helpline - all state governments have them and they can advise you of your rights.

The excuse that the terms and conditions or small print contains certain provisions does not always mean they are binding. They don't nevessarily lock you in and they don't replace your consumer rights.

If you ask a specific question and the product sold to you was not fit for purpose (for example you wanted a fare that was changeable (not for $2000 anyway) and it turns out that this is not what you got, or the product sold to you was not what you thought it was) then you may have rights.

Of course the outcome is going to turn on the circumstances of your case - so a call to the helpline will be useful.

mel-t

 

[serfty]

... Dare we ask which TA chain or can we guess :?:

No need to guess (although most would have got it right):

The Australian Frequent Flyer Online Community - View Single Post - G'day & Forum Questions

 

[Dave Noble]

If you ask a specific question and the product sold to you was not fit for purpose (for example you wanted a fare that was changeable (not for $2000 anyway) and it turns out that this is not what you got, or the product sold to you was not what you thought it was) then you may have rights.

From the 1st post it was stated that the booking could be changed but the 1st date that would be available ( without fee ) was further in the future than the person wanted

I don't think that would be likely reasonable to claim that the ticket isn't as wanted in being a changeable ticket

Dave

 

[anat0l]

Golden rule basically is that any voluntary change to a fare will always cost you money and will always be subject to availability. At the very least, it will cost you fare difference. ("Fully refundable" fares cost only fare difference to change; other inflexible fares will typically have change fees associated with them. You may also be subject to service fees, i.e. through an airline (when changing over the phone) or through a TA (for their time or whatever)).

However, from what the OP said, it might have been implied that he was hinting at the end date being flexible however the TA may have failed to supply him with a product that is appropriate for this. It doesn't help if one doesn't read the T&Cs, but putting the T&Cs obligations of the customer aside and turning more to the consumer practice of the TA, the OP may have a case to bring a complaint to the Fair Trading office (or equivalent).


Luckily I have only had to contact FC before to arrange some travel insurance, but once I had my AFF Gold sub and Columbus then that's all I needed from then on. Pretty good as well, since every time I go back to talk about travel it turns out their knowledge of travel is useless.

 

[serfty]

... I don't think that would be likely reasonable to claim that the ticket isn't as wanted in being a changeable ticket ...

See this thread:

http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...day-and-forum-questions-18787.html#post255345

If this issue has any relation to the situation mentioned in this thread it's a very unusual circumstance.

 

[moa999]

Suggest thread merge.

 

[johnomg]

After having read the responses I feel I might of not written my Original Post clearly enough so I would like to clarify. Maybe I did and just have to accept I'm looking at the situation the wrong way.

Firstly I need to say I'm not a seasoned traveller and as such not aware of how TA's, the Travel Industry, Seating, Flights etc... operate. That's why I'm here, to learn from more experienced people and why I trusted fully what the TA told me.

Next, just for some background, it was a Compassionate Flight, booked and departed with 24hours, I know that's no excuse, I should have still read the T&C, but only one thing concerned me and that was the return date being changed.

Also, I went in a couple of weeks after the wife left to ask how much advance notice they needed for re-booking flights and part of the conversation went like this:
Me - Can we change the departure date???
TA - Yes it's your ticket, you can do anything you like with it
Me - That's ok, I was wondering if it was a special fare with limitations or something
TA - (No response to the above)

Sorry if the above makes a difference to how people would have responded.


G'day Dave and Thanks for your response

All changes are subject to availability in the appropriate inventory and it sounds like they did tell you this

At the time of booking I was not made aware that it was a "Special Fare" or about Inventories, I found out much later that there are only 10 seats available on each flight and that most are booked months in advance because of the price.

"Subject to Availability" to me as an unseasoned traveller means there is a seat available in the whole of economy, not just 1 of 10 seats.

It doesn't sound to me that the agent was being economical with the truth to be fair and would be no different to what an airline would say

Sorry I just can't get my head around that, not telling me there might be a extra cost of some sort let alone $1,000 - $2,000 and just saying "yes" over and over???

At the least I would have expected an answer like this: "yes but there may be an extra cost involved". That to me is closer to a Full Answer and more accurately reflects what the T&C states.

Also, if it was in the terms that you signed to it sounds like they were reasonably upfront

I can't agree with being upfront, I verbally asked a question and was given an answer which didn't fully reflect what the T&C says. But it highlights my point, should I have fully trusted what the TA told me. I booked/paid for the flight based on the answer I was given being a Full Disclosure about changing the dates.

Upfront to me means your told everything when you ask a specific question, not slam dunked with the full details later on.


G'day dajop and Thanks for your response

IMHO, they have acted legally and even ethically - they have indicated terms and conditions and noted that change is subject to availability. So you will have no recourse, other than not providing repeat business.

I respectfully disagree, they did not indicate to me anything other than the word "yes" and "subject to availabilty". There was no mention of any extra costs or any possible delay in getting a seat for that fare until I went in to rebook. Legally the T&C might cover them, but Ethically the TA should have told me more than "yes" and explained the fare limitations when trying to rebook.

A "good" travel agent would however indicate that the fare you were on is a sale, and is not likely to have availability if changed etc etc ....

Exactly my point, the answer I was given did not fully inform me of the repercussions should we change the return date. Keep in mind, "they knew" we would change the date, it's not like I suddenly decided to change it, that was the intent from the beginning and they knew that.

Now $2k seems a lot for the change ... how many people? It probably mean reticketing your whole trip- not just the return sector -in the new booking class (although not sure on this). Depending on where, you maybe better just to sacrifice the return flight and use a new ticket purchased from your departure point. Worth looking into.

The change was just for 1 person, after I got off the floor the Branch Manager explained to me there were no seats in Economy and that the $2,000 was an upgrade to Business Class for the date I requested, the $1,000 was for an Economy upgrade for available seats in the following 3 weeks. I'm not sure what you mean by reticketing, all we wanted is the date changed, the flights are exactly the same just different dates.

Because we don't have money to throw around the wife has had to stay in the UK for a extra 3 weeks longer than intended. Apparently thats when the next vacant seat in her "Special Fare" range (that we weren't told) about is available.


G'day Bill and Thanks for the response

I don't agree here though. The average 'Jo' relies upon the TA to give all the info and not just the basic facts. With all the appropriate information the client can make a real decision.

You've hit the Nail on the Head, I will add this though, I am the average "Dumbass Jo" when it comes to Travelling. If I ask a specific question I expect to be given the Full Answer by the TA and not have parts left out because they are well known to others.

With that said, if I had known the associated costs and delays involved with booking this "Special Fare" (we know about now) at the time I would have probably bought a more expensive seat to avoid the extra costs and give us more flexibility in picking a return date.

Agreed also. Never sign unless you have looked at ALL the T&C or you are locked in without any come back.

I agree too, but the point of my post which I probably didn't make clear is at what point do you not trust what the TA tells you, do you have to assume everything is a Half-Truth, that they haven't fully disclosed everything in their verbal answer to you, do you need to make sure their answer is word for word what the T&C says???

Hence my Subject Line: Is their Word ever their Bond. In my recent experience the answer has to be "only partially".

Dare we ask which TA chain or can we guess

Na I don't think you have to guess, it's FC Marion. You may of seen my other post about a missing flight, after 3 weeks of querying where the E-Tickets were I finally rang Head Office, they asked the Branch to sort it, they didn't and now I'm dealing with Head Office exclusively.


G'day mel-t and Thanks for your response

Johnomg - please get in contact with your local consumer affairs helpline - all state governments have them and they can advise you of your rights.

The excuse that the terms and conditions or small print contains certain provisions does not always mean they are binding. They don't nevessarily lock you in and they don't replace your consumer rights.

I did, Consumer Affairs said while it's Unethical I screwed myself by signing the T&C so they can't help, not with this part anyway (it's a matter of he said, she said), they can help with the Lost Flight, but Head Office resolved that today.

The ACCC said because I signed the T&C and it's a matter of "he said, she said" it's difficult to deal with, however they have logged my complaint and once the complaints reach a Critical Mass then they can act, because it shows a company is acting Unethically.

Funnily enough I read about a gentleman who had a similar situation to me, he was told one thing by the TA and then the T&C was waved at him, to his financial detriment, sadly as part of his eventual settlement most references to it and the full story had to be removed from the internet

If you ask a specific question and the product sold to you was not fit for purpose (for example you wanted a fare that was changeable (not for $2000 anyway) and it turns out that this is not what you got, or the product sold to you was not what you thought it was) then you may have rights.

That's the way I feel mel, I asked a question and was not given a answer which Fully Disclosed the terms of the Fare we purchased or what the T&C said. I won't say I was deceived because I wasn't, but I was not fully informed about the Financial and Time cost the "Special Fare" may and have incurred.


G'day serfty

No need to guess (although most would have got it right):

Hands the man a prize off the Top Shelf


G'day again Dave

I have to apologise to you, the extra information I provided may of changed your reponse to me, my only excuse is that the wife rang crying about her mum and I just forgot to put it in the Original Post. Sorry about that.

From the 1st post it was stated that the booking could be changed but the 1st date that would be available ( without fee ) was further in the future than the person wanted

Your post reminded me of something, a couple of weeks after the wife left I popped in to see the TA, I asked how much advance notice they needed to rebook the date we would want, I was told if I came in 10 days before that should be fine, I might not get the exact day we wanted but within a few days of it. I dutifully went in about 10 days beforehand and was told the extra charges and 3 weeks for a no cost fare.

Sorry again if the extra information made a difference Dave

Golden rule basically is that any voluntary change to a fare will always cost you money and will always be subject to availability. At the very least, it will cost you fare difference. ("Fully refundable" fares cost only fare difference to change; other inflexible fares will typically have change fees associated with them. You may also be subject to service fees, i.e. through an airline (when changing over the phone) or through a TA (for their time or whatever)).

I know all that now, my point is I asked "can it be changed?" and all I was told was "yes" or "subject to availabilty", at the least I would have expected them to hint at the things you outlined, but they didn't.

However, from what the OP said, it might have been implied that he was hinting at the end date being flexible...

It wasn't implied, the TA knew the date would definately change, we got a call saying the wife's mum is dying, instead of booking a date and having to push it back if the need arose (her mum lived longer) I booked the last possible date for the flight with the intention that when her mum died it would be brought forward. In that way we only had to change the return date once.

Wow, I might finally get to post this because people have taken a break from responding

As serfty indicated all my posts are regarding the numerous troubles I have had with this one trip, I didn't mean this Thread to go into the Nitty Gritty and I apologise for that, the only fair way to tell it is from beginning to end and it hasn't ended yet.

All I wanted to really know was if your TA told you something would you believe them and trust the information you had been given?

Thanks
John

P.S.
Bugger, I hit my smiley limit

 

[MEL_Traveller]

From the 1st post it was stated that the booking could be changed but the 1st date that would be available ( without fee ) was further in the future than the person wanted

I don't think that would be likely reasonable to claim that the ticket isn't as wanted in being a changeable ticket

Dave

I guess some of it depepnds on how 'subject to availability' is interpreted and understood (by the client).

'Yes the ticket is changeable, subject to availability' could lead to two very different scenarios if comparing a Y class ticket to a Q class ticket (on Qantas).

It may have been that either the poster did not make themselves clear, or that the travel agent did not make themselves clear. Or a mixture. But if a client is booked on the very cheapest of fares and asks if the ticket is changeable, it may well be appropriate for the answer to be 'yes, subject to availability, but availability is likely to be very hard to find'.

The only thing to suggest is that the OP is honest with the consumer affairs advisor and let consumer affairs advise.

 

[albatross710]

Personally I feel that it's Ethically wrong (at the least) to give me a Half Answer and then when I needed to change the dates inform me of the Full Answer (extra costs or a delay) and then use the "Terms and Conditions" as it being my own fault.

I think that that business now is much more stringent due to the GFC. If they have provided you with a set of T&Cs which outline the change conditions and coutnersigned by you then they are going to rely on those.

What about trying to take a conciliatory approach with them? Dangle a tour booking or wrapping the accom booking into the deal if they can change the date.

 

[Dave Noble]

'Yes the ticket is changeable, subject to availability' could lead to two very different scenarios if comparing a Y class ticket to a Q class ticket (on Qantas).

It may have been that either the poster did not make themselves clear, or that the travel agent did not make themselves clear. Or a mixture. But if a client is booked on the very cheapest of fares and asks if the ticket is changeable, it may well be appropriate for the answer to be 'yes, subject to availability, but availability is likely to be very hard to find'.
.

I doubt that it could be successfully argued that the requirement for seats to be available in the appropriate fare class to make the change for free is an unreasonable restriction

Dave

 

[albatross710]

I doubt that it could be successfully argued that the requirement for seats to be available in the appropriate fare class to make the change for free is an unreasonable restriction

Dave

Dave, can you just clarify this, I'm having trouble getting my head around it.

 

[harvyk]

Sadley johnomg, because you have signed the T&C, you are left with no real options.

Firstly I an not a lawyer, so this is (educated) opinion only.

Basically whilst yes verbal contracts (such as the one you had with FC) are legally binding, they are nigh impossible to enforce (he said, she said), and will almost always be trumped by a signed written contract.

Unfortunately airfares is an area of "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer Beware) as the seat is only one part of the product your purchasing. The second part is the terms and conditions you wish to have attached to that seat.

Now I'm a little surprised that FC didn't book you into a fare which gave you more generous T&C, especially as you stated that you will need to change the ticket at a later stage, however the blame does fall squarely with you as you didn't read the T&C's properly. (Something which I always do, even though I have read over them 1000 times before)

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but unfortunately FC are in the right on this one.

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave, can you just clarify this, I'm having trouble getting my head around it.

To argue that the travel agent misrepresented the ability to change for free given the industry standard requirement that seats be available to change to

e,g, having an O class fare on MEL-SYD and then not being able to change it to this friday's 17:00 flight where K is the lowest available

There may be issues with Flight Centre, but if a fare that allows changes was requested and it did allow changes, its hard for me to see them at fault here

Dave

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sadley johnomg, because you have signed the T&C, you are left with no real options.

Firstly I an not a lawyer, so this is (educated) opinion only.

Basically whilst yes verbal contracts (such as the one you had with FC) are legally binding, they are nigh impossible to enforce (he said, she said), and will almost always be trumped by a signed written contract.

Unfortunately airfares is an area of "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer Beware) as the seat is only one part of the product your purchasing. The second part is the terms and conditions you wish to have attached to that seat.

Now I'm a little surprised that FC didn't book you into a fare which gave you more generous T&C, especially as you stated that you will need to change the ticket at a later stage, however the blame does fall squarely with you as you didn't read the T&C's properly. (Something which I always do, even though I have read over them 1000 times before)

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but unfortunately FC are in the right on this one.

'Caveat emptor' as a concept in modern consumer transactions is modified by all sorts of fair trading legislation. As a concept in relatio to consumer transactions the concept is now outdated and doesn't really have much relevance.

 

[harvyk]

MEL_Traveller, I noticed two things, one you edited your post, as I went to reply, and the various fair trade legislation only protects against unfair contract terms. However in this case unfortuantly I don't think he has a leg to stand on (and for that matter neither does fair trading in the OP's state given the OP has already contacted them, so it's not just me)

As the OP has admitted, he signed it without reading the T&C's. This puts him on the back foot. Now your right, T&C's don't always comply with local laws and for that they have a severability clause. That said, without proper evidence of any other conversation happening (eg by using a recording device, which opens up a whole other can of worms) the written T&C's are the only thing the OP has to go on.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, however I have worked with them to protect my own rear end, so I am simply repeating what was told to me.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Harvyk - yes I did edit my post because it wasn't until after I posted that I saw the OPs note about his discussions with the consumer affairs hotline and the ACCC.

I wanted to do some more research which included talking to people who work closely with consumer legislation.

The consensus is that the issue for the OP is whether there was an implied requirement, arising during the discussions with the travel agent, that the ticket being sought was one that needed to be (suitably)flexible. This part has nothing to do with the terms and conditions that were signed, but rather it sits in consumer law which states that products sold must be fit for purpose.

The consensus is also that 'subject to availability' needed to be spelled out. And that the difference between 'available flight' and 'available seat' should have been spelled out. As the OP said - he thought any seat on the plane would be ok.

If the OP can show the requirement for a felxible ticket should have been known to the agent then the next step in the argument is that the product sold was not in fact fit for purpose (yes it was 'flexible, but not for three weeks unless paying a huge price difference) and then a full refund would be the remedy.

My advice to the OP is to call back to the consumer affairs hotline but take the time to explain simply that a felxible ticket was asked for and this was not what was provided.

Consumer affairs' role, if anything, is to try to mediate, but will refer it to the appropriate tribunal if mediation doesn't work. The tribunal will will then take evidence from both sides - and yes it may be a bit of a case of 'he said / she said' but the tribunal will have to consider the case n the facts.

That the OP needed a flexible ticket due to impending death is pretty good evidence.

ps - just for clarity it is important to note that consumer protection legislation is wide ranging. Unfair contract terms is just one element. Fitness for purpose, implied warranties and safety (just to name a few things) are covered in other parts of consumer legislation.