I have just been listening to coverage on BBC Radio 5 Live regarding the collapse of XL Leisure and passengers left stranded on holiday who may not be able to come back for a few more days (lucky them) and those who have had their holidays cancelled completely before they started (unlucky them).

At the end of the item various phone numbers were quoted.  These included both a GN for passengers stuck overseas and for the liquidators/administrators of the company.  There was also an 0800 number quoted for those in the UK with relatives stuck overseas.

But then they ruined it all with an 0870 number for those with longer term advance bookings with the airline.  I'm not quite clear of the purpose of this 0870 number when surely the affected customers would get much further speaking to the liquidator or administrator on their Geographic Number.

But at least one firm of accountants has got the message that using an 084 or 087 prefixed number for a company that has gone bust is not acceptable.  So far as I can see the 0870 number is actually historic and was set up by Excel and not by its liquidators.  I also rather doubt whether anyone will be taking any phone calls on that 0870 number. ;) ::)

Further information can be obtained from the Administrator’s help line as follows:

   * From the UK – 0800 068 8991
   * From Abroad - + 44 208 242 4783

As quoted from the XL web site..

http://www.xl.com/

I see it is the Administrators who are quoting a geographic number for use from overseas and an 0800 phone number for use within the UK.  So well done to them for doing the right thing, unlike other firms of administrators. [smiley=thumbup.gif]

The other geographic number quoted on BBC Radio 5 Live of 02891 856547 for those customers in particular distress is actually the CAA helpline number.

Sadly the three other tour operators listed by XL on their website as being companies you could contact to find alternate return flights home with all use either 0870 or 0871 numbers and as we know 0871 numbers in particular are frequently impossible to contact from overseas while calling 0870 numbers is very, very expensive on many mobile phones from abroad.  Now I appreciate this is not directly Excel's or the administrator's fault but as they clearly appreciate the issues with using NGN phone numbers from overseas perhaps they should have either visited this website to look for geographic alternatives or asked the tour operators in question if they would provide a geographic number, given the main place (i.e. overseas) that most of the calls are likely to be calling from in this case.

One does wonder why only three other tour operators are listed and there is no mention of BA, BMI or other scheduled airlines that customers might also organise other fights with.  Not to mention national airline operators like Iberia, Olympic etc, etc, etc.  One does of course understand why mentioning the phone numbers of Easyjet or Ryanair would be pointless but perhaps customers could at least have been guided to the URLs for their flight booking websites...........

The relevant 087x numbers that may have featured in some media coverage are as follows:

The emergency call centre to handle enquiries from worried customers or relatives, as advised by ATOL and the CAA - 0870 5900 927

This is listed by BBC News, which also gives an alternative to call if abroad - +44 (0) 2891 856 547.

Potential alternative carriers listed by [url=(http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/XL-Leisure-Group-Collapse---Who-To-Call-And-What-To-Do-If-You-Are-Affected/Article/200809215097932?lpos=Business_2&lid=ARTICLE_15097932_XL%2BLeisure%2BGroup%2BCollapse%2B-%2BWho%2BTo%2BCall%2BAnd%2BWhat%2BTo%2BDo%2BIf%2BYou%2BAre%2BAffected]Sky News[/url]
First Choice  0871 200 7799
Thomas Cook  0870 010 1806
Thomson  0871 231 5938

I have not seen any call price announcements as apparently demanded by the ASA. The familiar complaints about those who seek to profit from people's misfortune (or at least cause victims to contribute financially towards measures to assist them) are probably justified. I would place ATOL in the frame here.

I'm one of those that booked a holiday with TravelCity Direct for next June.

I was given 020 74536700 by my bank, Nationwide, and having rung it get load of spiel then eventually get told to ring ATOLs 0870 number for those that booked longterm.

It was a 2-part deposit and first part (£100) I paid on my visa credit and the remainder was on my debit card (only because I had this to hand).

ATOLs claim form gives no help for those that paid by more than two methods but it says anyone paid on credit card to contact their CC issuer.  What do I do with part that I paid on debit card?  I guess I will just have to ring them (on their geo of course).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 5:26pm:

The emergency call centre to handle enquiries from worried customers or relatives, as advised by ATOL and the CAA - 0870 5900 927 This is listed by BBC News, which also gives an alternative to call if abroad - +44 (0) 2891 856 547.

Radio 5 Live only quoted 02891 856 547 for those wanting to call the CAA.  Perhaps we have a supporter working in the Radio 5 Live production department or on their editorial team? ;)


Quote:

I have not seen any call price announcements as apparently demanded by the ASA. The familiar complaints about those who seek to profit from people's misfortune (or at least cause victims to contribute financially towards measures to assist them) are probably justified. I would place ATOL in the frame here.

When I have complained about this before to the BBC with their quoting of the Disasters Emergency Committee 0870 number with no mention of call cost they have tried to wriggle out of it by saying that as it was not their number they were not responsible for being aware of the cost of calling it. :o >:(

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

I'm one of those that booked a holiday with TravelCity Direct for next June.

Sorry to hear this but at least as the booking is next June you have plenty of time to make alternative arrangements and press for a refund from your card issuer etc.

Of course debit card payments are not covered by the credit card guarantee against a retailer failing to provide the promised service or product but I suppose you may be covered under the ATOL scheme instead?

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

I'm one of those that booked a holiday with TravelCity Direct for next June. I was given 020 74536700 by my bank, Nationwide, and having rung it get load of spiel then eventually get told to ring ATOLs 0870 number for those that booked longterm. It was a 2-part deposit and first part (£100) I paid on my visa credit and the remainder was on my debit card (only because I had this to hand). ATOLs claim form gives no help for those that paid by more than two methods but it says anyone paid on credit card to contact their CC issuer.  What do I do with part that I paid on debit card?  I guess I will just have to ring them (on their geo of course).

It is my understanding that if you pay part of the charge by credit card or Visa debit, the credit card or Visa debit card company have to pay the whole amount.

I am sure I read sometime ago, where someone had just paid the deposit on their credit card and the rest by debit card, the firm went belly up and the credit card company was obliged to pay up in full.

I also believe that if your debit card has the word Visa on it then the same rules apply as if it was a credit card, hence the reason in what I have written above.

Worth checking this out.

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

It is my understanding that if you pay part of the charge by credit card or Visa debit, the credit card or Visa debit card company have to pay the whole amount.

Samira Ahmed on Channel 4 News has just said that Visa Debit Card users can apply for a refund.

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

It is my understanding that if you pay part of the charge by credit card or Visa debit, the credit card or Visa debit card company have to pay the whole amount.

I know Visa operate a facility called charge back (or something) that allows anyone using a Visa card (debit included) to try and reclaim money back for possibly things like this where a company has not fulfilled their side of a contract.

I know claims over £100 then I can claim under s75 of the consumer credit act but not sure exactly does that mean £100 or over £100 (as in £100.01)

Visa have issued a statement here.

And I would guess the same applies to MasterCard

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 6:51pm:

And I would guess the same applies to MasterCard

Not so certain as even MSE mentions Visa's charge back facility but doesn't mention MasterCard!?!

However, if s75 applies then it makes no difference whether Visa or MasterCard.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 7:02pm:

sherbert wrote on Sep 12th, 2008 at 6:51pm: And I would guess the same applies to MasterCard Not so certain as even MSE mentions Visa's charge back facility but doesn't mention MasterCard!?! However, if s75 applies then it makes no difference whether Visa or MasterCard.

MasterCard operates under the "MasterCard" brand for its credit card and "Maestro" for its debit card.

I believe Visa uses its name for both credit and debit card.

I have a Lloyds TSB debit card and it has Visa printed on it. However if you were to apply for a Llyods TSB credit card, you would be given a MasterCard.

I think you will find that it is the banks that supply the credit and debit cards and not the credit card companies.

You are covered using a Credit Card by law provided the amount is between £100 and £30,000.

Debit cards are not covered, but Visa has its own arrangement and in fact there is no lower limit to it. As I understand it you have to make a claim within 120 days. It is called Visa Chargeback. You should not assume Mastercard debit cards are covered as there is no legal requirement and Maestro do not provide this cover.

Apparently if you do make a claim under Visa Chargeback most banks will not have a clue what you are talking about and you have to persist to get them to take action (usual call centre lack of training). They are obliged to act upon your request under their agreement with Vista

Keith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:

You are covered using a Credit Card by law provided the amount is between £100 and £30,000. Debit cards are not covered, but Visa has its own arrangement and in fact there is no lower limit to it. As I understand it you have to make a claim within 120 days. It is called Visa Chargeback. You should not assume Mastercard debit cards are covered as there is no legal requirement and Maestro do not provide this cover. Apparently if you do make a claim under Visa Chargeback most banks will not have a clue what you are talking about and you have to persist to get them to take action (usual call centre lack of training). They are obliged to act upon your request under their agreement with Vista

You are correct Keith, see these two pages from Working Lunch; -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/4260806.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7593369.stm

I have just booked two very expensive transactions where the credit card fee would have been £44 per transaction but the debit card transaction was nil using my Visa Debit card based on the above knowledge.  And yes it is for travel so protecting against the possibility of loss due to insolvency is now rather important.

I recently also acquired a Visa Electron card from the Co-op to use to buy Ryanair or Easyjet flights as they charge nothing for Visa Electron but do charge for Visa Debit cards.  I would be interested to know if Visa Electron also benefits from this payment protection.  I suspect that it may not do and may be considered as equivalent to elecronic cash.  That is probably why Ryanair prefer it as it avoids the possibility of chargeback disputes.  But if so then why don't they also give preferred no card fee status to Maestro payments?

I did not think that banks charged suppliers if a debit card was used. I know they charge up to 5% if a credit card is, hence the charge being passed on to the customer. I have never been charged for using my Visa debit card, me smells something fishy going on with your transaction with Ryanair and Easyjet. :o

sherbert wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:

I did not think that banks charged suppliers if a debit card was used. I know they charge up to 5% if a credit card is, hence the charge being passed on to the customer. I have never been charged for using my Visa debit card, me smells something fishy going on with your transaction with Ryanair and Easyjet. :o

Typical merchant credit card charges to large retailers are 2% of the transaction value unless the transaction value is very small.  There is usually a minimum fee they are charged for a transaction (eg 20p) regardless of size and that is why some retailers do not like card payments for very low value transactions, especially under £5.

As to debit cards the banks do charge the merchant a fee but for taking them but it is usually a fixed amount like 20p per transaction and/or a very low percentage (eg 0.1%) on larger value transactions.  The reason for the difference is the money is coming straight out of the customer's bank account (or at least within 3 working days maximum and often same day now) and there is no payment delay of up to 56 days.  Also there is less credit risk as bank accounts are credit scored for overdraft a lot more accurately than many of the more reckless credit card issuers tend to do.

The reason why Ryanair now charge £8 return for debit cards per passenger is simple.  Namely they are trying to get round the EU rules that say all airport fees and taxes must be quoted up front.  However as they can argue that they charge no fee for Visa Electron they can say they can't quote the fees including card charges up front.  I believe that eventually the EU or OFT will mandate that they have to ask how you are going to pay for the flight before you look it up and get a price quote so the price quote then includes the card charges.  There will then be no point in levying these hidden fare charges as debit card charges that do not reflect the transaction cost.  More reputable companies like Thomson (part of the German TUI) just add 2% to the transaction value if you use a credit card and do not have a minimum fee.  This is fair enough as they actually pay 2% extra for credit card use.

As to Visa Electron and Ryanair not making a card charge while they do for Visa Debit this is principally because almost no one had a Visa Electron card and the card type is physically separate from Visa Debit so can be identified by them on their system.  As a result almost no one could then avoid their £8 card charge.  Of course a lot of people (myself included) are now acquiring Visa Electron cards (Co-Op Cashminder which you can apply for on the phone in 10 minutes with no ID needed seems the best bet as you can pay cash or a cheque in to it at any Post Office or Sub Post Office or using your online bank account via BACS) so in due course Ryanair are likely to bring in a charge for Visa Electron.  When the EU and trading standards finally rules that levying card charges that do not reflect actual costs is a scam then no doubt Ryanair will be forced to increase their headline fares and/or futher increase the baggage charge or check in charge (although again they may have a problem with that if they try to charge more than physical check in or handling baggage actually costs them plus a reasonable profit margin).

In any event I would certainly recommend anyone to get hold of a Visa Electron card in case they think it is likely they may fly with Ryanair or Easyjet at some point in the future or in case other tour operators or low cost airlines go down the only Visa Electron is fee free route.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 1:14pm:

I have just booked two very expensive transactions where the credit card fee would have been £44 per transaction but the debit card transaction was nil using my Visa Debit card based on the above knowledge.

Did you know that as long as the goods/service cost between £100-30000, it does not matter how much you cahrge to your CC, you will still be covered under Section 75 for the full amount?

eg; - goods/service cost £1000, retailer wants to charge 3% for CC use equaling £30, put £5 on CC, retailers  CC charge 15pence, pay the rest however you like and the CC company is still liable for the full amount under section 75 if retailer goes belly up or you have some other problem.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 2:25pm:

The reason why Ryanair now charge £8 return for debit cards per passenger is simple.  Namely they are trying to get round the EU rules that say all airport fees and taxes must be quoted up front.  However as they can argue that they charge no fee for Visa Electron they can say they can't quote the fees including card charges up front...

I believe that is probably true.  However, in adverts where ASA has jurisdiction, I believe ASA would rule that such a fee had to be included simply because majority would be subject to the charge.

I wonder if the CAA are making money from their 0870?

I realise and understand that a geographical possibly couldn't cope with the demand, a 03x number would be very costly but why not an 0845?  Most 0845 providers dont charge for incoming calls received.

The problem is that the number was originally allocated to BT so unless it's been ported then that's why the CAA didn't use an 0845 as BT generally charge for calls received.  0870 is generally free and may mean the CAA get a small percentage of the revenue BT gets from the calls.

However, due to bespoke pricing by BT then it's hard to say for sure.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

I realise and understand that a geographical possibly couldn't cope with the demand,

Of course they can, although there may be a charge for incoming calls, as with 03 but maybe cheaper, I think it may depend on call volume as to how much the charge would be.

See these companies forexamples,(BT can also do it but choose not to advertise the fact, as it will probably not be as lucrative as 084/087),: -



TTNC  http://www.ttnc.co.uk/about/about-us.do                  

http://www.ttnc.co.uk/numbers/local-area-codes.do

NumberStore  http://www.numberstore.com/about-us.asp

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

I wonder if the CAA are making money from their 0870?

Almost certainly they are.  Although they will no doubt choose to see it as "defraying the costs of providing staff to man the phone lines". >:(


Quote:

I realise and understand that a geographical possibly couldn't cope with the demand

Since when was that?  Large John Lewis stores like John Lewis Oxford St seem to have no trouble running the whole thing off a switchboard with a geographic phone number.  Also voip telephony can be offered using geographic phone numbers.  I find it very alarming indeed that any moderator of the sayno0870.com website would make the assertion that "a geographical possibly couldn't cope with the demand".  Also don't forget the Foreign & Commonwearlth Office who run a large and complex telephone system using solely geographic phone numbers.


Quote:

a 03x number would be very costly

No it wouldn't.  If one shops around the incoming call charges can be very low indeed and much lower than 0800, especially if a large number of incoming minutes per month are purchased in bulk on an annual contract.

I can't imagine why you seem to have suddenly changed sides to that of the 084/7 apologists bbb_uk?  Have you received a brown envelope in the post containing a large cheque or something?


Quote:

but why not an 0845?  Most 0845 providers dont charge for incoming calls received.

Because 0845 are just as bad as 0870 in most cases.  Certainly they are just as bad from overseas and all UK mobile phones and they are also excluded from all landline inclusive minutes packages.  I really can't believe that you think you should be encouraging the use of an 0845 number on this website bbb_uk? :o :-/


Quote:

The problem is that the number was originally allocated to BT so unless it's been ported then that's why the CAA didn't use an 0845 as BT generally charge for calls received.  0870 is generally free and may mean the CAA get a small percentage of the revenue BT gets from the calls. 0870 is generally free. :o

Another weasel worded statement usually made by the scam 0870 industry bbb.  It isn't free at all.  It is jolly expensive.

Whatever dangerous or hallucinogenic substances you may possibly have been taking lately bbb and even allowing for it being the weekend I think you should quit now before your turn in to a full card carrying apologist for the 084/7 number vending industry. :P ;D

Just to put the record straight, I believe that the 0870 number in question belongs to ATOL, although it is also being publicised by the CAA.

We can make whatever conjecture we wish in the absence of the relevant facts. The reason for adopting a 0870 number is not the point. The fact is that those who are suffering as a result of this situation are having to make a financial contribution towards the costs of resolving their difficulties.

Most people would see that alone as being a scandal, regardless of the motives and alternative options available to those responsible for it. Let them explain whether they are knaves or fools.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 14^th, 2008 at 11:04pm:

Large John Lewis stores like John Lewis Oxford St seem to have no trouble running the whole thing off a switchboard with a geographic phone number.

So your saying John Lewis store would receive more calls at same time than the CAA/Atol will over this?  Last I checked it was more than a couple of thousands people affected by this which means most likely they all tried ringing as soon as they heard.


Quote:

Also voip telephony can be offered using geographic phone numbers.

Yes, they can but do they have a VoIP now because they obviously needed, I presume, a new number purely to take the number of calls they are going to get.

A GN number can really only cope with a certain amount of calls before one gets an engaged tone, or being able to be put through to one of multiple call centres.  How much this is really depends on how good their switchboard is.  I have assumed that due to the volume of calls they were expecting, the CAA/Atol asked expensive BT for a number that is more likely to cope with the demand.

I did notice that Atol didn't routinely use NGNs for normal everyday enquiries so the unexpected collapse of the UK's third biggest operator took it by complete surprise and hence they needed a new number quickly setup.


Quote:

No it wouldn't.  If one shops around the incoming call charges can be very low indeed and much lower than 0800, especially if a large number of incoming minutes per month are purchased in bulk on an annual contract.

An 03x number would be expensive and as they needed a number asap and only for a certain amount of time and I presume didnt anticipate such a large company going out of business then they never had time to shop around.


Quote:

I can't imagine why you seem to have suddenly changed sides to that of the 084/7 apologists bbb_uk?  Have you received a brown envelope in the post containing a large cheque or something?

Yes, same as certain other organisations of the government lol  ;D  ;)  :D

I was trying to think of it logically from both sides and that is that the CAA/atol now have to pay for nearly everyone abroad to get home and refund the many, many, many thousands of people who had booked but not travelled with XL or one of their other sister companies.  Logic would dictate that this is going to cost hundreds of millions and I assume the £1/£2 we each all paid Atol wouldn't cover it on its own so to cut their own costs, having a number where they got charged for incoming calls received would just add to their already large bill.

Does the CAA/Atol come under FoI act?

Just got around to ringing Atol on their published (Contact Us page of their website) 020 7453 6700 claims line instead of the 0870 that they are trying to rip us off with.

Answered in under a minute following the prompts for XL group of companies option.

I have added this to the database but as it's only temporary I shall remove it in a few weeks time.

Of course there is still the number they quote for those ringing abroad: 02891 85 6547.