But I'm assuming that the written terms would have been available if you'd asked to see a copy? That's the obligation under the Package Travel Regs. The fact is that businesses and consumers make contracts without reference to specific terms. You chose to do it as much as the travel agent. Just because they didn't say, 'hang on, don't book, here are the specific terms and conditions. Have a read and then phone us back' doesn't mean - to my mind - that no terms apply. I would say that it is almost universally known that package holidays cannot be cancelled without incurring charges and that it's perfectly standard for cancellation charges to be 100% very close to departure. That's one of the reasons why travel insurance is sold and also why very expensive fully-flexible business tickets are available. I'm also unsure why you think that a refund should be offered even if you can argue that no terms at all applied to a booking. Standard contract terms don't allow for cancellation or refund if one party changes their mind (or if personal circumstances change).

Hone v Going Places is the undisclosed principle case on which you're relying but - I think - that in that case it was still deemed that 'normal' terms and conditions would apply whether GP were the principal or not. The general principle is that even if you can argue that you were not made aware of the specific terms and conditions, it's reasonable to assume that some terms would apply. Would one be that you can't get your money back if you choose to cancel? That would be up to the judge to decide. My money's firmly on it being very reasonable for such a term to exist. Indeed...you say at the beginning that First Choice 'predictably' refused to refund any cancellation. My only tip would be that language like that would suggest that you expected such a term to exist.

Why am I rude? Because I disagree? Anyway...to follow your anaolgy...I'm sure that if you 'bought something from a shop' and found that, for example, a red button had been replaced by a blue button would it really matter? Anyway...go ahead and progress your complaint. Much better to just listen to all the posts saying 'take it all the way' and forget any that may suggest that your complaint isn't as water-tight as you may have first thought.

Two questions...why is the term unfair? And where is your loss? I assume you had access to those terms and conditions before you booked and before you paid your supplement? Why didn't you challenge them before hand? Just because you're now not happy with those terms does not mean they were unfair. You sat together. Just because you were in a different row or something hardly makes a big difference. There's no loss (I don't count the supplement paid, as you were sat together which is the main thing). There are plenty of reasons why they may choose to reallign seats (different plane, people not being fit to sit in the emergency exits, yield-management (or overbooking to give it its less pleasant name!). Easyjet makes money by charging for all non-essential extras and then having a policy of not issuing refunds unless there's a clear breach of contract. This keeps prices down and has created greater competition against the monopoly national carriers which has been of benefit to the consumers. Their policy on refunds is very well known.

Believe me, my 'purpose in life' is not limited to contributing to this forum so I'll happilly 'retire'! Strange, but I feel like Simon Cowell...on that daft X programme he's the one who always gets called cruel yet everyone else is encouraging people to continue with their singing career when they have no chance.

Is it the case that he got 'free' insurance but that he had to pay for the insurance in the event that he had to cancel? Offering every sympathy to your son, it does appear that he's signed up to this so Thomson are now chasing payment. I guess it would be put against the shop or the staff member as a 'bad loss' so that's why they're not applying any discretion. BUt, if he now did pay the money and the insurance premium, then surely he could then claim against that insurance as his cancellation would be an insurable reason? Assuming that it wasn't a pre-exisitng condition. And...knowing nothing at all about medicine or this problem...would it be an option for him to go on the holiday? Would that not be 'therapy' in itself?

Sorry...knowing the general knowledge of the posters on this board, you're quite right I should have clarified my statement. County Court decisions, if reported, are expected to be followed by other District Judges unless there is good reason not to do so. In my opinion, in lay terms, this equals precedent. Back to the point; your continuous suggestion that Ts and Cs - in effect - 'don't count' because you can always say that they are 'unfair' does a disservice to people seeking opinions on this board.

Of course precedents can be set in the small claims. It's an informal procedure but still a full court hearing with a proper (District) Judge. It's the lowest form of court but still legally binding. I would strongly recommend not issuing a claim. You will be exposed to your court fees but also to the opposite side's travelling costs if you lose. There's also the (slim) chance that you may have to pay their full legal costs if the Judge considers your actions unreasonable. This forum always says that it's almost irrelevant that you agreed to the terms and conditions because they could be considered to be 'unreasonable' due to the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I disagree strongly with this but can't be bothered to go through the discussion again as it's there on other posts. I would strongly recommend that you read the post titled '£110.50 for a name change' where I posted much the same as above but was argued against. That person ended up going to court and lost and had to pay travelling costs of the other side.

Two-to-one! I'm being ganged up on!!! Let me try and explain why I don't think the UCTA applies on this one and why it's different to the bank charges issue... For a contract's terms to be declared as being 'unfair' they have to be completly 'unreasonable'. The UCTA and case law has generally held such things to be where one party has no viable alternative (eg. loans to vulnerable people with massive interest rates...not just because one party is a 'big' business and the other is a 'small' consumer), where the Ts and Cs are not disclosed, where an entire industry has worked in collusion or where the wording in the contract is contradictory or deliberately unclear. With holidays people have the brochure or the website where the terms are printed. They're normally clearly written (many have been awarded the clear English award). Customers have an alternative (business class tickets offer flexibility...and are promoted strongly on this benefit). They are offered insurance which will cover for unexpected cancellations. They are under no obligation to book if they don't like the terms. The terms allow for a sliding scale of cancellation charges which will generally reflect reasonable costs. The issue with the banks is different; people often opened their account many years ago and the bank charges were later applied to the ts and cs and, with people overdrawn, they were unable to close their account and move elsewhere...and if they did, all other banks were doing exactly the same. Again, my argument is that if someone didn't like the proposed cancellation charges, they had the opportunity to not make the holiday booking in the beginning. To cancel later and then try to claim that the terms were 'unfair' is too late!

My guess is that you've signed two completely seperate contracts; one for a Thomson holiday and one with a ticket-supplier. My assumption would be that the terms and conditions of the ticket-supplier company will state that they are non-refundable and are seperate to changes or cancellations that might occur with any seperate holiday booking. It's worth looking at the paperwork. Plus...I assume you booked through a high-street agency? Which one? Was it Thomson? And if so, how were the tickets explained to you? Were you given a seperate receipt?

Rosie...it's irrelevant that you 'don't like these terms' or if something 'seems fair' or not. The time to disagree with the terms is before agreeing to them. There is no breach of contract so there is no need for any party to mitgate their loss.

Please explain to me how and why there is a breach of contract when there is a specific clause within the contract which allows the customer to cancel (and losing their deposit)?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree... My opinion is that this is not a breach of contract as the consumer and the tour operator agreed on a contract and within that contract there was specific provision for the charges that would be incurred by the consumer if he/she decided to cancel. That provision will have given a specific amount which the consumer would 'lose' if they cancelled. These figures increase the closer to the date of departure. To me, this is not an arbitrary figure. I also don't think this term could be described as unreasonable. Plus, there was ample opportunity for the consumer to question the specific charges before agreeing to the contract; my guess is that he/she didn't bother to read them beforehand. And finally, I think it's common knowledge that in the event of any product being returned that it gets 'returned to stock'. I don't agree that there's any obligation for the seller to refund any sell-on revenue that might be made.

Rosie...without being rude, it's pretty clear that you don't have much clue as to the very basics of contract law. A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Let's look at the washing machine analogy. It's there in the shop with a sticker price of £350.00. That's the 'invitation to treat'. The customer 'offers' to buy the washing machine. The seller 'accepts' that offer subject to certain terms (a non-refundable deposit of £100.00). At that stage the buyer can disagree with those terms and withdraw but if he carries on then he's obligated to the terms. The money then changes hands and that is the 'consideration'. It's pretty textbook stuff. There is absolutely no provision in English law for people to 'change their minds'. If that person decides they no longer want the washing machine, then the seller is under no obligation to offer a refund whether or not he sells that same washing machine or not. Whether he sells it or not (or whether the holiday is sold or not) is a complete irrelevance. And you're right, it's impossible to know whether the washing machine has been sold or not. If he has a stock of 1 or 100, using your anaolgy, would he have to refund the person if he sold the first or the 100th? The same with the holiday, the flight seats might be sold to someone else with a different combination of hotel rooms or as a flight-only. The flight seats and hotel stock might be released back to the airline and tour operator. You might disagree with the ethics or business principles of the washing machine seller (or the holiday company) in not offering a refund but it does not make it a breach of contract and does not make the terms 'unfair'.

Rosie...you could take it to court but you would lose. Simply saying it's an 'unfair term' does not mean it that it's in breach of the UCTA. The terms and conditions are printed clearly in the brochure, they're very standard throughout the travel industry (and conform to ABTA's Code of Conduct, which you may disagree with but would be respected by any court), and the consumer/holidaymaker is under no obligation to enter into the contract if they disagree with it. I'd also say it's a very reasonable term. Tour Operators and hoteliers need to know that their planes and hotels will be full. If people had the right to cancel without having cancellation charges applied then people would simply book holidays and then cancel them with no 'punishment' as soon as they changed their minds. Airlines sell flight tickets like this but these are the most expensive possible because they come with that flexibility. And...why shouldn't the tour operator sell the holiday again? If the holiday had to be cancelled for an insurable reason and the person got their money back, why shouldn't they sell on that holiday? They're not going to keep the flight seat and hotel room empty. The margin of profit on cancelled holidays is there for the holiday companies and that is one of the reasons why costs can be kept to a competitive level for us consumers.

I have to disagree...it's not a breach of contract as cancellation charges will be clearly detailed in the terms and conditions in the brochure. When you buy the holiday, you agree that you will 'lose' money if you cancel on a sliding scale that increases the closer to the departure date. Holidays companies will try to resell that holiday/flight seat but they're under no obligation to refund you anything if they do so.

My opinion...yes, issue proceedings. First Choice obviously disagree with you so it's time to take it 'further'. The Small Claims procedure is relatively straightforward and cost-effective and - as much as people on here might want to comment - the only opinion that will matter will be the District Judge's when he or she has heard all sides of the argument.

You might have said elsewhere, but, how long before travelling did you book the holiday? Did you have the paperwork for enough time to look through it and make any queries? What First Choice will probably say is that you had time to query the paperwork (so, in effect the contract) and that as you didn't you must have been happy with the contents. Plus...I guess that the teletext advert page would have had something like a standard thing saying 'holidays sold subject to terms and conditions' or 'holidays sold as component parts from different suppliers'. So...without putting words in your mouth...if you did have the paperwork for a while you would still say that you were not made aware of the different suppliers at the time of booking (so, at the opportunity to not book or to not continue with the contract) and that, as you were telephoning a 'blue-chip' company that was a tour operator and a travel agent, you would have expected that the sales advisor would have explicitly advised you - someone travelling with a disabled family member - that you were not travelling on a traditional package, that you wouldn't receive the same level of resort service and that your contracts were with a variety of suppliers.

The contractual position is very interesting. What First Choice appear to be saying is that they acted as a travel agent who sold component parts of a holiday that could have been taken seperately or, as in this case, as a whole. They'll (probably) be relying on the recent ABTA v CAA court case that said that agents don't necessarily need to offer financial protection because if they sell component parts of a holiday. Imagine someone walks into a travel agent and asks about a holiday to Paris. They might buy flights, taxi transfer and accommodation. Or, they might just buy the hotel and decide to buy the flights seperately. But, if they do buy something that could be considered a package but it's clearly identified on the bill/receipt/paperwork what each component part costs then it doesn't matter if you're charged one total cost. The agent can happilly say that they are the agent for a whole series of seperate suppliers (airlines, hoteliers, coach companies). But...this ABTA v CAA case refers to financial protection and not the responsibility of a tour operator/holiday company for 'quality complaints' overseas. Look at the Hone v Going Places case for a more relevant issue. Here Going Places advertised a holiday on teletext and there were problems on the holiday (a flight evacuation, but that doesn't matter). By the time the complaint came in, the tour operator had since gone bust but the customer sued Going Places saying that they were, in effect, the tour operator because they never referred to the existence of a different tour operator in any of their telephone conversations and in their subsequent documentation. It's called an 'undisclosed principal' and means that the agent can no longer declare itself 'independent' from the contract. This appears to be very relevant to your complaint. It will probably depend on how clear your paperwork was and how the actual holiday was described in the phone conversation.

I think you have a very poor case and I think the only reason that Jet2 might pay out is to avoid the inconvenience of travelling to your court to defend the claim. First thing...don't be so confident about costs...if they do attend and win then they can apply for their travelling costs. These can be expensive. If the attend and win and can convince the District Judge that you have acted unreasonably then they can also apply for their legal costs as well. Are you being unreasonable in issuing a claim with (imo) so little merit that you are relying on the fact that the business will consider it un-economic to travel to defend it or to instruct a local solicitor? I think you are. Turning to the actual claim...you (presumably) entered into this contract freely and without any pressure. You (probably) did so on the tinternet where the terms and conditions are fully published and then received an e-mail confirmation which contained a further link back to the full terms and conditions. Did you complain about this supposedly unfair term at that stage? I guess not. So...your complaint seems to fall into two categories. That you shouldn't be charged an extra amount because the price had gone up because you wouldn't have received a refund if the price had gone down and also that the admin fee is excessive. Ignoring the fact that you specifically agreed to these terms when you made the booking and the fact that they're very well-known and completely standard throughout the 'no-frills' airline industry, I'll still try and persuade you that you're wrong. Firstly...if prices have gone up then it's completely reasonable to expect the customer to pay these costs. Otherwise, customers would speculatively book flights and then amend them willy-nilly. This is what fully flexible (and massively expensive) business tickets are for. I don't see why Jet2 (as a business) would have to offer a refund if the prices had been reduced, regardless of the imbalance of the parties. Secondly...£30.00 appears perfectly reasonable to amend a ticket. I'm sure there are staff and/or system costs involved. Plus...there should be some 'punitive' element to the charge to stop people flogging their tickets on ebay or something. These claims annoy me. For years, the airline industry were ridiculously inflexible and would never allow people to amend their tickets, no matter what. Airlines such as Jet2 come along and operate a very open and transparent pricing policy yet people still complain. I honestly don't get it.

How does it 'help' the original person by continually saying 'yes, you're right, keep complaining' when it's cleart that there's no contractual responsibility on the part of Easyjet and they have already made it clear that they're not going to look at this is a sympathetic manner??? The clear fact is that the family didn't have insurance and, tragically, are now not able to travel. That is not Easyjet's reponsibility. And...apologies if you felt that I was insulting to the original poster. I honestly do think that the majority of posters have written nonsense but that's certainly not intended as an insult to the person whose family are affected. And no, not an employee. I've only just come across this site.

What nonsense you all write... Easyjet is a business, not a charity. They have no obligation whatsoever to offer a refund and other posters are correct in saying that the family should have had insurance from the moment they booked either their flights or accommodation. Easyjet's website and telephone sales team will even have offered it. We all know full well that low-cost carriers such as these have changed the way the airline industry works and generally that's meant reduced costs for all of us. We also know that they offer very little in the way of refunds or flexibility but we don't moan when we get cheap prices because of it. And...so what if they resold the seats? I'm sure they work on a yield percentage and budget to sell 110% of all plane-seats. Finally...when you say that if you were a 'phone monkey' that you would immediately flag it up to whomever and ensure they got a refund; what you probably would do is think that you've heard it ten times before and that the family should have got insurance.