Uber/Omio refusing refund after Victoria Line suspension

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps. Anecdotal of course, but the handful of times I've used their customer service before, they've been prompt and helpful. Following cancellations or disruptions where I didn't travel, Uber/Omio have issued refunds much faster than ToCs, back when I booked tickets directly.

"Direct with a TOC" of course has a good chance of being Trainline, who have a very mixed reputation.

 

[agk2126]

"Direct with a TOC" of course has a good chance of being Trainline, who have a very mixed reputation.

I've never booked with Trainline. Was referring to booking from TOCs directly via their websites or apps.

when you think about the savings/rebates you get when buying tickets through them!

Indeed the reason I book through Uber! Plus the other perks marshlinker mentioned.

opening a second ticket (likely to get allocated to a different person)

Opened a different ticket and got a different person. This time at least they're investigating (see attached) so that's promising! Will let you know the outcome.

if the person you're dealing with won't play ball

Story of interacting with any customer service, I suppose. In this case, Not Playing Ball means refusing to verify a public and prolonged disruption to a major Tube line. Strange hill for a retailer to die on!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never booked with Trainline. Was referring to booking from TOCs directly via their websites or apps.

Several of the TOC websites are operated on their behalf by Trainline. Thus you probably have without realising it.

 

[blimmo]

I think it's a little unfair to suggest the OP didn't leave enough time. It is entirely reasonable (I would say sensible) to leave enough time to account for regular delays but not enough time to account for a tube line being completely suspended and plan to get a taxi in the latter (less likely) scenario. Obviously that will make the serious disruption expensive but whether that's worth it depends on how much you value the extra time you get not at the airport.

 

[agk2126]

Several of the TOC websites are operated on their behalf by Trainline. Thus you probably have without realising it.

Perhaps. I guess I have never knowingly bought from Trainline

how much you value the extra time you get not at the airport

Especially Stansted

 

[mickey]

How sure are you about this? While it's relatively rare for me to do a chargeback/S75 so I've a limited sample size I've never to my knowledge had a retaliatory ban.

I also have never had a ban or had it mentioned, though I have seen in a few T&C a retailer claiming they reserve the right to do so. I have though been involved with chargebacks for a major UK retailer so know a bit about it from the other side. I also know therefore that it would likely be considered unfair under UK consumer law to ban someone unless it was a regular occurrence or particularly unfair/vindictive, hence why it tends to be only American companies that like to think they can take that course of action as a matter of routine.

 

[MrJeeves]

I also know therefore that it would likely be considered unfair under UK consumer law to ban someone

Given any business can freely choose who to do business with, I don't see how this could ever be the case

 

[STINT47]

Ryanair block people who do charge backs. They have even been kown to let people check in the deny them boarding at the gate.

 

[Egg Centric]

Given any business can freely choose who to do business with, I don't see how this could ever be the case

The former isn't quite true, you can't choose to not do business with white people for example. So there could in principle be some law that prevented this. And also - while it's not the claim you're responding to - Visa/Mastercard/Amex could in principle make it such that retaliation to chargebacks isn't permitted in their terms and conditions.

(That's not to say I'm aware of any such constraint or law, just to say that it could easily be implemented if parliament or the card companies wanted to - and I think if it were being "abused" by merchants much then there's a good chance it would happen. Again, it's never happened to me but I do less than one a year and they're always blatantly justified so I accept what everyone else is saying about retaliation being more common than I thought)

 

[agk2126]

Update: after submitting my second customer service request (and with an extra little nudge from an Omio-affiliated acquaintance) they gave a full refund and a supervisor wrote an apology email. All is well that ends well?

 

[_toommm_]

Update: after submitting my second customer service request (and with an extra little nudge from an Omio-affiliated acquaintance) they gave a full refund and a supervisor wrote an apology email. All is well that ends well?

All's well in the sense that your problem is solved absolutely, but it is a shame you had to get someone else involved to steer them in the right direction. The real question is whether they will actually learn (but I'm sure I know they won't)

 

[alistairlees]

The real question is whether they will actually learn (but I'm sure I know they won't)

Briefings of customer service staff and updates to support materials have already taken place (or will do so shortly).