Nanci Moll was looking forward to spending her five-year anniversary in the Cayman Islands. But her travel agent had other plans. He apparently was looking forward to spending the $1,488 Moll had paid him.
The winner? As of now, it’s unscrupulous travel agent: 1, customer: 0.
Dynamic Leisure Corp. took our money for the air, hotel and transport fees. We paid by credit card. We made it to our destination and checked in to our hotel and enjoyed our stay.
About two weeks later we get a call from the hotel, Grand Cayman Beach Suites, saying that our travel agency never paid them for our stay and has gone out of business and therefore we have to now pay for the hotel stay.
They said that we signed a form saying if the travel agency did not pay for the booking, that we would be responsible. The hotel then applied $1,488 charge to our MasterCard for the hotel stay.
I have tried contacting the travel agency but the Web site is no longer available and they do not have a connected phone line. Research on the internet brought up articles showing that they indeed went out of business and that the owner defrauded many people by keeping their money instead of paying for rooms, airline tickets, etc.
Here’s a report from a Tampa, Fla., TV station on the agency.
Moll disputed her MasterCard charges, but was turned down. The reason? It said the charge was placed on the card more than 60 days ago, even though it wasn’t.
I contacted MasterCard on Moll’s behalf. No response yet. I’ll have an update on the case when it does.
I believe MasterCard should side with the customer. If there’s a problem with payment, the resort should take it up in bankruptcy court with the agency or with its insurance company — not double-bill a guest.
If MasterCard doesn’t come through, then Moll may need to go to bankruptcy court to recover her money. It shouldn’t have to come to that, though.
Update: MasterCard came through, refunding Moll’s hotel room.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I wish Ms. Moll luck. Unfortunately, the hotel is 100 percent within its right. Whenever you check into a hotel you agree that if the responsible person doesn’t pay up, then you, the person who received the service will pay. This is true whether it’s your credit card company, your employer, or even the airline that stranded you.
Basically, the hotel’s position is that it doesn’t want to be in the middle of your dispute with the third party. It provided the service, you received it, end of story as far as the hotel is concerned.
That being said, I suspect that Ms. Moll could probably negotiate a substantially reduced rate with the hotel given the circumstances.
Actually I sent MasterCard all the verification they needed once the dispute was filed (within the 60 days post billing received as stated on the website). They then lied and said I had not followed that protocol and reversed the credit given during the dispute period. When I contacted CItiCard again, a supervisor re-opened the case for a review but not a dispute. Therefore, meaning we still had to pay the previously disputed charge. The review is still pending!
Who was the travel agent the agent for?
Did the company pay a commission to the agent for the booking? Seems like that should be a simple question to ask.
If the company paid the travel agent a commission then the travel agent is the travel company’s agent. Thus, once the travel agent received the funds, under the law of the Caymans, the US, Britain, Canada and many other western societies deriving common law from Britain, the travel COMPANY HAS BEEN PAID. Paying their agent is the same as paying the company.
Look – if you pay a discounted travel agency or inside rate – then they discounted the regular rate to the agent for the bookings. It is very hard to contract this away without the clear disclosure to the third party – it cannot be buried in paragraph 353 of the agreement.