Latest news with #reimbursement
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
‘We ended up stranded in Spain after a Booking.com error'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Hello Gary, I would like some advice regarding My wife and I recently booked a holiday through the site. However, when we arrived, the accommodation was not available, leaving us stranded in a small town in Spain. I contacted and spent a lot of time on the phone with their team. They said they were trying to find alternative accommodation, and this went on for a couple of hours to no avail. We booked into a nearby hotel for the night, and I advised that I would expect to be reimbursed for the cost. Now we are back home, the site has reimbursed me for the difference in cost for the alternative apartment that I booked the next day. But not for the first night hotel. I sent receipts for the hotel and for the restaurant for our meal that evening – though we had booked self-catering, we had no alternative but to eat out. I also asked for repayment for the taxi to the hotel which was €20 (£17) and telephone costs which amounted to about £40 from having to contact as they never rang me back as promised. I also asked for consideration of the stress that had been caused, bearing in mind my wife and I are 76 years old, and I was carrying a quantity of medication that required refrigeration. The response from them was for us to send them the receipts, which was positive. But now they are just ignoring any contact. – Tom, by email Dear Tom I completely understand you feel very much let down by It must have been dreadful to arrive in Spain and find there was no room at the inn, as it were. And then it is very stressful to scramble to find somewhere else to stay, never mind having the worry of your medication and keeping it refrigerated. In fairness to the company, it is good they quickly offered to cover some of your losses. The precise legal status of your relationship with and their legal responsibilities towards you are relatively complex to understand. You say you booked a 'holiday' with but in a strict legal sense you did not do that. You simply booked accommodation through the website. In legal terms, a so-called 'package holiday' is an entirely different entity from what you did. A package holiday has enhanced consumer protection when any part of the different elements of the package goes wrong. But you and your wife were independent travellers arranging the different elements of the trip yourselves. In that sense, is what I would describe as a 'third party booking site'. It is a business through which consumers like you book a travel service, but the site you are booking through is not providing the service. This can lead to confusion about the precise legal duties which the third party booking site has towards the consumers who use the site. Central to this is the law of agency. An agent is a party that is authorised in law to act on behalf of another party, often authorised to create a contract. Here, acted as agent with the party that owned the accommodation you booked in Spain. This means your legal contract for the accommodation was with the owner. Hence, would no doubt say any legal claim arising from the failure of the contract is a claim between you and the owner of the accommodation. For instance, if you had stayed in the accommodation you booked with and were injured because of a fault with the accommodation, your personal injury claim would be against the owner of the accommodation. That's the basic law, and hence why might feel they have gone beyond their legal duty in stepping in to tidy up the mess created by the accommodation you booked not being available. However, I would say that where the legal status of your relationship with becomes more of a grey area – and where the law of agency is not relevant – is in relation to the actual booking process. is a third party site, so I would say if the booking process itself has gone wrong, they do have a duty to you to sort it out because you are a direct customer of their booking service. To put it another way, might not be responsible to you for the quality of the holiday accommodation, but they are responsible to you for the actual booking process. And in this case, it seems the booking process went wrong because the accommodation you booked was not available. And that failure in the booking process led to you suffering financial losses. A package holiday contract is a rare example of a contractual claim for loss suffered that can include a claim for loss of enjoyment because an essential part of a holiday is to enjoy it! In this case, you did not book your 'holiday' through so you cannot claim from them for loss of enjoyment and the stress you suffered. But for the reasons I have explained, because of the problems you encountered arising from the failure of the actual booking process, you can claim for losses arising under that contract. Readers will be pleased to hear that after I sent you my initial thoughts on this situation, have said they will reimburse the financial losses you incurred for which you are able to produce receipts. So, a good result, and I am glad have in that sense acknowledged their limited responsibility to you. A spokesman said: 'We apologise for the delay in processing the refund for the price difference of the alternative hotel booked by the customer. This refund is now being processed, along with reimbursements for the meal and phone charges.'
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Yahoo
Couple Feels 'Taken For Granted' When Family Member Won't Reimburse Flights to Babysit Nephew
A man on Reddit is seeking advice after he and his partner feel "taken for granted" over a favor they'd agreed to The couple agreed to fly to babysit a nephew while the parents went on vacation, but were later told they wouldn't be reimbursed for the flights Now they feel awkward that they even askedA man is seeking support from the Reddit community after a family favor turned unexpectedly awkward. He and his partner had agreed to fly out and watch his partner's nephew for a week while his parents traveled internationally. 'We wouldn't be making this trip if it weren't for babysitting,' the poster explains in his post, highlighting that the trip was solely for the purpose of helping out family. The couple, currently in 'saving mode,' hadn't planned on traveling and assumed the parents would offer to cover their flights. Instead, the arrangement quickly became complicated when the topic of reimbursement came up. 'So we assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the parents would offer to cover our flights, since we're using our PTO and giving up a week to help them out,' he writes. When his partner raised the issue with her sister, the response was less than enthusiastic. The sister replied that she 'wished she'd known sooner' and explained that they were broke after paying for their own vacation. This left the couple feeling uneasy about the situation and questioning whether their request was out of line. 'Now there's this underlying tension, like we were out of line for even asking,' the poster admits. He clarified that all communication about the matter had been between his partner and his partner's sister, though he was supporting his partner throughout. 'I've stayed out of the conversation myself—this has all been between my partner and her sister—but I'm supporting her, and we're both starting to feel taken for granted,' he writes. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. The couple emphasized that their request wasn't about profiting from the arrangement. 'It's not about trying to make money off the situation,' he says, but adds that it was hard not to feel 'a little used' when they were doing such a big favor and expected to pay their own way. Now, the couple is left feeling awkward and questioning whether their request was unreasonable, or if they were simply being taken for granted by family. Since sharing their post, many Reddit users suggested that they shouldn't have agreed if communication wasn't completely clear. 'Lesson learned: don't agree with anything before it's clear what the conditions are,' writes one user. Another one suggests, 'If you are still going to fly out to babysit make sure that you're clear that they need to go grocery shopping before they leave so the fridge and cupboards are stocked for the week.' Read the original article on People
Telegraph
07-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
Medscape
06-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Medicare Physician GI Procedure Pay Fell; Facility Pay Rose
Medicare payments to physicians for common gastrointestinal procedures have declined in recent years, while reimbursement to ambulatory surgical centers and hospital outpatient departments has increased or held steady, according to a new analysis. These trends may exacerbate concerns that current federal payment policies are favoring consolidation in healthcare, while putting more financial pressure on clinicians in small and individual practices. Dipen Patel, MD In a recent American Journal of Gastroenterology paper, Dipen Patel, MD, of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors analyzed trends in Medicare reimbursement from 2018 to 2023 for colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures. They compared changes in Medicare's physician compensation to changes in facility reimbursements for the same procedures. The results of their analysis are summarized below. Physician Fee Schedule (Adjusted for Inflation): Colonoscopy: Reimbursement dropped 22.6%. Nominal (unadjusted): 6.12% decline. Reimbursement dropped 22.6%. Nominal (unadjusted): 6.12% decline. EGD: Reimbursement dropped 22.7%. Nominal: 6.2% decline. Ambulatory Surgical Centers (Adjusted for Inflation): Colonoscopy: Reimbursement changed slightly (0.27% increase). Nominal (unadjusted): 21.7% increase. Reimbursement changed slightly (0.27% increase). Nominal (unadjusted): 21.7% increase. EGD: Reimbursement rose 6.23%. Nominal: 28.9% increase. Hospital Outpatient Departments (Adjusted for Inflation): Colonoscopy: Reimbursement changed slightly (0.65% decrease). Nominal (unadjusted): 20.6% increase. Reimbursement changed slightly (0.65% decrease). Nominal (unadjusted): 20.6% increase. EGD: Reimbursement changed slightly (0.82% increase). Nominal: 22.3% increase. The researchers examined 31 current procedural terminology codes for colonoscopy and 26 for EGD procedures. Patel, who graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, in 2019, said part of the motivation behind the study was to raise awareness among younger physicians who may not track Medicare policy closely. 'For my generation of physicians who are coming out of training, we don't really know much about these trends,' Patel told Medscape Medical News . 'We don't really know what the policies are or how they are playing out.' Other recent studies have identified similar patterns — where professional fees have declined while facility reimbursement either rose or declined to a lesser degree for common orthopedic procedures such as shoulder surgeries and knee and hip arthroplasty. Policy Ripple Effects Patel and coauthors noted that Medicare has significant influence over US healthcare. It's the largest purchaser of healthcare services, with total annual spending exceeding $1 trillion. Commercial insurers also factor in Medicare's payment rates while setting their own reimbursement for services. The American Medical Association (AMA) has linked physician fee schedule cuts to a shift away from independent practice ownership. In May, the AMA released results from its biennial Physician Practice Benchmark Survey (administered with WebMD/Medscape). Among the findings: An estimated 58% of physicians worked as employees in 2024, up from 42% in 2012, the survey's first year. Push for Inflation-based Updates Members of both parties of Congress have backed proposals to create automatic updates in the base rate for the Medicare physician fee schedule to reflect rising costs. For example, more than 170 members of the House supported a 2023 bipartisan bill that would have created automatic annual updates for the base rate of the physician fee schedule to keep up with inflation. The bill sought increases that would fully reflect the Medicare Economic Index (MEI) , a measure used to estimate changes in costs for clinicians in practice. That bill stalled when the 119th session of Congress began in January. A Republican-led budget package contains a similar ─ but more limited ─ proposal. It would increase the Medicare physician fee schedule's base rate, but by less than the full expected gain in inflation. The House-passed version of this bill would create an initial annual bump equal to 75% of the expected MEI change, with subsequent annual increases would be 10% of that index. The Senate will work this month on the budget package, known as a reconciliation bill, likely making changes to the House-passed measure. In a May letter to top House officials. AMA described the House's MEI proposal as 'a foundational step toward comprehensive Medicare physician payment reform in the 119th Congress,' meaning the current session which ends in January 2027. Consolidations and Consequences Gary Young, PhD, director of the Northeastern University Center for Health Policy and Healthcare Research, told Medscape Medical News that debates about consolidation in healthcare have persisted for decades. 'As far back as the 1970s, some people advocated for uniting hospitals and physician practices, seeing this as a way to reduce fragmentation and create more efficient care,' said Young, who has studied both Medicare's variation in pay for services and the effect on patients of hospital acquisition of practices. 'There are people who say they never really understood why hospitals and physicians were separate to begin with,' Young said. 'Others really lament the idea that the independent physician sector may go away. They ask: 'Do we really want all of our physicians to be under the control of healthcare systems and corporate entities?'' Young also noted that in many cases, physicians initiate buyout discussions with healthcare systems due to financial pressures. 'Many physician practices are struggling, and they approach hospitals sort of as a white knight,' he said. The American Hospital Association (AHA) has made a similar argument, telling lawmakers that its members have offered 'a lifeline' to struggling physician practices ─ especially in rural areas. Last year, the AHA submitted ideas for aiding physicians to the health panel of the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means health committee held a May hearing titled 'The Collapse of Private Practice: Examining the Challenges Facing Independent Medicine.' The AHA recommended: Increasing physician reimbursement through the Medicare fee schedule Reducing insurer-imposed administrative burdens, such as prior authorization. Examining the growing role of commercial health conglomerates, in acquiring physician practices. 'While a disproportionate amount of attention has been placed on hospitals' acquisition of physician practices, the reality is that large commercial insurers including CVS Health and UnitedHealth Group have recently spent billions of dollars to acquire physician practices,' AHA said in its statement. Patel and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Daily Mail
31-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Shock update after Aussie family lost 15 years of savings when their $250,000 house deposit was stolen in sophisticated email scam
A Gold Coast family scammed out of their $250,000 house deposit has received a major lifeline after ANZ agreed to fully reimburse the stolen funds. Sarah and Laine Robinson unknowingly transferred their entire life savings to scammers posing as their conveyancer just days before settlement on their dream rural home in Mount Nathan. 'We honestly can't believe it,' Sarah told A Current Affair. 'We've had a phone call from ANZ, and they agreed to reimburse the money.' The couple had spent 15 years saving for their dream property and were packed up and ready to move with their three children when the scam unfolded. The nightmare began when, as settlement approached, the conveyancing firm the couple had been working with suddenly went silent. Unknown to the Robinsons, scammers had intercepted the email chain and began impersonating the firm. The fraudulent emails looked nearly identical to legitimate correspondence, but had one subtle red flag, the sender's email was missing a simple '.au' at the end. 'I was talking to the scammers for a week-and-a-half without knowing,' Sarah said. Trusting the instructions, the Robinsons visited an ANZ branch to make the payment. There, the teller failed to notice that the account name didn't match the details. 'They can see that they were at fault on that day,' Sarah said. 'Their staff member failed to do appropriate checks and failed to protect us.' The scam was only uncovered the day before settlement, when the real conveyancer contacted them. While the firm had received the first $60,000, the second and much larger payment of $252,000 was missing. ANZ was initially able to recover around $80,000, but the remaining $170,000 was gone. The bank has now stepped in and reimbursed the full amount. The heartwarming update comes after Australian Financial Complaints Authority had previously cleared the ANZ of wrongdoing, a finding the couple have criticised. Despite this, ANZ made the decision to cover the full loss. The couple are now urging other scam victims not to give up hope. 'If you can see you can see you've done the right thing, keep fighting. You can have a positive outcome, we are living proof that can happen,' they said. The family is now back on the market, hoping to finally find a new dream home. ANZ said it would take action to help protect its customers against scams and fraud, including business email compromise and invoice scams like this one. 'We invest in ongoing education, detection systems, and recovery efforts to support our customers. The extent and pace of change in the scams landscape has evolved significantly, as perpetrators become increasingly sophisticated,' a statement said. 'We will continue to adapt our protective measures and encourage customers to stay alert, stay informed, and act swiftly on anything suspicious.'
