📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Travel company changed hotel without notice

Options
13»

Comments

  • daytona0
    daytona0 Posts: 2,358 Forumite
    Just to be clear, there is no requirement for a customer to inform the retailer of any illnesses, disabilities, etc; the fact that the OP didn't has no legal bearing on their claim.

    In this case the OP booked a suitable holiday for them. The retailer then breached the contract. The retailer is liable for all costs and loss of enjoyment caused by that breach, including extra costs due to the arthritis, even though the retailer was unaware of it at the time they breached the contract.

    It's a basic application of the thin skull rule, well established in UK law.

    The first paragraph I agree with.

    Second one... Are we certain that the contract was breached? Given the TA doesn't have control over the building work at the hotel then i'd imagine that they have worked in a contingency plan for unexpected issues - of which the customer would have agreed to.

    Also, could you argue that this is covered under "Intervening Cause" with regards to the thin skull rule? It might be argued given the TA is a 3rd party agency. Not sure but just putting the question out there
  • OlliesDad
    OlliesDad Posts: 1,825 Forumite
    daytona0 wrote: »
    Second one... Are we certain that the contract was breached? Given the TA doesn't have control over the building work at the hotel then i'd imagine that they have worked in a contingency plan for unexpected issues - of which the customer would have agreed to.

    The TA is responsible for the completion of the contract - they are liable if their contractor (i.e. the hotel) fails to provide. Any significant changes should give the customer the chance to withdraw - any contract terms not allowing this are likely to be deemed an unfair term.
    daytona0 wrote: »
    Also, could you argue that this is covered under "Intervening Cause" with regards to the thin skull rule? It might be argued given the TA is a 3rd party agency. Not sure but just putting the question out there



    Unless the works were last minute and unavoidable, then I doubt this would be a argument.. by the sounds of the OP, this arrangement is a regular occurrence.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.