Welcome Cottages - Punitive Cancellation Policy

glentoran99

But i would suspect it would be deemed reasonable to withhold the deposit as that's the purpose of the deposit

missbiggles1

bod1467 wrote: »

This is said a lot because it is true ... Just because something is in the T&Cs doesn't mean it is fair and can be legally supported. As said in post #2, they can't just claim £365 without being able to support that claim ... and "being in their T&Cs" is not support.

Losing your deposit is the normal thing to happen when you cancel a holiday booking, otherwise what's the purpose of a deposit.

Azari

glentoran99 wrote: »

But i would suspect it would be deemed reasonable to withhold the deposit as that's the purpose of the deposit

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Losing your deposit is the normal thing to happen when you cancel a holiday booking, otherwise what's the purpose of a deposit.

Yes, it is usual to lose your deposit.

Where a deposit is what is deposited with the company as surety.

What these cowboys are doing is charging a penalty and since they do not have the money it has clearly not been 'deposited'.

There is virtually no chance that they would succeed in any claim in court, as the terms are very obviously unfair, given that they have had plenty of notice and should have no trouble re-letting.

ThumbRemote

glentoran99 wrote: »

But i would suspect it would be deemed reasonable to withhold the deposit as that's the purpose of the deposit

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Losing your deposit is the normal thing to happen when you cancel a holiday booking, otherwise what's the purpose of a deposit.

Have you read the article I linked to?

The purpose of a deposit is the initial payment for the holiday, forming the contract. In this case there is a breach of contract on the part of the customer.

There are now two alternatives - either the company can re-let the cottage, or they cannot.

If they can, they have suffered no financial loss from the breach of contract. They are not entitled to keep the deposit. The only loss they have is the trivial cost of marking the cottage as available on their website and taking the new booking.

If they cannot, then they may be able to argue they have suffered a loss and be able to keep the deposit.

However the company must attempt to 'mitigate their losses' - ie reduce the amount they have lost. This means they must try to re-let the cottage. If they do not attempt to do so then it's considered they have brought the loss on themselves, and they are still not entitled to any money from the OP.

(Incidentally, the Welcome Cottages terms are blatantly unbalanced, as they allow the company to cancel the contract without any financial loss, whereas they do not allow the customer to do the same).

bod1467

Consumer's in the UK have been sheeple for so long that they placidly accept being walked all over. That can be the only reason for the comments quoted in the previous two posts.

marlot

OP - I'd be inclined to cancel, and if/when they ask for the additional money let them try to sue you. You only get a CCJ if they are successful in court AND you then don't pay up, so your level of risk is pretty low.

I'd be arguing that the contract is unfair, that they have had ample opportunity to mitigate their loss, etc.

dodger1

ThumbRemote wrote: »

This is an almost exact copy of the Thomson case last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-advice/10662931/Thomson-case-could-spell-end-of-unfair-holiday-cancellation-charges.html


Thomson lost in court and their cancellation policy was found to be unfair. Although the article linked says they were granted leave to appeal, they chose not to.

OP, just quote them that link and let them prove a loss.

keyser666

dodger1 wrote: »

OP, just quote them that link and let them prove a loss.

I'd be inclined not to and let them take me to court as I would not want to show my hand before they find £300 worth of "loss"

lithium_77

It's not a case of the company having to re-let or mitigate their losses.

Their Ts Cs re low deposit state
4 Offers with a low deposit
Occasionally, we make offers giving you the chance to book properties with either no deposit, or a deposit which is lower than usual. We will give you details of any extra terms that may apply to the offer before, or when, you make your booking. You should read these with these booking conditions. If you book a property with either no deposit or one which is lower than usual, you also agree to pay the difference between the amount paid and the usual deposit, plus any booking fee, ferry or Eurotunnel charges and any travel insurance premiums due, either at the time the balance of your booking is due or, if you cancel, at the time you cancel the booking. If you cancel, you must also pay all other cancellation charges which may apply. Please see section 7 for details on cancellations. You will still have to pay any travel insurance premiums at the time of booking if this is something you have chosen. We can also decide to extend any offer.

The deposit amount is dependent on the rental amount



Do you require a deposit payment when I book?
For bookings made more than 8 weeks before arrival a deposit is payable and can be calculated using the following table
Property Rental
Initial Payment
£0 to £199
£70
£200 to £299
£110
£300 to £399
£140
£400 to £499
£170
£500 to £749
£250
£750 to £999
£290
£1000 to £1499
£390
£1500 and above
£490

You could always try ABTA if you're not satisfied but really it's a successful multi million £ American owned company so their conditions will have been checked and verified by a legal team. You really shouldn't have booked without doing your homework.

ThumbRemote

lithium_77 wrote: »

It's not a case of the company having to re-let or mitigate their losses.

Their Ts Cs re low deposit state [snip]


You could always try ABTA if you're not satisfied but really it's a successful multi million £ American owned company so their conditions will have been checked and verified by a legal team. You really shouldn't have booked without doing your homework.

Sigh.

Have you read the thread so far, including the link to the Thomson case (a multi million company where their conditions were found unlawful).

Terms and conditions can say whatever they want. They do not and can not override the law.