Cancelling booking. Do I have to pay full amount?

oodles441

I booked a house in France for my family's summer holiday (mid August), but have had to pull out. I paid a large deposit (over £1500) and the rest was due a couple of weeks' ago. This was the point where I realised I would have to pull out. It isn't due to illness so isn't covered by my travel insurance and I paid the amount by bank order, not credit card. The people involved are saying the deposit is non-refundable and, although the reason I have pulled out is because I recently visited the place and realised the description was somewhat misleading, I know I may have to swallow this. However, I have now received an e-mail to say that if the property isn't re-let, I will have to pay the balance as well. There doesn't appear to be anything in the terms and conditions that states this. And the fact I feel forced to pull out due to their shortcomings, doesn't make me sympathetic to covering the cost. It's all a bit of a mess. Does anyone have any idea of where I stand.

InsideInsurance

Which law governs the contract? French? English?

Under English Law, if you want to breach the contract then you are liable for the costs that results the other party, which includes loss of profit. So arguably if they were to readvertise it and not manage to rent it out the rest of the monies would be due + the cost of their advertising - any amount saved in cleaners etc for it being vacant.

If they readvertise it and secure a booking at the same rate you were paying then all you'd be responsible for is the advertising/ admin costs of having done this which would probably be below your £1,500 deposit and so you should get a partial refund of this.

If its under French law you'd need to check with someone else to see how their system deals with breaches

oodles441

Thanks for that. The original agreement was with an English agent on behalf of a French client, so I guess it's governed by English law. Although it was pointed out at the time of booking (several months ago) that cancellation would result in the loss of the deposit, there was never any mention until the matter of cancelling came up (two weeks' ago) of having to cover the cost of the balance. And in view of the fact I believe they omitted information from the property description that would've enabled me to make an informed decision when booking (ie that the property can only be reached up a steep, spiralling dirt track with drops on both sides), this would seem extremely unreasonable. I'd very much appreciate your thoughts.

Marktheshark

You may have a claim for return of deposit if they re-let.
They can only keep actual losses they sustained.
Profit not made is not a loss.

How misleading was the description, you may have a claim under Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for return of all of your money.
Explore this if you feel the advertising was false and misleading and send them a claim for all the money back in return to their demand claiming false and misrepresented advertising which mis-lead you in to taking the contract .

Ignore the moral experts and focus on what you can pull at to have a claim for a refund.





(THIS IS A MONEY SAVING SITE)

InsideInsurance

The normal law of the land doesnt have to be described each time you buy something.

Contract law is fairly straightforward in England, you can only charge for actual losses and cannot charge punitive damages. Contract often try and breach this by saying deposits are nonrefundable but this would not be upheld in court if the merchant couldn't prove their losses were in the region of the deposit.

Have you actually raised the issues of miss information with the merchant?

oodles441

Have you actually raised the issues of miss information with the merchant?

Yes, I have. I happened to visit the area recently and thought I'd take a quick look at the property as I'm taking 10 relatives on this break to celebrate my 60th birthday. The description said it enjoyed an elevated position and that was clear from a photograph. What wasn't clear was the means of access - as I say, up a steep, spiralling dirt track. This was never mentioned. As it would certainly prove an arduous trek uphill from town (which was said to be 2km away but, again, no reference to the climb or nature of the 'road') it is certainly something I would've expected to be mentioned. Especially as there is a box on the property's description of Things You Should Know. And whereas they thought to mention that Wifi isn't fantastic and that the pool isn't heated, it seems incredible to me that this access is not considered worthy of mention. There are only two drivers in our party so it was important to me that the village could be walked to, and the owner knew this. Sorry for long reply.

InsideInsurance

Lacking information isnt miss information in most cases. In the UK there is normally a reasonableness test applied.

Unless you explicitly say you need access for those with mobility issues or such they dont have a duty to offer up what the access is like. Obviously take it to a silly extreme, that the house doesnt actually have any doors, only then do you get into the region of saying an average customer wouldnt be able to use it as the average person would assume they can use a let house.

wealdroam

OP, read this post:

Is a deposit ever refundable?

But as mentioned by InsideInsurance, you need to establish whether English or French law should be used.

LilElvis

A continuation of OPs earlier thread on the same topic:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68472560#Comment_68472560

oodles441

Thanks all. It's all turned into a nightmare. I guess I just have to hope they re-let the property otherwise by the sound of it I stand to be several thousand pounds out of pocket. Nice birthday!

pinkshoes

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Lacking information isnt miss information in most cases. In the UK there is normally a reasonableness test applied.

Unless you explicitly say you need access for those with mobility issues or such they dont have a duty to offer up what the access is like. Obviously take it to a silly extreme, that the house doesnt actually have any doors, only then do you get into the region of saying an average customer wouldnt be able to use it as the average person would assume they can use a let house.

I thought under disability laws they need to state if a building is not accessible to wheelchair users?

OP, can they not just drive up and down the track?