Mis sold holiday uk

TBagpuss

It don't see how the holiday was mis-sold.
You booked a cottage where the garden is overlooked by a neighbouring property. That is not uncommon, and I don't see anything in the details to claim that the garden is not overlooked. Indeed, since the photos show it is clearly part of a terrace it would be odd if it were not overlooked.

Why would the garden being overlooked cause you to feel you had to leave?

Money_maker

Maybe the owner lived next door?

Dogsneck

Cheers ladies /gents I give up, All i can say is go book it stay there and you will see,
Cheers for now.

ThumbRemote

Personally if I'd booked that cottage based on the photos and description on the website, I'd be pretty irritated to discover there was to all intents and purposes an inhabited shed in the garden. It's certainly not clear from the photo's and description that this is another property.

In fact, the photos hide it even more here: http://www.eypehoneysucklecottage.co.uk/gallery.htm (see photo 20 in particular).

There's a difference between a garden being overlooked from bedrooms, and a window looking directly into it.

That said, I'm not sure whether there's grounds for a reduction in price. The OP could claim that this was a 'misleading omission' as per the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, namely a commercial practice is a misleading omission if it hides or omits material information, or provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible or ambiguous. I'm not sure if the presence of a neighbours house is 'material information'. Though the way the owners have taken photos to try and hide it would suggest that it is important.

Dogsneck, I'd be tempted to try sending a letter before action stating the above and asking for a reduction in price - maybe 10 to 20%. You may not get anywhere, but for the cost of a stamp you could try it.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Personally if I'd booked that cottage based on the photos and description on the website, I'd be pretty irritated to discover there was to all intents and purposes an inhabited shed in the garden. It's certainly not clear from the photo's and description that this is another property.

In fact, the photos hide it even more here: http://www.eypehoneysucklecottage.co.uk/gallery.htm (see photo 20 in particular).

There's a difference between a garden being overlooked from bedrooms, and a window looking directly into it.

That said, I'm not sure whether there's grounds for a reduction in price. The OP could claim that this was a 'misleading omission' as per the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, namely a commercial practice is a misleading omission if it hides or omits material information, or provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible or ambiguous. I'm not sure if the presence of a neighbours house is 'material information'. Though the way the owners have taken photos to try and hide it would suggest that it is important.

Dogsneck, I'd be tempted to try sending a letter before action stating the above and asking for a reduction in price - maybe 10 to 20%. You may not get anywhere, but for the cost of a stamp you could try it.

It's not an "inhabited shed in the garden." It's the house next door. The OP seems to have had a completely unwarranted idea of the degree of privacy he could expect from a small terraced house.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Personally if I'd booked that cottage based on the photos and description on the website, I'd be pretty irritated to discover there was to all intents and purposes an inhabited shed in the garden. It's certainly not clear from the photo's and description that this is another property.

the way the owners have taken photos to try and hide it would suggest that it is important.

How, in the name of god, can that be described in any way, shape or form a shed. And how, with a picture this clear of a garden and a house next door, are the owners trying to hide this 'shed'?

It's obvious from the pictures of the layout of the property that this is a little two up 2 down cottage, what other rooms, not pictured, would anyone imagine was in that part of the cottage? And the garden is, as per the description enclosed, by shrubs on one side and next door's walls on the other.

Tuesday_Tenor

I certainly wouldn't have cut short a holiday because of this.

But I can see why the OP was perplexed.

It's not just that a second property runs alongside the garden; you could get that on any sort of 'corner plot'.

It's that this second property is built (at least partly) WITHIN what would seem to have been the original garden of the first property, as it overlaps the back face of the holiday cottage: we can see only the back door of that, the rest of it, further left, is hidden from us by the second property. I'm sure it must feel like the second property is 'in the garden' even if, technically it isn't. It's not an arrangement yous expect to see today, so I can understand the OP's confusion.

That said, I've actually lived in a similar property; a small terraced cottage I rented had some 'L-shaped' outbuildings at the back, which 150 years ago had been three additional dwellings, accessed through an alleyway. They would have been tiny houses. There was what would have been a shared yard and a long narrow garden which still had some traces of having been four separate veg plots. As all the land at the back has been shared from the beginning there would have been no sense of property B (and C and D) being built 'in property A's garden'.

Today, most such tiny ancient properties have been pulled down or have become sheds or workshops. It seems that here at Eype we have a rare example of such properties ( I bet it WAS several originally) have been merged into one which is habitable by modern standards, and has been maintained as a dwelling. So, there is a terraced house with a garden, and a side house with no garden.

A most unusual and rather awkward arrangement. I'm not sure how I would describe it to potential holidaymakers if I was the owner.