Cancelled Christmas meal booking cover?

DigForVictory

OP, I hope your father recovers. As you cancelled, I presume you explained why & gave them the opportunity to make a generous & thoughtful gesture?
If they missed that chance, they clearly will miss your future custom.

jonesMUFCforever

DigForVictory wrote: »

OP, I hope your father recovers. As you cancelled, I presume you explained why & gave them the opportunity to make a generous & thoughtful gesture?
If they missed that chance, they clearly will miss your future custom.

The other side of this...............they might have already turned down a booking thinking they were full?

BarryBlue

eddddy wrote: »

That would be correct, if the restaurant was claiming damages for breach of contract.

However, I suspect that a term in the contract specifically says that the deposit is still payable, if the booking is cancelled. And the OP would have agreed to that term.

So the restaurant is just enforcing the contract, rather than claiming for breach of contract.

I'm afraid this is complete nonsense. Automatic forfeit of a deposit. irrespective of any actual losses for the breach, would amount to a penalty charge and would therefore be unlawful. A penalty charge is an amount that does not reflect actual loss.

What the contract says is irrelevant as anything amounting to a penalty charge of that sort would be held to be an unfair contract term under the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts' legislation and would be treated by a court as if it did not exist, even if you had signed to accept it. These regulations and associated guidelines are available if you Google.

I'm afraid we are seeing lots of people 'guessing' the law on this thread, as often happens on MSE.:(

bris wrote: »

Their terms mean nothing, the law states they must mitigate a consumers losses, those losses are mitigated if they resell the table so they must by law refund or they can be taken to court to make them pay.

it's widely known on this forum that a companies T&C's can not over rule your statutory rights.

Correct in that they must mitigate their losses. That would mean, for instance, any food that had been wasted as a result of the breach of contract would be chargeable. However, it does not mean that the deposit should not be refunded just because the table had not been taken up by others. The losses that a court would allow are for 'actual' losses and not, for example, for loss of profit.

In this instance, it is clear that the OP should reclaim his deposit. Those actual losses will be quite minimal at this stage.

bris

BarryBlue wrote: »

I'm afraid this is complete nonsense. Automatic forfeit of a deposit. irrespective of any actual losses for the breach, would amount to a penalty charge and would therefore be unlawful. A penalty charge is an amount that does not reflect actual loss.

What the contract says is irrelevant as anything amounting to a penalty charge of that sort would be held to be an unfair contract term under the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts' legislation and would be treated by a court as if it did not exist, even if you had signed to accept it. These regulations and associated guidelines are available if you Google.

I'm afraid we are seeing lots of people 'guessing' the law on this thread, as often happens on MSE.:(


Correct in that they must mitigate their losses. That would mean, for instance, any food that had been wasted as a result of the breach of contract would be chargeable. However, it does not mean that the deposit should not be refunded just because the table had not been taken up by others. The losses that a court would allow are for 'actual' losses and not, for example, for loss of profit.

In this instance, it is clear that the OP should reclaim his deposit. Those actual losses will be quite minimal at this stage.

Correct, I was merely pointing out that no deposit is or can ever be truly non refundable. The company can resell the table (as long as they are fully booked) and therefor by re selling will still have the food to sell so no waste. They can claim any costs associated with reselling but in this case there wouldn't be any.


For anyone to state that it's in their T&C's so it must be correct will be walked over all their lives, we have laws, use them.

pvt

BarryBlue wrote: »

I'm afraid this is complete nonsense. Automatic forfeit of a deposit. irrespective of any actual losses for the breach, would amount to a penalty charge and would therefore be unlawful. A penalty charge is an amount that does not reflect actual loss.

The OP paid the restaurant to reserve a table for them. The restaurant has done that. As they haven't failed to fulfill that reservation, why should they repay that fee?

As has been pointed out by others, railways/airlines and the like do this all the time, and even charge the full amount.

BarryBlue wrote: »

I'm afraid we are seeing lots of people 'guessing' the law on this thread, as often happens on MSE.:(

Or simply quoting inappropriate law that doesn't apply.

To the OP - I'm sorry that you're probably not hearing the news you wanted to about getting the deposit refunded. I sincerely hope you hear some better news about your father's health before Christmas.

GingerFurball_2

Consider it a gift to the staff for making them work Christmas Day.

BarryBlue

bris wrote: »

Correct, I was merely pointing out that no deposit is or can ever be truly non refundable. The company can resell the table (as long as they are fully booked) and therefor by re selling will still have the food to sell so no waste. They can claim any costs associated with reselling but in this case there wouldn't be any.

For anyone to state that it's in their T&C's so it must be correct will be walked over all their lives, we have laws, use them.

Correct in part. The cost of reselling the table would not be part of the costs they could reclaim though, and it is actually irrelevant whether the table is resold or not. The law allows far less than that as a genuine loss. Loss of profit is not something they can deduct from a deposit.

pvt wrote: »

The OP paid the restaurant to reserve a table for them. The restaurant has done that. As they haven't failed to fulfill that reservation, why should they repay that fee?

As has been pointed out by others, railways/airlines and the like do this all the time, and even charge the full amount.

Or simply quoting inappropriate law that doesn't apply.

To the OP - I'm sorry that you're probably not hearing the news you wanted to about getting the deposit refunded. I sincerely hope you hear some better news about your father's health before Christmas.

They must repay it, less any actual losses, because that is what the law says. Forfeiture of the deposit in full, regardless of that, is regarded as a penalty charge in law, which is unlawful. Sorry if you can't grasp that concept.

The reason some companies get away with charging full deposits is that people don't challenge it. Perhaps because they listen to incorrect advice (such as you have given) and fail to pursue it. Why would you regard the law I'm quoting as 'inappropriate'? It is exactly appropriate and intended for cases such as this.

My advice to the OP: Please ignore the incorrect advice several people are giving, it is nonsense. The law does not allow retention of your deposit regardless. And please look at the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and Guidelines.

bigadaj

BarryBlue wrote: »

Correct in part. The cost of reselling the table would not be part of the costs they could reclaim though, and it is actually irrelevant whether the table is resold or not. The law allows far less than that as a genuine loss. Loss of profit is not something they can deduct from a deposit.


They must repay it, less any actual losses, because that is what the law says. Forfeiture of the deposit in full, regardless of that, is regarded as a penalty charge in law, which is unlawful. Sorry if you can't grasp that concept.

The reason some companies get away with charging full deposits is that people don't challenge it. Perhaps because they listen to incorrect advice (such as you have given) and fail to pursue it. Why would you regard the law I'm quoting as 'inappropriate'? It is exactly appropriate and intended for cases such as this.

My advice to the OP: Please ignore the incorrect advice several people are giving, it is nonsense. The law does not allow retention of your deposit regardless. And please look at the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and Guidelines.

So why aren't there class action lawsuits against all the hotel chains and airlines?

BarryBlue

bigadaj wrote: »

So why aren't there class action lawsuits against all the hotel chains and airlines?

You tell me. Apathy, ignorance, poor advice from people on internet forums, who knows. The fact is that the law exists but people seem not to be aware of it. Perhaps ask Martin Lewis.:money:

I helped a relative a couple of years ago who cancelled their wedding over a year before its scheduled date. The photographer, cakemaker and DJ all refused to refund deposits totalling £500. The venue offered half of the £2000 deposit back IF they re-let the place for the day, or nothing otherwise.

A few e-mails to these people pointing out the detail of the law soon paid dividends. They tried to dig their heels in but in each case I quoted the law, and gave them a deadline after which we would sue them. I recommended each of them to consult their company legal advisors rather than rely on their contract penalty terms. The lawyers soon told them they were wrong.

The result was that every penny of that total of £2500 was recovered without the need to take court action. Even the stroppy photographer eventually gave in and coughed up his £250 the day before the deadline expired.

pvt

BarryBlue wrote: »

You tell me.

I will. It's because you're wrong.

You are confused about what constitutes a "penalty" under contract law.

If the restaurant made a charge of £100 for someone who booked a table and didn't turn up, your argument might apply. But that isn't the case here, the OP has paid to reserve a table.

It's not about the OP being in breach of contract, it's about the restaurant not being in breach of contract.

Hope you can comprehend the difference, though based on your previous posts, I can guess where the smart money would be.