Consumer Rights - cancel airport parking

Sillychuckie

Help please.
'Looking4Parking' offer airport parking services and let you book two types of booking:
- Flexible [amendable, refundable]
- Non Flexible [cant be cancelled or changed]
So far... so simple.

The 'Flexible' sort of booking, whilst allowing cancellation, still charges a standard cancellation fee of £9.50.
However, when you book a 'Flexible' booking, you are given the option of paying an additional £1.95 (a 'cancellation waiver'), to avoid this £9.50 charge.
This option of a cancellation waiver is not available on 'Non Flexible' bookings, as it makes no sense obviously, to let a customer pay for a reduced cancellation fee on a product which doesn't support cancellation.

In November last year, I purchased what I thought was a 'Flexible' booking.
The website presented it to me as a 'Flexible' booking, and my order confirmation email makes no mention of it being 'Non Flexible'. Even more telling and supportive of my claim, is the fact that I elected to pay the additional £1.95 cancellation waiver - a product ONLY available on Flexible bookings!

Yesterday I went to cancel my booking, as we have had to cancel our trip due to health concerns. The website, to my surprise, wouldn't let me do it and incorrectly said our booking was 'Non Flexible'.

I emailed Looking4Parking, and they have written back saying (I'll summarise):

1. Your booking was non flexible, so you cant cancel it and we wont refund it.
2. We accept there must have been a technical issue on our website, because it should not have been possible for you to book the 'Cancellation Waiver' product.
3. As a gesture of good will, we will offer to refund you the £1.95 cancellation waiver you paid unnecessarily, and give you 15% off your next booking.

This is instead of the full £47 odd refund I am due.
They made no comment on my Order Confirmation not showing 'Non Flex'.
They accept that there must have been a technical issue, as my booking (a non flexible, with cancellation waiver) is technically 'impossible'.

They refuse to consider the scope of the technical issue being wider.
i.e.
My stance: "It showed me a 'flexible' product, hence I was able to book the waiver. The whole checkout process was impacted by the technical issue".
Their stance: "It must have showed you a 'non-flexible' product. The technical bug was solely the miss-selling of the £1.95 waiver".

I argued that there was surely sufficient cause for doubt, even if they were right - but that all the documentation and evidence was in my favour.

They are digging their heels in.
Is there any other option other than small claims court? Can this even be done cost effectively for such a small amount?

Thanks.
SC

Frankly, given their acceptance of the technical issue and their inability to explain why I was able to buy a cancellation waiver, I'm in total disbelief about the way they are treating me.

agrinnall

Is there a price difference between flexible and non-flexible bookings? If there is, which price relates to the price that you actually paid? That will tell you whether you had a flexible booking in the first place, so can pursue getting your money back for cancelling, or whether it was a non-flexible booking accompanied by a technical error, in which case the £1.95 may be all you're entitled to.

Sillychuckie

Hi agrinnall.
This is fairly difficult to determine, because they always have so many offers and discounts. Indeed, my deal was part of a 'Black Friday' offer, so its a misnomer to think that it is as simple as 'Price A' vs 'Price B'.

I'd go further though, and argue that it shouldn't matter.
Even if it is determined that I paid a rate for what would normally be a 'non flex' booking, as a new customer, I had no knowledge of the two different price bands. By going via a comparison site, I didn't see a breakdown of the alternatives.
What I go by when I book something, is the price shown to me on the screen (as well as the terms and conditions and details which are shown to me at the time).

It said it could be cancelled for £9.50. It gave me an option to pay £1.95 to waive the cancellation fee. The page presented itself to me as a cancellable product (hence the waiver option).

Surely consumers should be protected when a technical glitch causes them a disadvantage? This seems so grossly unfair otherwise. How could I have known it wasn't a flexible product if everything on the page at the time, lead me to believe that it was?

What would prevent them from continuing to keep this bug in their system, intentionally?

SC.

unholyangel

Part of the information they need to provide you before you are bound by the contract (and also they need to confirm it in durable medium if they didn't provide it in a durable medium prior to the contract conclusion) is:

(o)where under regulation 28, 36 or 37 there is no right to cancel or the right to cancel may be lost, the information that the consumer will not benefit from a right to cancel, or the circumstances under which the consumer loses the right to cancel;

So they actually needed to specifically tell you that you wouldn't have the right to cancel (amongst other things).

Plus:

17.!!!8212;(1) In case of dispute about the trader!!!8217;s compliance with any provision of regulations 10 to 16, it is for the trader to show that the provision was complied with.

So its for them to prove they provided this information rather than you to prove they didn't. Both those quotes are from the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations.

Sillychuckie

OK, thanks.
I'm sure they are aware of this, but are being difficult.

I think its a claim in the small claims court (or at least, a serving of the paperwork). I doubt it will go further.

Do you have any other advice for a next step when a company simply says no?

Regards,
SC

baza52

what does the email confirmation say? does it mention if you can or cant cancel

Sillychuckie

The email confirmation mentions nothing specific about a cancellation policy.

It does show:
1. That I have paid £1.49 additional charge for my 'cancellation waiver'
2. A link which states:
Click Here to Change Your Booking
You can change your booking up to 48 hours prior to the date of departure through our Looking4Parking.com Members Area

3. Detailed directions, and a link to their Terms and Conditions.
I thought that this email represented a Flexible booking, as that is what the website lead me to believe.

Here is a screenshot of the relevant part - the rest is just bumpf:
https://ibb.co/htO5Jy


Whether they are in breach of my rights or not, they seem not to care.
The *only* evidence that my booking is a non-flexible one, is "because they say so". Every tiny bit of paperwork I have on it, suggests it was a flexible booking. I even paid for services available ONLY with flexible bookings, and they happily took the money.

nyermen

Sorry to be obvious - but surely if there was a "technical issue" that allowed you to pay for the waiver, it's feasible that there could have been a bigger "technical issue" meaning you did choose the flexible option despite what they say was actually booked?

Sillychuckie

Hi Nyerman - yes, I suspect you are right.
The technical issue could be wholly explained, for example, by their system simply capturing the booking as the wrong type.

Their website clearly states:
"Non Flexible bookings can not be amended or cancelled".

Yet, my email confirmation shows:
"You can change your booking up to 48 hours prior to the date of departure".

Is your comment meant in support of my case, or theirs?
Are they allowed to hide behind a 'technical glitch', or would such a glitch do more to support my case?

Thanks.
SC

unholyangel

Sillychuckie wrote: »

OK, thanks.
I'm sure they are aware of this, but are being difficult.

I think its a claim in the small claims court (or at least, a serving of the paperwork). I doubt it will go further.

Do you have any other advice for a next step when a company simply says no?

Regards,
SC

Send a letter before action giving them 14 days to refund or you'll claim against them for a full refund plus any reasonable costs incurred as a result of their breach.

Sillychuckie

Following a notice before action letter, L4P refunded me in full.
Thanks for the help.

Regards, SC