Accommodation not as advertised

Lip_Stick

swingaloo wrote: »

That's a ridiculous comparison, you are not talking sea view or the like. You are complaining about the d!cor and the fact that there were disability aids.

Of course it's not ridiculous. Why is it different to be complaining about the lack of a sea view that you've paid extra for, than complaining about paying extra for a better standard of furnishings etc? It's not any different.

kittennose

Update: Yesterday we agreed a 50% cash refund with the provider.

The process was slow but amicable and we didn't have to go through any legal channels which is great.

Hopefully this serves as a valuable lesson for those who think consumers have no legal right to receive what was advertised, be it a product, service or holiday.

kittennose

k3lvc wrote: »

As will the owner be when they receive an open ended complaint. A simple 'many thanks for your feedback' will kill the claim :rotfl:

Clearly you have little experience in negotiations. :rotfl:

kittennose

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

Please copy 'the law' into here, because there is no 'law' on this.

Oh wait sorry I found it:

Act 1 of the right to not to be reminded that disabled people exist in caravans law.

How much money do you actually think you're entitled to because you were sad they were disabled aids in your caravan?

I bet your children couldnt give two hoots and had a lovely holiday regardless.

The roof wasnt leaking. The bed wasnt mouldy. There were handrails etc. You are overreacting massively. get a grip.

You may wish to look up Negligent Misrepresentation in consumer law.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Jumblebumble

BoGoF wrote: »

Your lack of knowledge wehen it comes to the law can be shown by the totally inaccurate advice given here;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6039633/taking-a-car-dealer-to-the-small-courts

There are many cases of car dealers claiming the complete opposite has happened to them in the real world of the small claims courts where district judges can do pretty much what they like
EG see last post on first page of
http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/forum/topic/1548-what-are-my-chances/

hpuse

Well said and congrats on the refund!

Sadly, there are still a lot of people out here in these forums shouting their own mantra, that appears to be written for their own bible & rule books of self-trading-standards.

i.e If you've paid and used a below par service, you must be contempt with the service you have received - otherwise you'should've' walked away before availing the service. How easy to self-proclaim them, isn't?

kittennose wrote: »

If a nice view of the sea was important to you and thus you booked a sea-view room only to find on arrival you got a view of the carpark are you going to up-sticks and fly home and cancel the entire holiday so you can fight for a full refund? I doubt that.

What if you booked a 5 star room and found yourself in a budget room? Fly straight home?

You, and others are suggesting when missold accommodation you have 2 binary options, cancel your entire trip or accept it.

With such a miss-understanding of basic rights is it any wonder why businesses frequently get away with so much misselling and false advertising to British consumers who are often all to happy to just accept it.

*shrugs*

hpuse

Aesthetics and natural booty may be is outside of servicing & trading standards

:rotfl:

Lip_Stick wrote: »

Of course it's not ridiculous. Why is it different to be complaining about the lack of a sea view that you've paid extra for, than complaining about paying extra for a better standard of furnishings etc? It's not any different.

DoaM

hpuse wrote: »

Well said and congrats on the refund!

Sadly, there are still a lot of people out here in these forums shouting their own mantra, that appears to be written for their own bible & rule books of self-trading-standards.

i.e If you've paid and used a below par service, you must be contempt with the service you have received - otherwise you'should've' walked away before availing the service. How easy to self-proclaim them, isn't?

One could argue that's exactly what the OP has done, yes?

Gavin83

kittennose wrote: »

Update: Yesterday we agreed a 50% cash refund with the provider.

The process was slow but amicable and we didn't have to go through any legal channels which is great.

Hopefully this serves as a valuable lesson for those who think consumers have no legal right to receive what was advertised, be it a product, service or holiday.

Well I'm glad it worked out for you and you received what you wanted. However it needs highlighting that they went above what they needed to, you still had no legal right to a 50% refund.

And no one said you had no legal right to receive what you paid for, you need to be more clear on what people are saying.

What this thread does highlight that if you know what you want and you're realistic you might just get it.

kittennose

Gavin83 wrote: »

Well I'm glad it worked out for you and you received what you wanted. However it needs highlighting that they went above what they needed to, you still had no legal right to a 50% refund.

We took legal advice during the time they were mulling over our complaint and were advised to seek a full refund and nothing less.

We know this, they know this, hence going up from an offer of 10% in vouchers and a "This is our only offer" to a 50% cash refund (which we stipulated) after their initial offer.

Misselling is not legal, that is a fact.

:beer: