Sykes cottages

andrew_12345

Undervalued said:

andrew_12345 said:

....

I have highlighted the crucial bit. If they are legally obliged to close then they cannot fulfil their part of the contract so must refund.
However if the are only "advised" to close then surely legally they can follow that advice or not as they please?
But which is it?

Morally may be another matter......

Well the communication says they should take steps to close. It doesn't say "must" close. Is the government guidance as a whole just advisory then? If that were true then the social distancing would also be "advice" and I can ignore it.

Aylesbury_Duck

andrew_12345 said:

Undervalued said:

andrew_12345 said:

....

I have highlighted the crucial bit. If they are legally obliged to close then they cannot fulfil their part of the contract so must refund.
However if the are only "advised" to close then surely legally they can follow that advice or not as they please?
But which is it?

Morally may be another matter......

Well the communication says they should take steps to close. It doesn't say "must" close. Is the government guidance as a whole just advisory then? If that were true then the social distancing would also be "advice" and I can ignore it.

Of course it's advice. You can of course ignore it but you'd be stupid and selfish to do so.

Undervalued

andrew_12345 said:

Undervalued said:

andrew_12345 said:

....

I have highlighted the crucial bit. If they are legally obliged to close then they cannot fulfil their part of the contract so must refund.
However if the are only "advised" to close then surely legally they can follow that advice or not as they please?
But which is it?

Morally may be another matter......

Well the communication says they should take steps to close. It doesn't say "must" close. Is the government guidance as a whole just advisory then? If that were true then the social distancing would also be "advice" and I can ignore it.

Guidance is, by definition, advisory. The law (which is punishable if you break it) is set out in the relevant Statutory Instrument. One of the problems since the start of this has been the reluctance of the government to initially force closures. Theatres were an early example, the government were urging people not to go long before there was any legislation requiring them to close. So they were unable to claim on insurance etc. Some said the government were protecting big business (e.g insurance companies) at the expense of small ones. 

Plus nobody knows when the restrictions will start to be lifted, let alone in what order. So if a business refunds too early, it may find it could have been open for that business after all.

VB

Undervalued said:

andrew_12345 said:

Undervalued said:

andrew_12345 said:

....

I have highlighted the crucial bit. If they are legally obliged to close then they cannot fulfil their part of the contract so must refund.
However if the are only "advised" to close then surely legally they can follow that advice or not as they please?
But which is it?

Morally may be another matter......

Well the communication says they should take steps to close. It doesn't say "must" close. Is the government guidance as a whole just advisory then? If that were true then the social distancing would also be "advice" and I can ignore it.

Guidance is, by definition, advisory. The law (which is punishable if you break it) is set out in the relevant Statutory Instrument. One of the problems since the start of this has been the reluctance of the government to initially force closures. Theatres were an early example, the government were urging people not to go long before there was any legislation requiring them to close. So they were unable to claim on insurance etc. Some said the government were protecting big business (e.g insurance companies) at the expense of small ones. 

Plus nobody knows when the restrictions will start to be lifted, let alone in what order. So if a business refunds too early, it may find it could have been open for that business after all.

It is set out in a Statutory Instrument - The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 part 5 - 3
Interesting that one MP has had so many complaints about Sykes that he raised it in Parliament, perhaps other unhappy customer should contact their MP 
(' unhappy sykes customers Hansards ' - it should be the first result)

Daves1954

This last month and the months to come are likely to be the toughest we have ever experienced, but I have been encourage by the way the vast majority of people are pulling together.  Many people particularly in healthcare are going way beyond that and are putting their lives at risk to us safe.  However in all these types of situation as well as bringing out the best of us in most it bring out the worst of us in a small minority.  The case for instance, of the Chemist shops charging £10 for a box of Paracetamol.  I could say what I think of these people but I wouldn’t want to offend anyone with my language.

I would however be interested in knowing what people think of this.  I booked a short break holiday for 3 nights through a company called Sykes Cottages starting this Easter Sunday.  Due to the virus I can no longer go.  Sykes are refusing to give refunds but instead are offering a credit against a new booking.  If I now look to book the same cottage for 3 night starting next Easter Monday  it had doubled in price.  There are now thousands of people up in arms over this saying they are being ripped off.  There is even a case of a terminal ill person being told they can’t have a refund but can rebook next year at twice the price.  There is now a Facebook page with thousands of disgruntled customers and their ratings on a number of comparison website have fallen through the floor.  However I did notice that Trustpilot website was still giving them a 4 star rating as although they had a number of people slating them off they also had a good number of people saying how wonderful they had been in helping them rebook their holiday.  Call me sceptical but the fact that all these wonderful reviews where posted at 11:30pm last night when most people should be in bed not writing great reviews is to say the least suspicions.    

If you feel as strongly as I do on this matter then please pass this on to friends and colleagues so that they don’t  fall foul of this company.

neilmurray2020

We booked a holiday cottage with Sykes back in January for June this year.  At the time I decided to take out their Insurance just in case there were any problems.

We contacted them this week to see what our options were given the current crisis, thinking that I would be covered if restrictions went on beyond June, only to be told that I would not be covered unless I actually had the virus.

So basically I've paid £36 for insurance that is useless under the current circumstances.

I've also been told if I want to cancel the holiday I'll have to pay them £169 as that was the full price of the deposit I should have paid at the time of booking.

If I go ahead and pay the balance which is due next month, I run the risk of not getting an holiday at all.  I've heard that they will reschedule but its in the lap of the gods when you will get to go.

Given that many other providers such as Jet2, ticketmaster, National Rail, etc, have refunded money with no quibble, I find Sykes attitude appalling.  I will not be booking with Sykes again and would recommend them to anyone else.

Gers

neilmurray2020 said:

We booked a holiday cottage with Sykes back in January for June this year.  At the time I decided to take out their Insurance just in case there were any problems.

We contacted them this week to see what our options were given the current crisis, thinking that I would be covered if restrictions went on beyond June, only to be told that I would not be covered unless I actually had the virus.

So basically I've paid £36 for insurance that is useless under the current circumstances.

I've also been told if I want to cancel the holiday I'll have to pay them £169 as that was the full price of the deposit I should have paid at the time of booking.

If I go ahead and pay the balance which is due next month, I run the risk of not getting an holiday at all.  I've heard that they will reschedule but its in the lap of the gods when you will get to go.

Given that many other providers such as Jet2, ticketmaster, National Rail, etc, have refunded money with no quibble, I find Sykes attitude appalling.  I will not be booking with Sykes again and would recommend them to anyone else.

There's a piece in The Guardian today about Sykes - hope it helps.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/apr/15/a-cancelled-holiday-cottage-but-why-no-option-for-a-refund

flower77g

It's not clear to me why Sykes can hold on to deposits and in some cases full payments for bookings for extended period of times, while the price changes upwards.    Usually it is banks that  hold on to money ("deposit takers") and they are subject to regulation by PRA.  If an organization is charging a fee to hold on to money (rebook next year, equivalent week, and price increase) - whether it is called "Booking Services fee" or something else, it's acting as if it is a bank.   Whoever is holding the money (it would seem generally Sykes, sometimes the cottage owner) surely needs to make sure this is in a client account, separate from other funds.  

And insured against Sykes going out of business.  Can anyone remember FarePak and what happened there?

Nebulous2

flower77g said:

It's not clear to me why Sykes can hold on to deposits and in some cases full payments for bookings for extended period of times, while the price changes upwards.    Usually it is banks that  hold on to money ("deposit takers") and they are subject to regulation by PRA.  If an organization is charging a fee to hold on to money (rebook next year, equivalent week, and price increase) - whether it is called "Booking Services fee" or something else, it's acting as if it is a bank.   Whoever is holding the money (it would seem generally Sykes, sometimes the cottage owner) surely needs to make sure this is in a client account, separate from other funds.  

And insured against Sykes going out of business.  Can anyone remember FarePak and what happened there?

That’s the problem this situation has highlighted. This is no different from a discredited Christmas hamper business. The whole travel industry is operating on a cash in advance basis, using our money to fund their operations and dividends. If your solicitor acted in that way and didn’t use a client account they would be struck off. 

Here’s a telegraph article about it, but it’s behind a paywall. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/04/18/travel-industrys-fatal-flaw-exposed-virus/

flower77g

Thanks, Nebulous2 - I hadn't seen that link previously.

This page https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/authorisations/which-firms-does-the-pra-regulate sets out firms that are regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority.   Under "Banks we regulate" it gives a definition of a bank based on the PRA Rulebook glossary:

"Bank" means:

(1) a firm with a Part 4A Permission to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits and is a credit institution, but is not a credit union, friendly society or a building society; or
(2) an EEA bank.

Imagine for a moment that a (non existent) organization G Ltd collects £300 of money on Jan 1st 2020, £600 on March 1st 2020, £100 on March 2021 and in May 2021 provides services which would have been valued at the start of the contract at £845. 

G Ltd took an Arrangement Fee of £55 from the first payment and the £100 payment on March 2021 is Interest.  G Ltd would seem to be acting like a bank: it is taking deposits, charging arrangement fees, and interest.  That would still be the case if Interest was renamed to "Annual Price Increase" and Arrangement Fee renamed to "Booking Services Fee".

If G Ltd has Part 4A Permission it would be regulated by PRA.   And if it did not have that permission, could PRA take action?