LHH Scotland cottage booking refund

Warren14

Have LHH cancelled your holiday and refused a refund or rebooking for another time? If so why not join the growing number of affected people and warn others of their despicable behaviour and leave reviews on these two review sites - google reviews https://www.google.co.uk/travel/hotels/entity/CgsIxqjWlJrwx5iWARAB/reviews?g2lb=2502548%2C4258168%2C4270442%2C4306835%2C4317915%2C4322823%2C4328159%2C4371334%2C4381263%2C4384469%2C4395848%2C4401769%2C4402623%2C4403882%2C4413451%2C4416581%2C4421322%2C4270859%2C4284970%2C4291517%2C4412690&hl=en&gl=uk&un=1&rp=EMao1pSa8MeYlgEQxqjWlJrwx5iWATgCQABIAcABAg&ictx=1&sa=X&utm_campaign=sharing&utm_medium=link&utm_source=htls&hrf=KhYKBwjkDxAIGAoSBwjkDxAIGAsYASgAggElMHg0ODhmOWM5ZjRmNWJmNTczOjB4OTYzMTFmODFhMjk1OTQ0NpoBJxolMHg0ODhmOWM5ZjRmNWJmNTczOjB4OTYzMTFmODFhMjk1OTQ0Ng and trustpilot https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/lhhscotland.com

Sylvestris

It is very encouraging to see that in recent days two properties have disappeared from LHH Scotland's website. Excellent! Hopefully a sign that they are starting to lose their property owners and not just the holidaymakers. Their property list now stands at 125 and not 140 as Wynne Bentley (aka Wynne Shilland) exaggerated in the press. Indeed it never was anywhere near 140. It is also interesting to note that LHH Scotland seem to have given up flagging the one star reviews on Trustpilot, despite one reviewer calling them parasites. In response to a couple of recent reviews, the response by Wynne Bentley (aka Wynne Shilland) has been true to form, "not our problem, speak to the owner". Please note that if your one star review on Trustpilot has been flagged by LHH and redacted, you can simply delete it and post a new one. It then goes back to the top of the list. You can of course also do this if you want to update your review and push the fictitious five star reviews down the list.   

Bezzaknows

Terrible experience with LHH Scotland. Paid in full for cottage in April. Cancelled by LHH due to covid.
No refund. No reschedule. Doesn't seem like they are bothered. At the end of the day they have my full payment and have provided nothing 

Thrugelmir

Bezzaknows said:

Terrible experience with LHH Scotland. Paid in full for cottage in April. Cancelled by LHH due to covid.
No refund. No reschedule. Doesn't seem like they are bothered. At the end of the day they have my full payment and have provided nothing 

Says a lot for the property owners............

Sylvestris

This is the text of a standard letter from LHH Scotland to credit/debit card companies telling them that a chargeback or sec 75 claim does not apply if a contract has been frustrated. So, Martin Lewis, the CMA, Which, Citizens Advice etc. etc. are all wrong?

We write to confirm that we cannot find any legal basis which permits credit card issuers to refund LHH customers pursuant to sec 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. While the parallel debit card chargeback system is voluntary, extending it to Covid frustration of contract would move if from being a parallel system to going well beyond the statutory credit card joint and several indemnity under sec 75. In short, wrongful refunds or chargebacks would potentially open the credit/debit card providers up to liability to repay not only LHH but we suspect many others in the holiday letting sector.

Vis a vis the statutory scheme the law is simple:

(1) The credit card issuer’s liability under sec 75 Consumer Credit Card Act 1974 can only arise if there has been a breach of contract or a misrepresentation by LHH. Neither has any legal relevance in the present circumstances.

(2) As both senior counsel and the CMA have stated, the LHH contracts affected by the governmental lockdown have been frustrated.

(3) As a matter of law frustration automatically ends the contract and releases the parties from their performance, excluding any accrued rights, none of which have been established. There cannot be a breach of contract once frustration occurs. If the customers have any claim of remedy, which is denied, it lies not in contract but in unjustified enrichment.

(4) On any view that remedy is not relevant under sec 75 and cannot trigger any liability on the part of the credit card issuers.

(5) For a full summary of the requirements and consequences of frustration in contracts made under Scots law the card issuers should look at the following case decided by Lord Hodge – Robert Purvis Plant Hire Ltd v Brewster CSOH 28. Frustration relieves parties from further performance of their obligations under the contract. Accrued rights are preserved. In Scotland the law of unjustified enrichment is available in appropriate cases to give a remedy to enrichment at another’s loss as a consequence of the frustration.

(6) Instead of going well beyond their statutory liability under sec 75 by wrongfully agreeing refunds, credit card issuers should simply decline liability for breach of contract because the agreed and automatic operation of frustration means there has been no breach. The insurance market can then operate as normal and can compensate LHH’s insured customers. For those who did not insure, and despite having no obligation to do so, we understand LHH re trying to arrange postponement where possible.

eskbanker

Sylvestris said:

This is the text of a standard letter from LHH Scotland to credit/debit card companies telling them that a chargeback or sec 75 claim does not apply if a contract has been frustrated. So, Martin Lewis, the CMA, Which, Citizens Advice etc. etc. are all wrong?

Seems to me that they're simply highlighting a narrow technical interpretation of the law, i.e. that there can't be a breach of a contract that's been frustrated (i.e. annulled), and therefore there is no basis for a s75 claim specifically.  While I'm not a lawyer, I can understand that line of argument, but that doesn't in itself signify that the customer has no rights to a refund (under other legislation), so it is possible that LHH are right on the specific point that s75 doesn't strictly apply but that other bodies are also right (that the customer is still due a refund anyway).

With chargeback, unlike s75, there is no need to establish a legal case that there has been a breach of contract as such, and it's just a case of demonstrating that a paid-for service hasn't been provided (a much lower bar), so even though LHH will undoubtedly challenge all chargeback attempts, my suspicion would be that some card companies will still be siding with customers, and hence LHH's attempt to assert this as wrong, with the threat that they'll seek recovery of such costs from the card companies.

Upsidedownandaround

Even accepting that view whether the contract has been frustrated may depend on each persons particular circumstances and whether they were offered the option of moving to a later date.

The case referred to states:

"it is not sufficient of itself that a change of circumstances renders performance of the contractual obligations more expensive or onerous or thereby causes hardship. The supervening event or circumstances must have rendered performance impossible or fundamentally different from what, on an objective construction of the contract, the parties contemplated when they contracted."

I'm not sure if that has come from your credit card but if it has I would argue that the contract wasn't frustrated as they could have still fulfilled their obligations at a later time. The  breach of contract was them refusing to fulfill the contract at a later date as opposed to during the lockdown and therefore your credit card is jointly and severally liable for this breach.

Sutch

For those who haven't seen the Martin Lewis interview with the head of the CMA - this is worth a look and removes any doubt (not that there was any) that a refund, if requested is mandatory in law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjoHjzSKn-0

Sylvestris

Sutch said:

For those who haven't seen the Martin Lewis interview with the head of the CMA - this is worth a look and removes any doubt (not that there was any) that a refund, if requested is mandatory in law.

I am still fighting to recover my money from LHH Scotland. In the latest condescending email I received from them which consisted of two pages of absolute annoying drivel advising me how to deal with my travel insurer (who by the way have utterly rubbished LHH's claim that they are entitled to keep my money and are therefore not accepting liability) LHH Scotland concluded with this:

"It may be of interest to also note that our lawyers have in fact written to the CMA under the Freedom of Information Act, asking them to explain why they misled the public with their April statement regarding refund liability."

Their lawyers are a firm called Wright, Johnson and Mackenzie. What unbelievable arrogance. I hope it back fires on them and prompts the CMA to speed up their investigation into LHH Scotland.  

Thrugelmir

Sylvestris said:

Sutch said:

For those who haven't seen the Martin Lewis interview with the head of the CMA - this is worth a look and removes any doubt (not that there was any) that a refund, if requested is mandatory in law.

Their lawyers are a firm called Wright, Johnson and Mackenzie. What unbelievable arrogance. I hope it back fires on them and prompts the CMA to speed up their investigation into LHH Scotland.  

If the property owners are willing to play ball them the company themselves will simply go under. As they won't have the funds to reimburse everybody.  Easy to say somebody else pays. There's no magic money tree though. Just a row of dominoes that will topple over.