Lodge cancellation

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

CardinalWolsey said:

freshstart2023 said:

They said as a gesture if goodwill they would move us to another date when the spa had reopened

we can’t have a refund as their terms and conditions state it’s non refundable if cancelled within 28 days of arrival date 

Move the date more than 28 days into the future, and then cancel, as per their T&Cs.

Interesting idea, currently OP has a good cause to make a bit of a fuss and get a refund.

If the hotel felt doing suggestion this was underhanded they might refuse the cancellation claiming the extension doesn't have the same cancellation period.

Worth asking to see what their response is but it might cause more headache to rely on it (regardless of whether it would be possible via the terms or not). 

ThumbRemote

tightauldgit said:

ThumbRemote said:

Alderbank said:

ThumbRemote said:

This is not a cancellation. This is a breach of contract by the provider. 

How can you possibly say that? Have you seen the T&Cs of the contract?

We are talking about a spa suite with pool, sauna, jacuzzi, steam room etc. There is a lot of technology, a lot to go wrong, a lot to need maintenance and a lot of potential to harm customers.

It would be reasonable to have a contract term saying something like
'We make our best endeavours to keep all facilities available to our guests at all times but for health and safety reasons this might not always be possible. This could be at short notice. When this happens we will be happy to move your booking to another date.'

We just don't know.

Why on earth do you think that would be reasonable? It's clearly an unbalanced contract if the retailer can unilaterally change it but the consumer cannot. 

Yes, of course things can go wrong, and a small amount of modification to the contract can be allowed. But as you say it's an entire spa suite so is a major feature. The retailer have breached the contract. 

The way some people on this board seek to justify appalling behaviour by retailers amazes me. 

If the contract says 'some of the facilities may not be available during your stay due to unforeseen circumstances' then neither the retailer not the consumer is changing or breaching the contract if a given facility isn't available. 

Simple common sense indicates that such a contractual term cannot stand.  

If you book a lodge with spa facilities and the lodge is unavailable (irrespective of reason) you would be due a refund. It's a clear breach of contract. The retailer can't claim "some of the facilities may not be available" and insist you sleep in your car. 

Once you accept this, then it's merely a question of degree. To what extent is a facility being unavailable so large a factor that it represents a breach of the contract. 

In this case the thermal suite is out of action - not just a single piece of equipment but the entre suite. That's something where the party were planning to spend time and had booked spa treatments to go alongside this. It's a major factor - in fact the spa is listed on the venues website menu before the lodges, so key is it to the venue itself, and the thermal suite is the very first bit listed for the spa (and, I note, with no mention of it being closed). 

There is significant case law to this effect. If a holiday does not match up to the advertised standards then the consumers are entitled to both a reduction in cost for what was missing, and a claim for loss of enjoyment - which may be more than the original cost paid. The amount payable for loss of enjoyment is higher if the holiday was for a special occasion, and if the breach affects the primary purpose of the holiday. Both these are the case here. The OP is clearly entitled to a full refund, not just a bottle of Prosecco!

See https://www.dekachambers.com/2020/06/09/general-damages-in-holiday-claims-a-recap/

km1500

for what it's worth I agree. I would ask for a full refund and if not then you can go by the small claims procedure or even your card if you paid that way

freshstart2023

This is the reply I have received 😬

Good Morning, 

As per your terms and conditions that were sent over please see section 2.2 below.  I will cancel the lodge for you and if we resell I will process the refund. Please confirm you want me to go ahead and cancel this. 

2.2 If you cancel your reservation within the 28 days prior to arrival, the full payment is still due. This will be refunded to you only if the lodge is resold at your booking price.

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

ThumbRemote said:

Alderbank said:

ThumbRemote said:

This is not a cancellation. This is a breach of contract by the provider. 

How can you possibly say that? Have you seen the T&Cs of the contract?

We are talking about a spa suite with pool, sauna, jacuzzi, steam room etc. There is a lot of technology, a lot to go wrong, a lot to need maintenance and a lot of potential to harm customers.

It would be reasonable to have a contract term saying something like
'We make our best endeavours to keep all facilities available to our guests at all times but for health and safety reasons this might not always be possible. This could be at short notice. When this happens we will be happy to move your booking to another date.'

We just don't know.

Why on earth do you think that would be reasonable? It's clearly an unbalanced contract if the retailer can unilaterally change it but the consumer cannot. 

Yes, of course things can go wrong, and a small amount of modification to the contract can be allowed. But as you say it's an entire spa suite so is a major feature. The retailer have breached the contract. 

The way some people on this board seek to justify appalling behaviour by retailers amazes me. 

If the contract says 'some of the facilities may not be available during your stay due to unforeseen circumstances' then neither the retailer not the consumer is changing or breaching the contract if a given facility isn't available. 

I know some users of this site like to read everything in the consumers' favour and believe that businesses can't protect themselves in any way but reality kind of defeats those assertions. When it's standard industry practice then you can be reasonably assured that it if was so obviously wrong that it would have been shown to be unlawful in court by now. 

Suddenly everyone who turns up at a hotel and finds the swimming pool or gym closed is due a full refund. 

Sadly it is this kind of thinking that causes a lot of misunderstanding with regards to consumer rights. 

Non-refundable services are largely considered unfair but many service providers, including hotels, offer them.

There are many companies excluding the right of cancellation for mattresses but the lower courts in this country are bound by the CJEU decision on the matter (that they are not excluded).  

The courier insurance thread highlights another example of an entire industry acting in a manner which may well not meet the requirements of the legislation.

It is naïve in the extreme to think that because something happens it is lawful, there are many, many things happening and government bodies are limited in resources, issues that get tackled are those that have a serious impact (or if you were cynical you might say those which allow governments to earn large fines from global corporations). 

Higher courts may make rulings but in many cases few consumers actually stand up for themselves (probably in part because they have this way of thinking and believe what they are told) and large companies would rather pay them to go away rather than risk a higher court ruling against their business practice. 

some of the facilities may not be available during your stay due to unforeseen circumstances

The problem with this is it is too vague. How many is some? What are facilities? The kettle and TV in the room? The pool? The bar? The restaurant? The lift? The concierge? Room cleaning? 

Terms need to be specific in order to be fair, the consumer must be able to understand them and what the consequences of them may be, the example you've given doesn't do this at all. 

I do agree that for a business there will be unexpected events, a pool or spa could be shut due to a power cut for example but then if you hire a taxi and it breaks down at the end of your street would you still pay for the journey to the airport? 

Yeah you say this all the time and I've learned there is no point arguing with you  - the problem is it is entirely your opinion that these terms are too vague. In your opinion unless the contract terms exactly specify the unforeseen event and the results then it's too vague but that's clearly a nonsense as the whole point of unforeseen circumstances with unspecified consequences is that they can't be foreseen. The funny thing is you then go on to admit this and say that obviously a hotel will have unexpected events but don't actually allow the hotel any leeway for these. What is naive in the extreme is thinking that some of those ambulance chasers wouldn't be chomping at the bit to do go after Hilton or whoever if they could see that they were acting openly and frequently in breach of consumer law as you seem to think that everyone is.  

As I said to the OP this seems like poor customer service to me and I'd expect the hotel to do better - but a slam dunk clear cut breach of contract in a court? Not at all. 

Aylesbury_Duck

freshstart2023 said:

This is the reply I have received 😬

Good Morning, 

As per your terms and conditions that were sent over please see section 2.2 below.  I will cancel the lodge for you and if we resell I will process the refund. Please confirm you want me to go ahead and cancel this. 

2.2 If you cancel your reservation within the 28 days prior to arrival, the full payment is still due. This will be refunded to you only if the lodge is resold at your booking price.

Write back and politely thank them for their reply, but that you will be first seeking the advice of your card provider and considering small claims court action.

tightauldgit

ThumbRemote said:

tightauldgit said:

ThumbRemote said:

Alderbank said:

ThumbRemote said:

This is not a cancellation. This is a breach of contract by the provider. 

How can you possibly say that? Have you seen the T&Cs of the contract?

We are talking about a spa suite with pool, sauna, jacuzzi, steam room etc. There is a lot of technology, a lot to go wrong, a lot to need maintenance and a lot of potential to harm customers.

It would be reasonable to have a contract term saying something like
'We make our best endeavours to keep all facilities available to our guests at all times but for health and safety reasons this might not always be possible. This could be at short notice. When this happens we will be happy to move your booking to another date.'

We just don't know.

Why on earth do you think that would be reasonable? It's clearly an unbalanced contract if the retailer can unilaterally change it but the consumer cannot. 

Yes, of course things can go wrong, and a small amount of modification to the contract can be allowed. But as you say it's an entire spa suite so is a major feature. The retailer have breached the contract. 

The way some people on this board seek to justify appalling behaviour by retailers amazes me. 

If the contract says 'some of the facilities may not be available during your stay due to unforeseen circumstances' then neither the retailer not the consumer is changing or breaching the contract if a given facility isn't available. 

Simple common sense indicates that such a contractual term cannot stand.  

If you book a lodge with spa facilities and the lodge is unavailable (irrespective of reason) you would be due a refund. It's a clear breach of contract. The retailer can't claim "some of the facilities may not be available" and insist you sleep in your car. 

Once you accept this, then it's merely a question of degree. To what extent is a facility being unavailable so large a factor that it represents a breach of the contract. 

In this case the thermal suite is out of action - not just a single piece of equipment but the entre suite. That's something where the party were planning to spend time and had booked spa treatments to go alongside this. It's a major factor - in fact the spa is listed on the venues website menu before the lodges, so key is it to the venue itself, and the thermal suite is the very first bit listed for the spa (and, I note, with no mention of it being closed). 

There is significant case law to this effect. If a holiday does not match up to the advertised standards then the consumers are entitled to both a reduction in cost for what was missing, and a claim for loss of enjoyment - which may be more than the original cost paid. The amount payable for loss of enjoyment is higher if the holiday was for a special occasion, and if the breach affects the primary purpose of the holiday. Both these are the case here. The OP is clearly entitled to a full refund, not just a bottle of Prosecco!

See https://www.dekachambers.com/2020/06/09/general-damages-in-holiday-claims-a-recap/

'Simple common sense' indicates a lot of things that I don't agree with. 

For a start the OP paid for a room and spa treatments - which are still available. So they are getting what they bought. If the room or spa treatments were unavailable then it's a different situation entirely.

It's not just a question of degree it's also a question of reasonableness - could the hotel have known in advance and given the customer more notice, could they have made reasonable alternative arrangements, should they have had a back up plan for such situations to mitigate the impact on consumers, etc etc.

I don't think (I hope anyway) that anyone would argue had the OP turned up and the pool was closed because there was a dead body face down in it that they should be immediately demanding a full refund for their holiday because they couldn't access the pool when they wanted to? 

I agree that the OP should be pushing for a refund and certainly more than a bottle of Prosecco but I'm just pushing back on the idea that this is a clear cut case. I don't have time to read your link now but i'll look later.

freshstart2023

Thankyou. I will do as surely they will be less likely to be able to resell it at the same price when they inform the next person that facilities are restricted? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the problem is it is entirely your opinion that these terms are too vague. 

No it isn't, the Consumer Rights Act lays out a list of terms which are always unfair and a list of terms that may be unfair, then the CMA wrote a 144 page document on the subject and the advice I give is taken from that, I generally try not to have any opinion on the matters raised on the board. 

tightauldgit said:
 The funny thing is you then go on to admit this and say that obviously a hotel will have unexpected events but don't actually allow the hotel any leeway for these. 

I am saying the terms exampled are unfair but I do not know if there is some provision in law that would allow the trader to not offer, or alter, certain aspects of a service if the events were unforeseeable. 

I believe paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 covers this topic, what are your thoughts on it's interpretation? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

freshstart2023 said:

This is the reply I have received 😬

Good Morning, 

As per your terms and conditions that were sent over please see section 2.2 below.  I will cancel the lodge for you and if we resell I will process the refund. Please confirm you want me to go ahead and cancel this. 

2.2 If you cancel your reservation within the 28 days prior to arrival, the full payment is still due. This will be refunded to you only if the lodge is resold at your booking price.

Sorry to hear OP, I would follow the advice of @Aylesbury_Duck

I would be tempted to say something along the lines of:

Dear Hotel Group

Thank you for your reply, I'm am disappointed by your response as a the variation in the contract is a significant one and in order for fairness in the contract to be achieved I should be awarded the right of cancellation and receive a full refund of the prepayments made. 

If you may kindly advise of the correct address to serve legal notices I would be most grateful, having sought advice on the matter I intend to recover any prepayments that have been made but which are not refunded via the small claims process without further discussion with your self other than appropriate protocols required before filing the claim online. 

Thank you in advance,
Sincerely
freshstart2023


After this you would need to send a letter before action which will cost you a stamp. There are templates on Google or there are firms that will send a letter for a small fee.

Beyond that you are looking at small claims which is a decision you have to take as to how munch time and effort you wish to put in to this. 

Did you pay by debit or credit card OP?