Lodge cancellation

ThumbRemote

tightauldgit said:

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/

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.

You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of contract and consumer law. 

If a retailer and a consumer agree something, it is down to the consumer to pay and the retailer to provide. It doesn't matter whether the retailer makes a reasonable attempt to provide, it's not the consumer who loses out because the retailer doesn't provide. 

Small changes to a contract might be considered acceptable (although even that is legally dubious). However this is not a small change because a significant part of the advertised facilities are unavailable. The provision of the spa facilities (not just the provision of spa treatments) is a key selling point for both the lodges and the treatments. That's why the OPs group booked the venue. 

It doesn't matter whether the hotel knew in advance.
It doesn't matter whether the hotel could or couldn't have made alternative arrangements.
It doesn't matter whether the hotel had a back-up plan.
The retailer have breached the contract.

Manxman_in_exile

The way I look at it - without considering the legal position - is like this...

The spa being closed is probably because of either (a) routine planned maintenance or (b) something unexpected and possibly even unforeseeable (like the roof falling in or a dead body found in the spa with a knife in its chest)

If (a) then it should have been made clear at the time of booking to anybody booking the hotel (or whatever it is)  that the spa would not be available for those dates.  Or it should have been clearly displayed on the website that the spa would be unavailable on certain dates.

If (b) then the hotel should be claiming on its business interruption insurance.  If the owners of the hotel have decided they can't afford that insurance, that's their problem, not the OP's.



Just generally, if I'd booked accommodation at a hotel specifically to use one of their advertised facilities (let's say their golf course) and they came back to me say that because of unforeseen circumstances outside their control that the golf course would not be available to me on that day, then I'd expect them to offer me at least two options: (a) the opportunity to move my booking to a different date or (b) a full refund - no strings attached.  They could even add the offer of free rounds of golf to option (a).

Manxman_in_exile

Can I suggest rewording the letter put forward earlier to day by the_lunatic?

"Dear Hotel Group

Thank you for your reply which I find very disappointing.  As I have explained to you previously I only decided to book at your hotel because of the advertised spa facilities and if I had known at the time that the spa would be closed for maintenance I would never have booked accommodation with you.

The unavailability of the spa is a significant variation to the contract between us.  In the circumstances (1) you are in breach of contract because you cannot provide the advertised facilities, and (2) you cannot rely on your "no cancellations within 28 days of arrival"  term as it clearly falls within the scope of Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) as an unfair term and is therefore unenforeable by you.

I expect you to refund to me all monies that I have paid to you in respect of this booking.  

If you decide not do so I'd be grateful if you would let me know the correct address to serve legal notices on you.  I intend to recover through the small claims process any prepayments that I have made to you but which you haven't refunded  to me.  I shall do so without further notification to you other than those required under the Civil Procedure Rules. 

Thank you in advance,
Sincerely
freshstart2023"


Just one other point strikes me.  Did I see somewhere in the hotel's T&Cs references to "lochside"?  Is this in Scotland?  Is the "small claims process" different in Scotland?  Is the process thw same as in England and Wales?

freshstart2023

Thankyou for all your help, I really appreciate it. Sorry for the delays, I’m at work. 

So I paid the deposit with my debit card and paid the balance with my credit card. We are due to check in for the night on sat 3rd June. They have confirmed that the spa suite will be closed for an entire week for maintenance and reopen Monday 5th June so it must be closing from next week so can’t be as urgent as a dead body 😆 I do note that you can still book for the period the spa suite is closed on the website with no mention of the closure. 

Yes the hotel is in Scotland 👍

born_again

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

No comeback via card regulations. 

But £31 for a bottle of prosecco.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

No comeback via card regulations. 

But £31 for a bottle of prosecco.

If OP has paid the balance on credit card and has a claim against the retailer do they not also have the same claim against the card provider under S75? 

I'm not sure how the money is divided (per room, per night, per booking etc)? 

Manxman_in_exile said:

Can I suggest rewording the letter put forward earlier to day by the_lunatic?

No you may not!  

More seriously, I think the company are sort of abiding by the (2) you mention as whilst the term is likely unfair and thus likely void I'm not sure that gives the right to simply cancel but rather to return to the default position of costs/loss which the hotel have alluded to with mention of rebooking and refunding. 

IMHO I would be more inclined to focus on the alteration of the contract to prevent the hotel the opportunity to digress from the main point.  

Civil Procedure Rules is a good term  

freshstart2023 said:

Yes the hotel is in Scotland 👍

OP does the T&Cs state which laws the contract is governed by and/or under which jurisdiction disputes should be handled? 

born_again

Re above.
S75 is going to depend on how much on per person, per night costs. But even then T/C are going to come into play.

Pretty sure this is the website

https://lochside-hotel.com/spa/

freshstart2023

I can’t see anything in the terms - these are the T&C’s

https://lochside-hotel.com/lodge-terms-and-conditions/

Manxman_in_exile

Looking at their T&Cs is this going to be a "non-refundable" deposit issue too?  (They say that even if you cancel more than 28 days before arrival the deposit is still non-refundable...)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

freshstart2023 said:

I can’t see anything in the terms - these are the T&C’s

https://lochside-hotel.com/lodge-terms-and-conditions/

Thanks OP, the Consumer Rights Act applies in Scotland (although parts vary). 

I'm not sure what the default position of governing law is for a distance contract if not mentioned in the terms, whether that would be the place of the business or the place of a consumer

Hopefully the mention of taking matters further will persuade them to see sense and cancel.