Cancelling a non- refundable hotel room

soolin

Interestingly if I search Trivago for Central London hotels that hotel doesn’t feature at all in any of the first pages. 

Perhaps you could see if they would allow a swap to something like this https://www.trivago.co.uk/en-GB/srl?themeId=718&search=200-17399&sem_keyword=trivago%20hotel%20london&sem_creativeid=638353783429&sem_matchtype=p&sem_network=g&sem_device=c&sem_placement=&sem_target=&sem_adposition=&sem_param1=&sem_param2=&sem_campaignid=365297944&sem_adgroupid=27972520744&sem_targetid=kwd-324180003291&sem_location=9044942&cipc=br&cip=4419000005&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzvDB-dvCgAMVGsbtCh25mA_uEAAYAyAAEgJr8PD_BwE

although I suspect it is extremely unlikely. 

EDIT my link doesn’t work , but basically there is a Premier Inn at Covent Garden, my friends have stayed there and occasionally they seem to have quite reasonable prices. 

mr_stripey

SheenaLouise said:

It's The Liquor Hotel- The Cherry at Mile End & I went through the  Trivago site. I paid via debit card but requested cancellation within an hour of booking it. They have been quick enough to issue an invoice but not respond to my request.  I'll wait & see...

Looks a nice place! 

I think it would be hard to say Mile End is Central London BUT it's only 20 mins on the Tube to CG and you're probably getting a better price a bit further out than if you're closer to the centre.

nyermen

Sorry I havent read in detail, but this link does seem to indicate some census based definitions of central london over time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_London

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

4 A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the trader where the trader is the party cancelling the contract.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Fairness is more likely to be achieved for such a term by ensuring that it does not go beyond the ordinary legal position. Generally, where the contract comes to an end because of the fault of the consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover either its net costs or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default (see paragraph 5.14.3 below on the need to avoid double counting). There is no entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example, finding another customer

No cancellation doesn't mean anything as they can't stop you cancelling, non-refundable is typically unfair due to the above. Generally speaking if a hotel is able to rebook your room then at best a small fee for admin could be retained. 

Central London is is a pretty big area, the name of the hotel would probably help in opinions on whether the advertising gives reason to seek a remedy, i.e a full price reduction.  

Just to add is it a debit card or credit card and if credit more than £100 per night?

Unless the hotel sells ALL its rooms for those dates and couldn't accommodate another guest then it would still have lost profit. Which I think is why hotels can and do get away with non-refundable rooms all the time. 

tightauldgit

soolin said:

http://thecherry-e3.co.uk/  This one?

as a Londoner I would consider Mile End as East London but still possibly just about Central. It is approx 4.2 miles to Covent Garden and is accessible by tube. 

You  might find some interesting Jack the Ripper walks around there and the East End has a fascinating history. 

Not a Londoner but looking on the map and from what knowledge I have of London I think it's a push to call Mile End Central London - it's the East End. I'd probably call Central London anything in the congestion charge zone. But then if I come West I'd probably think of Hyde Park, Kensington etc as Central London and they are probably just as far west as Mile End is east. 

At the end of the day I don't think there's any legal definition of 'Central London' so it would come down to what was considered reasonable and if you had the address and the location shown to you at booking it's really up to you to check how far you are from where you want to go.

 

DullGreyGuy

I assume you were happy with the place and price?

It's very close to Mile End tube station that is on the central line.  From there to Tottenham Court Road it's a 14 minute ride and not much of a walk to Covent Gardens. Alternatively you get off earlier at Holborn and switch to the Piccadilly line to get off at Covent Gardens which is the very next stop.

It's more east than I'd count as true central London but not far off. You could be in a truer central London location and have a much longer commute with more changes to get to Covent Gardens!

mr_stripey

agree with the above. Mile End is probably stretching the boundaries (which aren't clearly defined) of "Central" London a bit, but probably not enough for it to be a totally false claim.

That said, it's not the worst base for visiting the tourist spots in Central London and probably has better value restaurants out there in any case so I'd probably stick with the booking if it was me.

eskbanker

SheenaLouise said:

It's The Liquor Hotel- The Cherry & I went through the  Trivago site. 

I just had a quick look and think that this is a Trivago data/mapping issue - the entry for the Cherry doesn't seem to have any meaningful data attached and the location seems to suggest that it's in Trafalgar Square/Charing Cross, which is probably some sort of default, i.e. if its actual location hasn't been mapped properly it's assumed to be exactly in the centre.  The map on the Cherry's own site accurately places it in Mile End, so I don't think you'd be able to claim that the hotel had done anything wrong, and doubt that Trivago would accept liability either....

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

4 A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the trader where the trader is the party cancelling the contract.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Fairness is more likely to be achieved for such a term by ensuring that it does not go beyond the ordinary legal position. Generally, where the contract comes to an end because of the fault of the consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover either its net costs or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default (see paragraph 5.14.3 below on the need to avoid double counting). There is no entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example, finding another customer

No cancellation doesn't mean anything as they can't stop you cancelling, non-refundable is typically unfair due to the above. Generally speaking if a hotel is able to rebook your room then at best a small fee for admin could be retained. 

Central London is is a pretty big area, the name of the hotel would probably help in opinions on whether the advertising gives reason to seek a remedy, i.e a full price reduction.  

Just to add is it a debit card or credit card and if credit more than £100 per night?

Unless the hotel sells ALL its rooms for those dates and couldn't accommodate another guest then it would still have lost profit. Which I think is why hotels can and do get away with non-refundable rooms all the time. 

Possibly only rooms of that type, if you book the penthouse and they rebook, having a single room unbooked for the dates doesn't mean they haven't found another customer IMHO and I would take that view in reverse as well. 

Either way the retention of full payment would likely be unfair and thus void, if the consumer went to small claims the trader would need decide whether to seek their costs or the loss of profit and be able able to demonstrate that amount, if claiming loss of profit would at least have some basis of why they didn't find another customer.

That's my understanding of it based on the legislation and guidance.  

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

4 A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the trader where the trader is the party cancelling the contract.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Fairness is more likely to be achieved for such a term by ensuring that it does not go beyond the ordinary legal position. Generally, where the contract comes to an end because of the fault of the consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover either its net costs or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default (see paragraph 5.14.3 below on the need to avoid double counting). There is no entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example, finding another customer

No cancellation doesn't mean anything as they can't stop you cancelling, non-refundable is typically unfair due to the above. Generally speaking if a hotel is able to rebook your room then at best a small fee for admin could be retained. 

Central London is is a pretty big area, the name of the hotel would probably help in opinions on whether the advertising gives reason to seek a remedy, i.e a full price reduction.  

Just to add is it a debit card or credit card and if credit more than £100 per night?

Unless the hotel sells ALL its rooms for those dates and couldn't accommodate another guest then it would still have lost profit. Which I think is why hotels can and do get away with non-refundable rooms all the time. 

Possibly only rooms of that type, if you book the penthouse and they rebook, having a single room unbooked for the dates doesn't mean they haven't found another customer IMHO and I would take that view in reverse as well. 

Either way the retention of full payment would likely be unfair and thus void, if the consumer went to small claims the trader would need decide whether to seek their costs or the loss of profit and be able able to demonstrate that amount, if claiming loss of profit would at least have some basis of why they didn't find another customer.

That's my understanding of it based on the legislation and guidance.  

I'd be interested to know if you have any case history or anything of that sort for people buying non-refundable hotel rooms but being able to recover money in court when they cancel? It's such a pervasive practice that it's difficult to believe it would continue so blatantly if it were truly contrary to consumer law.