Package holiday - company have changed accomodation

eskbanker

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I was thinking along the lines of "main features" (paragraph 5 of Schedule 1), I would have thought a place that actively caters to stag dos would be a main feature over one that doesn't. 

Sounds tenuous to me to be honest - in the context of the characteristics listed in schedule 1, my understanding is that 'main features' would be more like fundamental amenities such as restaurants, swimming pools, gym, etc, rather than target demographic of customers, but it isn't clear from OP just how 'actively' (and exclusively) the hotel aims for such groups?

I was thinking of this in reverse, i,e if you booked a place that caters to stag dos and was moved to one that doesn't that seems reasonable as a "main feature" and then the opposite would be true. 

OP if you can name the two hotels it might help with options  

I still don't see the (perceived) stag do issue as being relevant to the definition of 'main features' (and the hotel spec does include kids pool and babysitting/childcare services) but agree that it would be useful to be able to compare the two hotels - however, OP declined to answer that question when I asked earlier!

HillStreetBlues

eskbanker said:

HillStreetBlues said:

eskbanker said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The "precise accommodation" has been changed, so  according to Which you can cancel for free.

Great, so Which will be happy to refund OP for something that the legislation itself doesn't entitle him to recover from the package provider?

Would have to ask Which
They might ask you to show where in the legislation that a change of accommodation isn't significant

The legislation is there for all to see, but the point is that Which have chosen to paraphrase it, given that it makes no mention of any invented phrase such as "the precise accommodation".

The regulations define a significant change (rather circularly) as "to alter significantly any of the main characteristics of the travel services specified in paragraphs 1 to 10 of Schedule 1", which in turn comprise:

1.  The main characteristics of the travel services specified in paragraphs 2 to 10.

2.  The travel destination, the itinerary and periods of stay, with dates and, where accommodation is included, the number of nights included.

3.  The means, characteristics and categories of transport, the points, dates and time of departure and return, the duration and places of intermediate stops and transport connections.

4.  Where the exact time of departure and return is not yet determined, the organiser and, where applicable, the retailer, must inform the traveller of the approximate time of departure and return.

5.  The location, main features and, where applicable, tourist category of the accommodation under the rules of the country of destination.

6.  The meals which are included in the package.

7.  The visits, excursions or other services included in the total price agreed for the package.

8.  Where it is not apparent from the context, whether any of the travel services are to be provided to the traveller as part of a group and, if so, where possible, the approximate size of the group.

9.  Where the traveller's benefit from other tourist services depends on effective oral communication, the language in which those services are to be carried out.

10.  Whether the trip or holiday is generally suitable for persons with reduced mobility and, upon the traveller's request, the precise information on the suitability of the trip or holiday taking into account the traveller's needs.

If any change in accommodation was inherently deemed to be significant then this is where it would be stated, but paragraph 5 clearly envisages changes being accepted as insignificant if the replacement is similar enough to the original.

While obviously unable to override statutory rights, the booking terms for package providers will typically clarify that a change of accommodation to the same rating in the same resort is regarded as an insignificant change, and Travel Republic are no exception:

Examples of “insignificant changes” made before departure include the following:

- A change of outward departure time or overall length of your arrangements of twelve hours or less.

- A change of accommodation to another of the same standard or classification.

Occasionally we may have to make a significant change to your confirmed arrangements and we reserve the right to do so. A significant change is one where we significantly alter any essential element of your arrangements (other than the price) owing to circumstances beyond our control. Examples of “significant changes” made before departure include, but are not limited to, the following:

- A change of accommodation resort for the whole or a significant part of your time away.

- A change of accommodation to that of a lower standard or classification for the whole or a significant part of your time away.

[...]

OP could maybe claim that the new hotel is a lower standard than the old one, even if it's the same star rating, if there's something reasonably tangible and objective to support that, a lower price perhaps contributing to that, but personally I wouldn't see some negative reviews as being particularly relevant.

For what it's worth, ABTA aligns with (or perhaps dictates to) its members:

ABTA's advice
If the change is to accommodation within the same resort and of a similar standard as the accommodation originally booked, it won’t normally be regarded as a significant alteration.

https://www.abta.com/help-and-complaints/frequently-asked-questions/my-holiday-company-has-changed-my-accommodation-can

So clearly it's not written in the legislation, so it would be up to a judge to decide based on their view of "significant"
Even the ABTA's advice show's it's not clear-cut by using the word "normally"  as if it was certain it would use "not"

The OP feels it's a significant change, so once putting down all the reasons for their view, eg new hotel is holds stag parties and anything else they can find, a judge may well view it as a significant change as clearly they wouldn't have booked holiday at that hotel.

eskbanker

It's not about whether the OP feels it's a significant change (or blanket assertions made by Which), it needs to be demonstrated objectively by reference to the stated criteria - as above, the test in the legislation is "to alter significantly [...] the location, main features and, where applicable, tourist category of the accommodation" (inter alia), so the scope for interpretation (where the location and rating are unchanged) arises from what are regarded as 'main features'.

As I posted earlier, to me 'main features' refers to the hard facts about actual facilities and amenities offered by the hotel, rather than softer perceptions of the experience, but perhaps there's precedent case law that takes a different view?

Pollycat

If I were the OP, I think I'd have stuck to the 'you have advised me of a significant change on a package holiday and I want a full refund as per the rules'.

This happened to us with a holiday booked with TUI.
They changed the resort and expected us to accept.
We asked for a full refund and rebooked with Jet2 who had taken over the accommodation from TUI.

That's the difference with holiday companies that have their own planes and these Travel Republic/On the Beach type of companies who have to book seats on TUI/Easyjet/Jet2 planes.

eskbanker

Pollycat said:

If I were the OP, I think I'd have stuck to the 'you have advised me of a significant change on a package holiday and I want a full refund as per the rules'.

Yes, it sounded like OP had to push hard to get TR to offer equivalent hotel accommodation in the same resort but if that hadn't happened, there would have been a much clearer case for a full refund, even though TR weren't offering it.

Pollycat said:

That's the difference with holiday companies that have their own planes and these Travel Republic/On the Beach type of companies who have to book seats on TUI/Easyjet/Jet2 planes.

Indeed - the online places that assemble their own packages often seem to pull the stunt that TR did here with OP, i.e. differentiating between the flight and accommodation elements of the booking, despite the fact that the PTRs compel them to treat them as a package and to refund the whole thing in full in the event of a significant change.

HillStreetBlues

eskbanker said:

It's not about whether the OP feels it's a significant change (or blanket assertions made by Which), it needs to be demonstrated objectively by reference to the stated criteria - as above, the test in the legislation is "to alter significantly [...] the location, main features and, where applicable, tourist category of the accommodation" (inter alia), so the scope for interpretation (where the location and rating are unchanged) arises from what are regarded as 'main features'.

As I posted earlier, to me 'main features' refers to the hard facts about actual facilities and amenities offered by the hotel, rather than softer perceptions of the experience, but perhaps there's precedent case law that takes a different view?

If OP researched hotel, fount it caters mainly to those over retirement age but moved to a similar type hotel then I doubt it would be classed as a significant change.
But if moved to a 18-30 type hotel although they may both be rated the same, but for them the feature of the holiday has changed.

eskbanker

HillStreetBlues said:

eskbanker said:

It's not about whether the OP feels it's a significant change (or blanket assertions made by Which), it needs to be demonstrated objectively by reference to the stated criteria - as above, the test in the legislation is "to alter significantly [...] the location, main features and, where applicable, tourist category of the accommodation" (inter alia), so the scope for interpretation (where the location and rating are unchanged) arises from what are regarded as 'main features'.

As I posted earlier, to me 'main features' refers to the hard facts about actual facilities and amenities offered by the hotel, rather than softer perceptions of the experience, but perhaps there's precedent case law that takes a different view?

If OP researched hotel, fount it caters mainly to those over retirement age but moved to a similar type hotel then I doubt it would be classed as a significant change.
But if moved to a 18-30 type hotel although they may both be rated the same, but for them the feature of the holiday has changed.

I pointed out earlier that the hotel that TR have proposed here has a kids pool and babysitting/childcare facilities, so personally wouldn't see it as tenable to claim objectively that it caters primarily to groups of young adults, but the crux really is interpretation of what 'main features' signifies and I remain unconvinced that it's intended to cover largely subjective views about clientele.  However, if/when OP clarifies where they'd originally been booked, the conversation can perhaps move on from the hypothetical to the actual!

HillStreetBlues

eskbanker said:

 However, if/when OP clarifies where they'd originally been booked, the conversation can perhaps move on from the hypothetical to the actual!

Agreed.

peterearl

eskbanker said:

peterearl said:

I guess one of the most important parts of my question is, if they can't provide suitable alternative accommodation can I cancel the whole package and get a full refund including for the flight? Travel Republic are insisting that they won't refund the flight even if they can't provide suitable alternative accommodation.

If they propose a significant change then you have the right to a full refund, under the Package Travel Regulations, as linked earlier, but if they propose a change that isn't deemed significant then you don't have that right.

So if they'd only offered you the apartment in a different resort then you'd have been legally entitled to a full refund, despite their reluctance - you may have need to acquire it via your bank or even a court though.

However, once they offered something objectively comparable (not necessarily what you'd deem 'suitable') then you lose that right, unless you can make the case that the main features of the new hotel are significantly different from those of the original one.

Thank you, that's very helpful. The current situation is that they have only offered one alternative accommodation which is in a different resort and is room only - we originally booked self catering. In writing via web portal I have made it clear to them that I want to cancel and receive a full refund. They are still refusing to refund the flights. We are due to fly out on 3rd March. We want to make our own alternate arrangements possibly to another destination. If they come up with what they deem a suitable alternative accommodation any time between now and March 3rd am I obliged to accept it? If yes we just can't move on, so frustrating.

peterearl

eskbanker said:

peterearl said:

I guess one of the most important parts of my question is, if they can't provide suitable alternative accommodation can I cancel the whole package and get a full refund including for the flight? Travel Republic are insisting that they won't refund the flight even if they can't provide suitable alternative accommodation.

If they propose a significant change then you have the right to a full refund, under the Package Travel Regulations, as linked earlier, but if they propose a change that isn't deemed significant then you don't have that right.

So if they'd only offered you the apartment in a different resort then you'd have been legally entitled to a full refund, despite their reluctance - you may have need to acquire it via your bank or even a court though.

However, once they offered something objectively comparable (not necessarily what you'd deem 'suitable') then you lose that right, unless you can make the case that the main features of the new hotel are significantly different from those of the original one.

I wasn't clear about the other hotel TR "offered". The suggestion of the other comparable hotel came in a telephone conversation where they asked if we had looked or would look at it as an alternative option - it was never "offered" as such and has never been mentioned in the online portal where they have asked me to respond - apologies that I was not clear about this. In the online portal there has been no mention of any other accommodation except the first one which is a significant change.