Partial refund on accommodation - sense check on amount to ask for

hw1900

I had booked a self-catering apartment for a city break in the UK for 2 nights. Half way through the plumbing failed (with hindsight it was making some strange noises before), long story short -  sewage was coming out of the shower rendering the one and only bathroom and W/C unusable. 

The owner required a lot of prompting we spent the rest of the day dealing with the issue, we had to go out for a meal to avoid the smell and use the W/C. At about 8pm the owner provided us with details for another apartment across town we got there and we were sat down at 10pm (I have kids and an elderly mother so bed time and this was a 'faff with parking issues'). The second apartment was ok but not what we would have picked we hadn't seen it and felt we had limited choice.

Owner is being very difficult - and going with 'we fixed it - nothing to see here go away response", 

"my view" is breach of contract is clear the plumbing may or may not be his fault but taking 4-5 hours to tell me he can do nothing, no one turning up, and only then offer accommodation late into the evening is not reasonable care and skill. What we booked was not usable for about half the time and we wasted the day.

Compensation request is we didn't have an opportunity to use the apartment as we wanted, needed to go out and buy food to be able to use the toilet etc. Asking for 50% discount (paying for the first night)  for lack of using the property. Thinking of asking for additional £50 to cover some of the costs of eating out. All in about £300 deduction versus £500 paid.

Views and opinions on if this is reasonable amount to ask would be very welcome? It is very difficult to judge if the other party is not talking. 

born_again

Who paid for the 2nd night stay? If it was the owner, then in reality you are going to be looking at only maybe something towards food.
Although they could argue that you would have eaten out anyway.

£300 is a big stretch, given the cost of the stay.

Aylesbury_Duck

I agree, I think £300 is unreasonable.  I suggest £150 might be more reasonable, the rationale being it's half of the cost of the first night plus a contribution to the meal.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Sorry to hear, this is really broken down into 3 areas.

As you mention when a service doesn't conform you are entitled to a price reduction, it's not really a question of care or skill, just anything the trader says (i.e the description of the service) is an implied term of the contract and in this instance that wasn't met.

There are damages which would be any costs you suffered as a result of the breach, these should be mitigated (lessened) and reasonable. 

Thirdly there is loss of enjoyment which, if you fancy a read, is covered in depth here:

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

but generally

Ward LJ did note the range of awards that have been granted in various groups of cases:

Couples whose plans to marry abroad were wrecked had received between £4,406 and £4,360;

Disappointed honeymooners had received between £321 to £1,890;

Holiday goers on other ‘special holidays’ that were ruined had received between £264 to £1161; and

Holiday-goers on ruined “run of the mill holidays” attracted between £83 and £876.

Probably at the lower end for a UK city break but AFAIK those figures are per person so by the time you ask for a reduction on the room, costs and loss of enjoyment you might not be far off £300 but need to articulate clearly how you came to a set figures should you wish to attempt to enforce this matter via small claims. 

Worth noting loss of enjoyment values are not linked to the cost of the holiday and can exceed the value paid for the holiday. 

hw1900

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head). A fantastic forum. 

Currently the owner is not negotiating and is accepting no price reduction. This makes it very difficult to arrive at an amount. This was paid by credit card so we will investigate a s75 as well.

To clarify we paid in full for two nights, the accommodation was not fit for habitation on day/night number two and the owner provided somewhere for us to sleep that would not have been our choice.  This was very late in the evening so we had lost any chance of having a nice night and had limited options. We accepted the other room because it was offered and we felt we had to take it to mitigate the loss (A hotel, to avoid being on the street, for 2 adults, 2 teen age children and an 83 year old would have cost £350) it was not ideal accommodation.

Very helpful to know what to accept if he does see reason and comes back with an offer. It is incredibly hard to take a reflective look when you are involved and a little 'miffed'. 

I assume if it does go small claims he looses some grounds to complain that we have been unreasonable in our estimates since he could have raised it earlier.

(When things go wrong why can't we just get a reasonable service! - Thanks again)

PHK

You need to consider that someone on a city break would not be in the room/apartment much. The point of a city break is to enjoy the city. Most people wouldn't book accommodation and then stay in. 

So if the plumbing hadn't broken you would most likely still have been out to eat. 

Redress and compensation when paid is not going to match some peoples expectations. Because its based on the actual effect on you, not on how strongly you feel about something. 

Non first choice accommodation for the second night and some upheaval sorting it (four to five hours according to your post?). Looking at the redress guides on various ombudsman websites I think you'd be looking at £100 and might get the costs of some of the food back if you can show you wouldn't have bought it otherwise. 

pinkshoes

PHK said:

You need to consider that someone on a city break would not be in the room/apartment much. The point of a city break is to enjoy the city. Most people wouldn't book accommodation and then stay in. 

So if the plumbing hadn't broken you would most likely still have been out to eat. 

Redress and compensation when paid is not going to match some peoples expectations. Because its based on the actual effect on you, not on how strongly you feel about something. 

Non first choice accommodation for the second night and some upheaval sorting it (four to five hours according to your post?). Looking at the redress guides on various ombudsman websites I think you'd be looking at £100 and might get the costs of some of the food back if you can show you wouldn't have bought it otherwise. 

I disagree with some of this.

The OP had accommodation that was not useable and when there are 5 of you, you need to make sure you have somewhere else to stay which means constantly having to go back and forth and get a resolution from the home owner and therefore limiting what you can do in case you need to move your things, go elsewhere etc...

And lots of people on city breaks eat at the apartment - especially if they've already had lunch out! It's so much easier!

I'd be wanting the difference in price between a home cooked meal and the meal out, plus an additional amount for spoiling 25% of the break and the hassle of having to swap. It's just not what you want to spend your city break doing.

£300 sounds a little too much, but I'd certainly be asking for £200. 

We went on a week holiday and stayed at a dog friendly property with a HUGE garden. Except one of our dogs escaped. We found the perimeter gap and blocked it. And then they escaped again. We ended up spending the best part of an afternoon trying to block up all the hedge gaps as the owner wasn't able to offer a solution other than to tie our dogs up!

cmthephoenix

hw1900 said:

"my view" is breach of contract is clear the plumbing may or may not be his fault but taking 4-5 hours to tell me he can do nothing, no one turning up, and only then offer accommodation late into the evening is not reasonable care and skill. What we booked was not usable for about half the time and we wasted the day.

Can I ask what the plumbing "may or may not be his fault" means. Does that mean it may have been your fault? That would put an entirely different complexion on the matter.

born_again

To Be fair to the owner of the property. Finding someone to come out over a weekend will not be a easy task, just the same as finding alternative accommodation.
Which has still not been cleared up just who paid for it. Or just which city? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

cmthephoenix said:

hw1900 said:

"my view" is breach of contract is clear the plumbing may or may not be his fault but taking 4-5 hours to tell me he can do nothing, no one turning up, and only then offer accommodation late into the evening is not reasonable care and skill. What we booked was not usable for about half the time and we wasted the day.

Can I ask what the plumbing "may or may not be his fault" means. Does that mean it may have been your fault? That would put an entirely different complexion on the matter.

I took that to mean it’s “one of those things” where no one is really “at fault” as such.

OP probably easier to go after the card company than the accommodation owner.

@born_again might be able to clarify how the minimum £100 works for accommodation, i.e per night, per person, etc. 

Vectis

To be clear:

By 8pm the owner had sorted out another accommodation for you to move to?

And, it took 4-5 hours to tell you that he couldn't get the shower fixed?

So, presumably, you had reported it at around 3pm - 3.30pm, going by your timeline?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the owner to have a plumber, or anyone for that matter, on stand-by just in case something goes wrong with the property. If you were at home and had the same problem and rang for a plumber, can you actually see them turning up within a matter of hours, never mind even the same day?

I think you have to be reasonable. It's not a hotel where they could possibly simply move you to another room. 4-5 hours doesn't seem an unduly long length of time to try and get a plumber sorted and, when they can't, arrange for some place else in the city for you to stay.

Yes, a reduction is probably valid given the disruption. If it were me, I'd be content with getting around £100 reduction.