How to get a Booking.com refund

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

https://www.booking.com/content/terms.en-gb.html

B. Accommodations

B1. Scope of this section

1. This section contains the specific terms for Accommodations products and services. It applies as well as section A (which applies to all Travel Experiences).

B2. Contractual relationship

1. When you make (or request) a Booking, it’s directly with the Service Provider - we’re not a ‘contractual party'.

AFAIK that's a sound legal position for these platforms to take. 

brianposter

In the UK anyone who takes money for something is party to a contract. Making a bald statement such as "we are not a contractual party" would simply make a court wonder about the honesty of that party.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

brianposter said:

In the UK anyone who takes money for something is party to a contract. 

Source?  

Aylesbury_Duck

brianposter said:

In the UK anyone who takes money for something is party to a contract. Making a bald statement such as "we are not a contractual party" would simply make a court wonder about the honesty of that party.

I don't think that's correct.

brianposter

Try Google.   eg    https://hallellis.co.uk/contract-law-basics-formation/

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

brianposter said:

Try Google.   eg    https://hallellis.co.uk/contract-law-basics-formation/

Yes but that's just the basics of forming a contract.

This explains what an agent is:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-005-7364?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

An agent has a contract with each but is not a party to the contract they facilitate, there is (I believe) 3 contracts.

1 contract with the agent and the person selling that the person buying is not a party to. 
1 contract with the agent and the person buying that the person selling is not a party to. 
1 contract with the person selling and the person buying that the agent is not a party to. 
 
Now Booking.com use the term "platform" so I don't know if they are legally classed as something else rather than an agent and companies like eBay, Amazon, etc are called marketplace facilitators but they all have the same principle.

They exist to bring two people together, they have to carry out their obligations to each but that doesn't extend to being liable for either party breaching the contract they facilitated where they are not a party to it. 

brianposter

In general "market facilitators" would like to be agents with no responsibilities and write their T & Cs accordingly. Consumer law makes it difficult to achieve that sort of status.

For example, if they provide post-contract services that does not sit well with being "just an agent".

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

brianposter said:

In general "market facilitators" would like to be agents with no responsibilities and write their T & Cs accordingly. Consumer law makes it difficult to achieve that sort of status.

For example, if they provide post-contract services that does not sit well with being "just an agent".

If you or I use a booking platform for a hotel it is correct we are a consumer, the platform is a trader and, as it's a service, Chapter 4 of the CRA applies (most noticeably reasonable care and skill). 

If you book a hotel that doesn't exist and got scammed you could argue the platform should have vetted the other party as part of the service under reasonable care and skill and I'm sure such booking platforms do this. 

But in the case of a failed door lock and Booking.com not being a party to the accommodation contract I don't see any way they are accountable.

I'm sure if someone went to small claims over this Booking.com may just pay regardless and whilst that is a good bluff, without a sound legal principle to stand upon it's a bit of a "bullying" thing to do.

I also agree many companies do their very best to avoid their obligations and even normalise expectations to the contrary, but taking on that kind of mammoth challenge without any in-depth legal principle to stand behind doesn't really help the OP.  

Alderbank

brianposter said:

In the UK anyone who takes money for something is party to a contract. Making a bald statement such as "we are not a contractual party" would simply make a court wonder about the honesty of that party.

No, not even close.

One essential requirement of a contract in English law is the intention of both parties to form a legally binding contract. In the event of a dispute, the first thing a court does is to confirm that intention existed, because without it there is no contract.

Booking.com's 'bald statement' is there for a specific legal purpose and makes it as clear as day that there is no intention to form a contract about the accommodation. Rather than making the court wonder about the writer's honesty the wording tells them that the writer understands contract law.

brianposter

Alderbank said:

brianposter said:

In the UK anyone who takes money for something is party to a contract. Making a bald statement such as "we are not a contractual party" would simply make a court wonder about the honesty of that party.

No, not even close.

One essential requirement of a contract in English law is the intention of both parties to form a legally binding contract. In the event of a dispute, the first thing a court does is to confirm that intention existed, because without it there is no contract.

Booking.com's 'bald statement' is there for a specific legal purpose and makes it as clear as day that there is no intention to form a contract about the accommodation. Rather than making the court wonder about the writer's honesty the wording tells them that the writer understands contract law.

Interesting. Has "your" argument ever been tested in a British court ?