Non refundable hotel booking - what are my ACTUAL rights?

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Hotel can claim costs or loss of profit, not both, if loss of profit they must mitigate by trying to find another customer. 

Terms stating non-refundable are likely to be viewed as unfair under the CRA, supported by CMA guidance.

You need to argue higher, front line staff are unlikely to understand much of this and stick to policy. 

I know it's your pet favourite but cite case law thats come to this conclusion on hotel stays?  Even the CCR excludes hotels from cooling off periods. 

Almost every single hotel offers non-refundable rooms at a discount, surely if it was an unfair term at least some consumer body would have raised a super complaint on the matter. 

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. There is nothing unfair in that, they took a gamble and lost.  They knew their circumstances before booking and still chose to gamble. 

screech_78

DullGreyGuy said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Hotel can claim costs or loss of profit, not both, if loss of profit they must mitigate by trying to find another customer. 

Terms stating non-refundable are likely to be viewed as unfair under the CRA, supported by CMA guidance.

You need to argue higher, front line staff are unlikely to understand much of this and stick to policy. 

I know it's your pet favourite but cite case law thats come to this conclusion on hotel stays?  Even the CCR excludes hotels from cooling off periods. 

Almost every single hotel offers non-refundable rooms at a discount, surely if it was an unfair term at least some consumer body would have raised a super complaint on the matter. 

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. There is nothing unfair in that, they took a gamble and lost.  They knew their circumstances before booking and still chose to gamble. 

Completely agree. 

I have a hotel booking for next week. Booked it last May, paid a higher rate with free cancellation and no pre-payment. I’ve since changed the hotel twice with the same terms. Could have paid a bit less for a non-refundable room but would rather have had the option to change if I wanted to or in the event I had to cancel. As it is, I’ve saved money as the rates came down in price. I really struggle to see what is unfair about that. 

Undervalued

DullGreyGuy said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Hotel can claim costs or loss of profit, not both, if loss of profit they must mitigate by trying to find another customer. 

Terms stating non-refundable are likely to be viewed as unfair under the CRA, supported by CMA guidance.

You need to argue higher, front line staff are unlikely to understand much of this and stick to policy. 

I know it's your pet favourite but cite case law thats come to this conclusion on hotel stays?  Even the CCR excludes hotels from cooling off periods. 

Almost every single hotel offers non-refundable rooms at a discount, surely if it was an unfair term at least some consumer body would have raised a super complaint on the matter. 

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. There is nothing unfair in that, they took a gamble and lost.  They knew their circumstances before booking and still chose to gamble. 

Exactly.

As has been suggested earlier in this thread, it is a very different thing when a buyer chooses to accept various restrictions in exchange for a lower price. 

Rather like one of the other pet peeves discussed ad-infinitum on this forum, I will believe otherwise only when somebody can cite a relevant judgement, in a high enough court to set a legally binding precedent, that says otherwise.

DullGreyGuy

IvanOpinion said:

DullGreyGuy said:

IvanOpinion said:

GDB2222 said:

We should all:

Book refundable rooms
cancel at the last possible minute to get the refund
Ring the hotel up and ask if they have a room available at a really good rate

I know someone who has successfully done that.
The same person has also been known to walk into hotels late at night, ask if there are rooms available, and then offers them a fraction of their room rate to occupy it. Most of the time his offer has been accepted.
Not for me though since I would find it far too stressful.

Then cite the case reference so the judgement can be looked up otherwise it sounds like pub chat like the ex colleague who claimed his grapes were used in an award winning wine but was caught out when he said he grew chardonnay and yet chardonnay arent included in the blend of the wine 

He was my old next door neighbour, so look that one up. He was head of sales for an electronics company (among others) that took him around all of Europe regularly, and he absolutely refused to pay full price anywhere (literally) - he claimed he always walked away if he didn't get a discount, even if it was 1p. Needless to say his wife refused to do the weekly shopping with him because she found his behaviour totally embarrassing - although he came into his own (for many people) when it came to the bigger items.

Not commenting on getting hotel rooms at a discount, on the fact he has successfully sued a hotel for not refunding a non-refundable booking when they cancelled. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

I know it's your pet favourite but cite case law thats come to this conclusion on hotel stays?  

I don't understand your comment?

There isn't case law so are you saying these threads shouldn't have any replies or are you say they should only have replies that agree with the majority view of a very limited number of people sitting in a very specific space?

That would be views which are often based on what people feel is right to their view rather than what is written in the regs.

Without case law your opinion is guidance, my opinion is guidance, but I don't have an opinion, I'm merely posting what the CMA has written and, without any offence, when it comes to credibility of opinion the CMA holds more than some random posters on MSE  

DullGreyGuy said:Even the CCR excludes hotels from cooling off periods. 

The CCRs are a separate matter, they give a right of complete withdrawal, the noted aspects of the Grey List from the CRA is dealing with matters where the consumer fails to fulfil their obligations.  

DullGreyGuy said:

Almost every single hotel offers non-refundable rooms at a discount, surely if it was an unfair term at least some consumer body would have raised a super complaint on the matter. 

Airlines do the same and as above there has been discussion on the matter from a body relating to the airlines.

In terms of enforcement, there are many big name retailers not abiding by the CCRs, little to no enforcement... 

Many aspects of trading fall within the CPRs and again many situations appear to flout it but unless it affects the majority these things seems to left.

The CMA took on unit price for promotional pricing (aka Tesco clubcard) and things changed (despite Tesco claiming their practice wasn't in contravention but voluntarily made the change) presumably because grocery prices are something that affects not only the entire population but also their perception of whether the government is doing a good job or not, i.e it's a pressing matter from several angles. 

I can only assume non-refundable hotel rooms aren't a top priority with everything else that is going on.

Back on accommodation bookings, random link:

https://www.schofields.ltd.uk/blog/3888/holiday-rental-refund-2/

Avoid unfair cancellation terms in your booking contract

Can you keep the guest’s money if they cancel? Hosts are entitled to charge a fee if guests cancel or keep a proportion of the payment to cover their losses. But the amount you keep must represent what you are losing because of the booking being cancelled.

For example, if a guest cancels and you manage to re-let the dates, the only amount you can legitimately withhold will be a non-refundable deposit or a cancellation fee. The amount should reflect the actual loss due to administrative costs and any difference in price between the customers’ booking and the replacement booking.

If the guest cancels at short notice and you can’t find another booking, typically you keep the amount paid, but refund any costs that are factored into the rental rate, but you haven’t incurred them (e.g. cleaning and utility charges).

In general, holiday letting businesses are free to use whatever cancellation terms and conditions they want, but they cannot be unfair (e.g. excessive cancellation fees).

DullGreyGuy said:

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. 

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and I'll check your order over carefully and ensure it's in perfect condition or you can pay £100 a take your changes, no refund if it's damaged or has manufacturing defects. 

Wouldn't fly due the CRA, but hey you made the choice to pay less right? 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. 

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and I'll check your order over carefully and ensure it's in perfect condition or you can pay £100 a take your changes, no refund if it's damaged or has manufacturing defects. 

Wouldn't fly due the CRA, but hey you made the choice to pay less right? 

That example doesn't quite work. Would have been better if you had said:

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and return it for a full refund within 14 days if you change your mind or you can pay £100 and can't change your mind and return it.

Personally i'd be pretty happy to be given an option like that.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. 

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and I'll check your order over carefully and ensure it's in perfect condition or you can pay £100 a take your changes, no refund if it's damaged or has manufacturing defects. 

Wouldn't fly due the CRA, but hey you made the choice to pay less right? 

That example doesn't quite work. Would have been better if you had said:

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and return it for a full refund within 14 days if you change your mind or you can pay £100 and can't change your mind and return it.

Personally i'd be pretty happy to be given an option like that.

Both are the same really in that you are paying less to waive your rights, or paying more to have them, depending upon which way you look at it.

You may make an informed decision and not need the right to cancel, I may not care if my furniture isn’t perfect, each to their own on that one  

However the legislation isn’t looking at the individual but a general overview with the end goal of inspiring confidence and keeping the wheels turning. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The reality the OP had the option of choosing a refundable room at a higher price or a non-refundable at a lower rate. They made the active decision to pay less in exchange for not having a right to a refund. 

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and I'll check your order over carefully and ensure it's in perfect condition or you can pay £100 a take your changes, no refund if it's damaged or has manufacturing defects. 

Wouldn't fly due the CRA, but hey you made the choice to pay less right? 

That example doesn't quite work. Would have been better if you had said:

I'm selling furniture, you can pay £120 and return it for a full refund within 14 days if you change your mind or you can pay £100 and can't change your mind and return it.

Personally i'd be pretty happy to be given an option like that.

Both are the same really in that you are paying less to waive your rights, or paying more to have them, depending upon which way you look at it.

You may make an informed decision and not need the right to cancel, I may not care if my furniture isn’t perfect, each to their own on that one  

However the legislation isn’t looking at the individual but a general overview with the end goal of inspiring confidence and keeping the wheels turning. 

In the hypotheticals both examples are certainly not the same. It's not to do with damage. I'm talking about a simple change of mind because you don't want it. Same as with the hotel room.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

In the hypotheticals both examples are certainly not the same. It's not to do with damage. I'm talking about a simple change of mind because you don't want it. Same as with the hotel room.

I understand your point that on the face of it it appears a closer parallel due to the change of mind aspect but ultimately both are the same in that you would be paying less to forfeit a right afforded to you.  

GDB2222

I’d just say that the fact someone has sued and been given a refund doesn’t mean that a court has ruled on the case. Many companies will steadfastly refuse a refund until proceedings have been issued, and then cave in rather than defend the case.