Non refundable hotel booking - what are my ACTUAL rights?

hpuse

jax1701 said:

Hi.

What are my ACTUAL consumer rights on this?
Booking made via 3rd party. Choice of rate X at lower price. Non refundable cancellation.
Rate Y, over £100 more, fully refundable.

I understand that there should be a reasonable fee added for admin in the event of cancellation, but moreso if there is little notice as hotel wouldn't be expected to fill the room at last minute.
But the hotel was advertising the room as 'last one available'. Hurry!’ and I was unable to afford the extra £100 for the fully refundable room.

I am disabled, and require assistance and, as such, I thought that I would take out the cancellation insurance. I have since read the very small print about no cancellation due to medical reasons.

The hotel are not willing to refund the room as it was 'prepaid, non refundable rate' whatever that means legally. They could easily cancel and resell the booking. It was made 6 weeks in advance. If the room is regularly filled, surely this means they can refund me?

I won't go into the ins and outs of why I cannot travel, just to say that my disabilities make it a logistical nightmare, and I am unable to travel alone.

I have explained this but the hotel are sticking by their guns.

What are my ACTUAL consumer rights in regards to non refundable room payments? I haven't just changed my mind, I simply am unable to travel and stay.

Please be gentle!

In my view, T&C’s are there as general guideline to protect business’s finances. T&C’s are not always to be treated as a bible of good trading policies & practices.
 
Ethical businesses always merit the consumer first for his individual situation/circumstances, as long as they don’t involve or incur a cost to them.

In your case, since the booking is made via 3rd party agency, you can request the booking agency to contact the hotel on behalf of you to request a refund giving the reason for not making it.  Most last minute cancellations are less likely to be honoured, if booked via 3rd party agency due to the admin work involved in reconciling money moved between various financial ledgers involved in the booking process.
If the booking was made directly with the hotel, the consumer stands a better chance in getting some refund if you call and inform them that you are not going to check-in.
Either ways, do inform about the cancellation to both agency as well as the hotel, and then try requesting a refund.

Clearly, quoting ‘rights’ are less productive for this kind of situations and being gentle and humble may help to achieve the right outcome from a consumer perspective, which, we all are!

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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?

I would find it exceptionally odd that there is no case law supporting your position given you quote the CRA 2015 and every single hotel has the same position... if its such a flagrant breach of the law why has not a single case made it to a court room? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
the CRA is dealing with matters where the consumer fails to fulfil their obligations.  

So maybe thats why you are confused? The OP/consumer hasn't failed to fulfil their obligations, they have paid for the room in full. There is no obligation for them actually to use the room. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
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? 

Not compatible... you are talking about an issue in the control of the merchant and their breach of the contract. The OP's case its not the merchant saying they cannot have the room but have to give up the monies paid anyway but the consumer having a change of mind. 

Would you say a company should have to give a full refund if I return goods unused/unopened 9 months after buying them because as you say they merchant can just sell them again and recover their losses and as its not time restricted, unlike a hotel room, their chances of sale are much higher. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

So maybe thats why you are confused? The OP/consumer hasn't failed to fulfil their obligations, they have paid for the room in full. There is no obligation for them actually to use the room. 

The term is

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.

When referring to this the CMA says

In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end.

Which is what someone not staying in their hotel room is doing. Perhaps reading the document would explain it better than I  

DullGreyGuy said:

Not compatible... you are talking about an issue in the control of the merchant and their breach of the contract. The OP's case its not the merchant saying they cannot have the room but have to give up the monies paid anyway but the consumer having a change of mind. 

As above the consumer is bringing the contract to end (where they have no justification for doing so) and "non-refundable" is paying less to accept a contract with a (possible) unfair term. 

DullGreyGuy said:

I would find it exceptionally odd that there is no case law supporting your position given you quote the CRA 2015 and every single hotel has the same position... if its such a flagrant breach of the law why has not a single case made it to a court room? 

I really don't. Search the case law for Consumer Rights Act and there are very few cases indeed. 

Like I say I'll follow the guidance from the most credible source, I doubt most have read it and are posting what they think is right, which is what 90% of this board is... 

Just to add, there isn't a high court case about courier insurance either but the thread on this board posts two examples where consumer's won in small claims. A perfect example of how something that is not only widespread through an industry but has also been accepted as normal and "fair" may very well not be correct. 

DullGreyGuy

I note you fail to comment on why a consumer shouldn't be allowed to return an unopened/undamaged item indefinitely given the merchant can equally resell it just as you say they could try and resell the hotel room but with less constraints than a hotel room which is clearly time bound 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So maybe thats why you are confused? The OP/consumer hasn't failed to fulfil their obligations, they have paid for the room in full. There is no obligation for them actually to use the room. 

The term is

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.

When referring to this the CMA says

In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end.

Which is what someone not staying in their hotel room is doing. Perhaps reading the document would explain it better than I  

I am not sure that the term quoted (in italics) gives the OP the right to a refund.

In the case being discussed:

1. The OP received a lower room rate in return for being non-cancellable
2. If the OP does not go for any reason, the hotel keeps the full payment.
3. Whether that term (in italics) applies depends on what the booking conditions say about if the hotel cancels.
4. If the hotel cancels and the OP receives a full refund, then the term does not apply.
5. If the hotel cancels but still keeps the money, then the term applies and the contract is unfair.

I really rather suspect that the former (4) will apply and not the later (5) but we'd need to see the details of the conditions that the OP booked under to confirm.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

I note you fail to comment on why a consumer shouldn't be allowed to return an unopened/undamaged item indefinitely given the merchant can equally resell it just as you say they could try and resell the hotel room but with less constraints than a hotel room which is clearly time bound 

Because the contract has been performed….

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So maybe thats why you are confused? The OP/consumer hasn't failed to fulfil their obligations, they have paid for the room in full. There is no obligation for them actually to use the room. 

The term is

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.

When referring to this the CMA says

In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end.

Which is what someone not staying in their hotel room is doing. Perhaps reading the document would explain it better than I  

1. If the hotel cancels and the OP receives a full refund, then the term does not apply.
2. If the hotel cancels but still keeps the money, then the term applies and the contract is unfair.

No that is saying if you pay £150 for a room which you lose if you cancel, in order for there to be balance if the hotel cancels instead of you they should refund and pay £150. 

Again instead of all guessing stuff it really is easier to read the CMA document

Okell

Regardless of whether any court cases have been decided on this point, isn't this covered by para 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the CRA?

"A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been supplied" is an unfair term.

My understanding of those words may be mistaken but to me they seem to be saying that if you book a hotel room and then cancel it, then the hotel is not permitted to keep 100% of your money for a service they never provided to you.  Even if you paid a reduced "non-cancellable" rate.

I'm not suggesting that they have to refund 100%, I'm suggesting that they can't keep 100%.

I'm quite happy for them to retain a reasonable amount as an admin fee or for losses they can prove they've incurred

I think I find the idea that a service provider can retain full payment for a service that is never provided a bit odd from first principles

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So maybe thats why you are confused? The OP/consumer hasn't failed to fulfil their obligations, they have paid for the room in full. There is no obligation for them actually to use the room. 

The term is

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.

When referring to this the CMA says

In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end.

Which is what someone not staying in their hotel room is doing. Perhaps reading the document would explain it better than I  

1. If the hotel cancels and the OP receives a full refund, then the term does not apply.
2. If the hotel cancels but still keeps the money, then the term applies and the contract is unfair.

No that is saying if you pay £150 for a room which you lose if you cancel, in order for there to be balance if the hotel cancels instead of you they should refund and pay £150. 

Again instead of all guessing stuff it really is easier to read the CMA document

Just to highlight that the CMA is guidance and not law.

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

Regardless of whether any court cases have been decided on this point, isn't this covered by para 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the CRA?

"A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been supplied" is an unfair term.

My understanding of those words may be mistaken but to me they seem to be saying that if you book a hotel room and then cancel it, then the hotel is not permitted to keep 100% of your money for a service they never provided to you.  Even if you paid a reduced "non-cancellable" rate.

I'm not suggesting that they have to refund 100%, I'm suggesting that they can't keep 100%.

I'm quite happy for them to retain a reasonable amount as an admin fee or for losses they can prove they've incurred

I think I find the idea that a service provider can retain full payment for a service that is never provided a bit odd from first principles

Thanks, but if things are as clear-cut as you and @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head are suggesting then the whole manner in which hotel bookings function would be broken.

It is extremely common for hotel bookings to be offered at a "flexible - cancellable - refundable rate" and at a lower "no cancellation - no refund rate".  This seem to be across the board for hotel bookings and irrespective of booking platform or direct with hotel and irrespective of class of accommodation whether budget or premium top-end (I even just checked the website for The Savoy and they offer a non-refundable advance saver rate or a flexible rate which can be cancelled, though only up until a five-days before arrival).  If not 100% of hotels that offer the dual rate, it must be very very near to universal.

If all hotels were breaking the law, there would be either case law to evidence the practice as permissible, or some specific rule that is being over-looked by commentators to the thread, or a wide campaign by Which? / Martin Lewis or other consumer champions to have such a wide-spread practice ended.  
I suspect, also, if there were such a campaign and it gained any traction, the outcome would simply be higher costs for everyone.