Non refundable hotel booking - what are my ACTUAL rights?

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.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

Which I made clear back in page 3

Without a higher court ruling on anything it’s all guidance. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

As I said a few posts back, is the entire courier booking system for “parcel cover” broken? 

No case law there either (requires a higher court) but two examples on the board of a lower court deciding the CRA disagreed with the couriers way of doing business with regards to liability when they lose the parcel. 

Anyway I’m off for a nice roast dinner. Happy Easter all  

Grumpy_chap

So, the nearest evidence to the two-tier cancellable and non-cancellable booking for hotel rooms being permitted or not is a vague reference to an entirely different situation for an entirely different application.

I just reviewed again current options, London, two adults arrive 10th May for one night

To stay at The Savoy:
 - Advance saver rate, non-refundable, online payment
 - Flexible rate, no pre-payment, cancellable until 14:00 on 5th May
 - other room rate options are adding breakfast, spa, etc.

Travelodge Covent Garden:
 - Saver rate - non-refundable, date can be amended subject to availability and change fee
 - Flexible rate - fully refundable, free to amend or cancel up until noon on 10th May

Despite this breadth of the two-rate approach, no-one from a "consumer rights champion" standpoint has seen this as an area to challenge.

If there were such a challenge, would this be a case of "be careful what you wish for"?

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

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...

I wouldn't disagree with you - and I don't know what the answer is.

But if you read again that paragraph I've quoted from the legislation, what do you think it means if it doesn't mean that "non-cancellable" terms are unfair?

Why wouldn't it cover the OP's hotel room?  (I might very well be wrong but I don't quite see why it wouldn't apply here)

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

Grumpy_chap said:

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...

I wouldn't disagree with you - and I don't know what the answer is.

But if you read again that paragraph I've quoted from the legislation, what do you think it means if it doesn't mean that "non-cancellable" terms are unfair?

Why wouldn't it cover the OP's hotel room?  (I might very well be wrong but I don't quite see why it wouldn't apply here)

Well, you quoted a paragraph from the CRA.

CCR also covers cancellations and has a specific exclusion for the right to cancel hotel bookings:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/28

There must be something in legislation that aligns CRA and CCA in this regard.

If we took the "right to cancel" and a hotel room, up until which point would you say that cancellation is possible by the customer for a refund to be due?

powerful_Rogue

What about the train ticket you purchased to get to the hotel?

Cheaper tickets you can't cancel, more expensive ones you can.........

powerful_Rogue

@MSE_James - As you can tell, this is something often posted on this board. Any clarity the team can present on this?