Non refundable hotel booking - what are my ACTUAL rights?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

It’s also rare that hotels are completely fully booked, so unlikely to sell that room again. Especially at short notice so why should the hotel lose out simply because someone has changed their mind and could have chosen an option to cancel penalty-free if they want. 

The CMA talks of the trader benefiting from a windfall when the consumer decides to not go ahead. 

Ideally finding another customer so the losing out is only costs which can be retained, where not possible costs which the trader doesn't suffer if the consumer doesn't go ahead would be a windfall if retained, for a hotel that is things like cleaning, utilities and any food that forms part of the booking. 

I understand your point about not being fully booked and perhaps for a standard Travel Lodge room that's fair enough but most hotels have varying rooms, someone who books a family room won't book a single, someone who books a suite won't book a standard double, availability by room class appears a fair measure IMHO.

powerful_Rogue said:

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

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

I know little to nothing about trains so the following is from looking on Google, it seems train tickets are refundable (possibly with an admin fee of up to £10) with the exception of advance tickets (that being a certain type of ticket rather than the general use of the word advance) which are aimed at off-peak so much less likely to find another customer and perhaps a train doesn't have a per customer cost in the same way a hotel or airline does? 

Part 3 (right to cancel) of the CCRs does not apply to passenger transport services so it's unclear to me why they offer a refund on any ticket.  

Grumpy_chap said:

The learned knowledge of our law makers.

I mean that seriously.  When laws are written, behind all the Parliament showcasing on TV, there is a rigorous process of review and challenge by professional experts.  It is why apparently simple matters can result in pages of legislation.  It is not unknown for legislation to include references or create amendments to other legislation.

Both the CRA and the CCRs are available to read online and, unlike a lot of legislation, are written in pretty friendly language. 

Wouldn't you want to know if what you think "must" be actually is by checking it? 

hpuse

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 

Not just time bound, may be it is worth pointing out that the comparative model used - succinctly - one is product and the other is service. CRA/CMA is miles polar for both.

MobileSaver

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.

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

For what it's worth, I think there are two flaw in yours and @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head's reasoning. 

Firstly, you are assuming that keeping the full amount paid is a disproportionately high sum with no evidence to back that up. Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Many businesses in many different industries offer "loss-leader" deals whereby the business only makes a profit if the customer buys additional goods/services and/or (as in this case) if the customer doesn't actually use the service.

Assuming a typical few hundred pounds a night room, I'd suggest £100 cheaper for the same room would be easily defended by the hotel as being both proportional and fair and hence no refund would not be considered unfair.

hpuse

MobileSaver said:

Firstly, you are assuming that keeping the full amount paid is a disproportionately high sum with no evidence to back that up. Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Many businesses in many different industries offer "loss-leader" deals whereby the business only makes a profit if the customer buys additional goods/services and/or (as in this case) if the customer doesn't actually use the service.

Assuming a typical few hundred pounds a night room, I'd suggest £100 cheaper for the same room would be easily defended by the hotel as being both proportional and fair and hence no refund would not be considered unfair.

Lookup for spoilage accounting policies. It differs from company to company even within the same industry.
In fact by refunding customer £100 - its perfectly valid in the accounting rulebooks for the company to write it off as spoilage, allowing them to offset the tax.
There are many comparable models within Service industry where the consumer is not penalised due to no shows. The obvious one is Car rental if booked directly to be paid at the counter (i.e not prepaid rates). Even if the company is holding the card details, the ‘reputable’ ones generally do not bother to charge the customer for no shows even if the T&C’s allow them to.  Of course the ‘greedy’ ones backed by their finance needs may still do!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MobileSaver said: Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Which is why we look to the guidance on what maybe unfair, in it's opinion.

MobileSaver said:

Firstly, you are assuming that keeping the full amount paid is a disproportionately high sum with no evidence to back that up. 

Again we look to the guidance which discusses this...

MobileSaver said:

Many businesses in many different industries offer "loss-leader" deals whereby the business only makes a profit if the customer buys additional goods/services and/or (as in this case) if the customer doesn't actually use the service.

Assuming a typical few hundred pounds a night room, I'd suggest £100 cheaper for the same room would be easily defended by the hotel as being both proportional and fair and hence no refund would not be considered unfair.

Many businesses also charge a premium for enhanced services, particularly in the leisure industry. A hotel could could profit more from the flexible tickets rather than lose out on non-flexible (from a base rate point of view), which is more likely (in my IMHO) than selling non-refundable rooms at a loss. 

As an aside, I don't think flexible rooms at that much more expensive per night?

MobileSaver

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MobileSaver said: Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Which is why we look to the guidance on what maybe unfair, in it's opinion.

We do and that is why I still think you are wrong regarding this for two different reasons...

Fundamentally the guidance says the test of fairness is only against the standard terms (i.e. the "small print" as it's commonly known), core terms that set the price and subject matter (e.g. Double Room Non Refundable £150 vs Double Room Fully Refundable £250) are exempt.

Furthermore the guidance states that a consumer/supplier rights imbalance in itself is not an unfair term; to be unfair it must also be "contrary to the requirements of good faith".

It then defines "good faith" as expressing fully, clearly and legibly the terms and conditions and that the supplier is "not to take advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience". For me, offering the OP the choice of the same room with £100 difference for non-refundable versus fully-refundable easily passes the good faith test and hence again the term is not unfair even if your take on how rooms are priced was accepted.

born_again

This is a simple issue to solve.
Allow retailer to offer both non refundable & refundable option & price as they see fit. Leave the consumer to think about the risk involved.
As per this case & OP chose the cheaper option then wants a refund. 

Hoenir

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

It’s also rare that hotels are completely fully booked, so unlikely to sell that room again. Especially at short notice so why should the hotel lose out simply because someone has changed their mind and could have chosen an option to cancel penalty-free if they want. 

Ideally finding another customer so the losing out is only costs which can be retained, where not possible costs which the trader doesn't suffer if the consumer doesn't go ahead would be a windfall if retained, for a hotel that is things like cleaning, utilities and any food that forms part of the booking. 

Who is going to cover the cost of  performing this very detailed cost calculation ?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MobileSaver said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MobileSaver said: Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Which is why we look to the guidance on what maybe unfair, in it's opinion.

We do and that is why I still think you are wrong regarding this for two different reasons...

Fundamentally the guidance says the test of fairness is only against the standard terms (i.e. the "small print" as it's commonly known), core terms that set the price and subject matter (e.g. Double Room Non Refundable £150 vs Double Room Fully Refundable £250) are exempt.

Furthermore the guidance states that a consumer/supplier rights imbalance in itself is not an unfair term; to be unfair it must also be "contrary to the requirements of good faith".

It then defines "good faith" as expressing fully, clearly and legibly the terms and conditions and that the supplier is "not to take advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience". For me, offering the OP the choice of the same room with £100 difference for non-refundable versus fully-refundable easily passes the good faith test and hence again the term is not unfair even if your take on how rooms are priced was accepted.

Pleasure to read a post based on consumer rights

I disagree the term relates directly to the price, it relates to termination without any justification for doing so. 

You are correct about the core subject matter which I understood to mean the thing being purchased (in this kind of scenario), I.e the hotel room. 

If the “non-refundable” aspect also relates to the core subject matter why does the CAA talk of airlines refunding customers for things like airport taxes (which the airline won’t pay if the customer cancels)? 

Yes correct regarding weaker bargaining position and the CMA notes that it is rarely in the interest of the trader not to continue with the contract compared to the consumer’s interest in not continuing, as a result merely offering the same “compensation” should the trader be the one pulling out doesn’t necessarily create fairness which then leads to the matter of retaining payment minus the costs not suffered. 

MobileSaver

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MobileSaver said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MobileSaver said: Secondly the legislation explicitly states "may be regarded as unfair" not "is an unfair term".

Which is why we look to the guidance on what maybe unfair, in it's opinion.

We do and that is why I still think you are wrong regarding this for two different reasons...

Fundamentally the guidance says the test of fairness is only against the standard terms (i.e. the "small print" as it's commonly known), core terms that set the price and subject matter (e.g. Double Room Non Refundable £150 vs Double Room Fully Refundable £250) are exempt.

Furthermore the guidance states that a consumer/supplier rights imbalance in itself is not an unfair term; to be unfair it must also be "contrary to the requirements of good faith".

It then defines "good faith" as expressing fully, clearly and legibly the terms and conditions and that the supplier is "not to take advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience". For me, offering the OP the choice of the same room with £100 difference for non-refundable versus fully-refundable easily passes the good faith test and hence again the term is not unfair even if your take on how rooms are priced was accepted.

I disagree the term relates directly to the price, it relates to termination without any justification for doing so. 

You are correct about the core subject matter which I understood to mean the thing being purchased (in this kind of scenario), I.e the hotel room.

Clause 19.12 of the Unfair contract terms guidance clearly explains what Core Terms are: "Terms which define what is being purchased under the contract, or set the price to be paid, are exempt from the test of fairness to the extent that the consumer is able to read and understand them".

The OP knew in advance that they could buy the same room at different prices either with or without a refund option and so the "non-refundable" part was obviously a Core Term and therefore "fairness" is a non-issue anyway.

To answer the OP's question, their actual consumer rights were to stay in the room on the night they paid for or cancel the stay and lose the full amount that they paid.

I am confident that going to court would be an expensive way to confirm this and is why there is little or no case law which supports your viewpoint.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am sure that there will be a tiny number of shady hoteliers who hide the fact that the booking is non-refundable, in which case your approach could work from a legal viewpoint, but the OP booked through a legit site that made it abundantly clear what they were signing up to.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If the “non-refundable” aspect also relates to the core subject matter why does the CAA talk of airlines refunding customers for things like airport taxes (which the airline won’t pay if the customer cancels)? 

Who knows? Perhaps all airlines/intermediaries don't make taxes as clear a core term of the booking? Irrelevant to the OP though as they didn't book a flight.