Holiday cottage not as described

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sorry OP, just a thought, did you happen to pay with a credit card?

XX44HAM44XX

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sorry OP, just a thought, did you happen to pay with a credit card?

Yes it was paid with a credit card

visidigi

XX44HAM44XX said:

elsien said:

1. Regardless of the picture, you say you expected the apartment was yours - did the written description of the property include the use of the garage/apartment? And did you have the number of bedrooms etc you were informed you were getting? If so im still struggling to see any misdescription in terms of direct facilities.

2. Just a point for those saying report to the council - I have stayed in a converted garage before now. It was a studio rather than an  apartment, but had a shower room and kitchenette -and planning permission. 

The written description made no mention of the apartment and yes we got the rooms and facilities described so there was no loss of "direct facilities" however it was misdescribed as detached with private parking which it wasn't which caused us to choose this property which we never would have done if the listing was not wrong.

The holiday company are updating the listing to reflect the misdescription/omission of fact

Private parking doesn't mean, like I think you are interpreting it, as a private drive.

It just means there is a space on the drive to park in that is private property.

Like others I think 10% at best is what you'll get.

Grumpy_chap

XX44HAM44XX said:

don't allude to this in any way being our fault for inconveniencing the privacy of an apartment we were not told about 

I did not mean to allude to the breach of privacy as being your fault, so apologise if that is how what I wrote came across.

It is just you described how 

XX44HAM44XX said:

we were left looking directly into their apartment (towels and washing  hanging out of windows drying, blinds open) which was awkward and certainly offered no  privacy

It seemed to me that the people suffering the greatest loss of privacy was the people in the apartment, whereas your loss of privacy was related to being seen on the driveway which, very typically, is an area where you would reasonable expect to be able to be seen from public areas / neighbouring properties.


The offer of £50 that you have is, possibly, towards the mean side.  I also think the counter position you indicated of 25% (£400 to £500) would be unrealistic.  This type of compensation is not really linked to monetary loss, but an apology for potentially unquantifiable inconvenience.  It is a token gesture.  Maybe you could push for a £100.  Maybe you should accept the £50 and move on.  Had the venue sent you a bouquet of flowers, or a gift voucher for a meal out, or half-a-dozen bottles of mail-order wine, the value would be similar to the £50 but without the clearly stated monetary value that might well have been better received (?)


I am not sure that anything will be able to be demonstrated (or worth the effort that it would take to demonstrate) that there has actually been a breach of contract / item not as described.  This will hinge on the devil in the detail but.  You did receive the amount of rooms that you were expecting.  You did have the use of the private drive (you don't say "secluded" or "not overlooked" drive).  You were in the detached house.  The whole part of the issue seems to stem from the detached house having an integral annex.  It is not clear to me that a court (or CC S75 investigation) would hold that up as a breach.  Even if it were to be held up as a breach, it is not clear to me that there would be significant damages awarded.

I have stayed in venues in the past where the "coach house suites" were described as "detached form the manor house" and with "private parking".  What that really meant was the two coach house suites were each on half of a semi-detached building and the parking was the last two spaces (one for each of the two "coach house suites") at the end of the row of parking spaces in the car park.  Everyone and their dog walked across the "private parking" between the car park and the main hotel / restaurant.
In this example, and the example I posted upthread, and the example @TELLIT01 shared upthread, the devil is in the detail - the brochure paints the rosiest picture, the reality needs to be interpreted with more critical eye, but the devil is often factually correct.

If you wish to share the link to the property, I am sure the forum will look for arguments to support your view it was misleading and the counter view which might inform your decision to seek more.

FWIW - I would either just accept the £50, or make one request that £50 is insufficient and try for £100.  Sometimes, a request is easier to agree to if the cost to the venue is less, so a free meal in their restaurant but there may not be any comparable request that is viable.

Alderbank

We have stayed, with our dogs, at quite a few different AirBnB houses around the UK.

Without exception the garage was locked and contained the owner's personal stuff (although never, so far as we knew, the owner's children!)

You say the parts of the property which were available to you were correctly listed. I don't think you have a strong case.

XX44HAM44XX

Grumpy_chap said:

XX44HAM44XX said:

don't allude to this in any way being our fault for inconveniencing the privacy of an apartment we were not told about 

I did not mean to allude to the breach of privacy as being your fault, so apologise if that is how what I wrote came across.

It is just you described how 

XX44HAM44XX said:

we were left looking directly into their apartment (towels and washing  hanging out of windows drying, blinds open) which was awkward and certainly offered no  privacy

It seemed to me that the people suffering the greatest loss of privacy was the people in the apartment, whereas your loss of privacy was related to being seen on the driveway which, very typically, is an area where you would reasonable expect to be able to be seen from public areas / neighbouring properties.


The offer of £50 that you have is, possibly, towards the mean side.  I also think the counter position you indicated of 25% (£400 to £500) would be unrealistic.  This type of compensation is not really linked to monetary loss, but an apology for potentially unquantifiable inconvenience.  It is a token gesture.  Maybe you could push for a £100.  Maybe you should accept the £50 and move on.  Had the venue sent you a bouquet of flowers, or a gift voucher for a meal out, or half-a-dozen bottles of mail-order wine, the value would be similar to the £50 but without the clearly stated monetary value that might well have been better received (?)


I am not sure that anything will be able to be demonstrated (or worth the effort that it would take to demonstrate) that there has actually been a breach of contract / item not as described.  This will hinge on the devil in the detail but.  You did receive the amount of rooms that you were expecting.  You did have the use of the private drive (you don't say "secluded" or "not overlooked" drive).  You were in the detached house.  The whole part of the issue seems to stem from the detached house having an integral annex.  It is not clear to me that a court (or CC S75 investigation) would hold that up as a breach.  Even if it were to be held up as a breach, it is not clear to me that there would be significant damages awarded.

I have stayed in venues in the past where the "coach house suites" were described as "detached form the manor house" and with "private parking".  What that really meant was the two coach house suites were each on half of a semi-detached building and the parking was the last two spaces (one for each of the two "coach house suites") at the end of the row of parking spaces in the car park.  Everyone and their dog walked across the "private parking" between the car park and the main hotel / restaurant.
In this example, and the example I posted upthread, and the example @TELLIT01 shared upthread, the devil is in the detail - the brochure paints the rosiest picture, the reality needs to be interpreted with more critical eye, but the devil is often factually correct.

If you wish to share the link to the property, I am sure the forum will look for arguments to support your view it was misleading and the counter view which might inform your decision to seek more.

FWIW - I would either just accept the £50, or make one request that £50 is insufficient and try for £100.  Sometimes, a request is easier to agree to if the cost to the venue is less, so a free meal in their restaurant but there may not be any comparable request that is viable.

Thanks, slight misunderstanding there, I get what you mean about the privacy, it wasn't private for anyone though they live there so know the situation.

I wasn't sure what was reasonable and fair to ask for and expect, it seems there are a few differing opinions in the replies ranging from the £50 or just more to 25%

Here's a link to the property, 

https://www.holidaycottages.co.uk/cottage/89241-morethanporth

Our entrance was up the steps to the right, the apartment is below the 3 upstairs windows (main part of house) on photo 20

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

XX44HAM44XX said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sorry OP, just a thought, did you happen to pay with a credit card?

Yes it was paid with a credit card

I would be tempted to go via the credit card for a S75 claim stating that fact the family lived in the garage whilst the holiday home was descried as detached was a breach of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Section 226 in that information that the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision was false. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/section/226

and you are seeking the right to redress of a 25% discount under Section 27l of the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/27I

I would also throw in £83 per person for loss of enjoyment. 

CC will probably push back as this kind of stuff is outside the day to day "my TV broke" but you can always raise an official complaint with the bank if they aren't being helpful which might given them a nudge. 

Whilst the bank will end up paying rather than the home owner it might get some money back. 

DeathByFluffy

I'd be very unhappy about this - I'm sensitive to noise and specifically book detached properties (where I can) to deal with this. Finding out it essentially isn't detached would be a pretty big issue! 

I'd be aiming for 25% as a refund amount - but maybe start a bit higher and negotiate down if you feel that'll work better. 
Credit card is also a route you could go, but the only annoying thing is the owner wouldn't be paying for it - the credit card company would. That might not be a factor for you, but I'd want the owner who had mis-listed the property to foot the bill as this kind of thing really annoys me. 

Grumpy_chap

XX44HAM44XX said:

Our entrance was up the steps to the right, the apartment is below the 3 upstairs windows (main part of house) on photo 20

Thanks.

So, the "basement" has it's own access and is fully self-contained.

I think the loss of privacy for the open driveway is a bit of making a mountain out of a mole hill.  They all seem to be open-plan fronts to these properties.

You have said the noise didn't really bother you:

XX44HAM44XX said:

noise could be heard through the floor, not excessive like a noise complaint but normal usage you would expect to hear through floor or walls (TV, hoover, washer, talking etc) from what is basically another room in the same house as us. 

I think it is a devil in the detail thing.
I understand how you understood the listing differently, but that does not necessarily make the listing incorrect.
You seem to be hinging your whole argument on the single word in the listing and I think the property could still be described as "detached".  Particularly if you look at how frequently people query what is detached / semi-detached / terraced / flat / maisonette / bungalow etc in the property boards of these forums it suggests that there is no singular definition in common use for these descriptors and can be open to interpretation.

Having seen the advert, I remain of the opinion that the £50 token apology "go away" money is probably reasonable.  I think I would move on and try to remember the positive times enjoyed on the holiday rather than a protracted issue and cloud the memories any further.

That is all just my opinion.
Others, including @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head have a different opinion and suggest taking a more legal position.

As the individual affected, you have to decipher the differences and the possible opposite extremes and reach your own opinion and then follow the course of action that guides you to.

Sorry, I don't think I can contribute any more at this stage.

Should you decide to pursue a course of action that requires more input, the forum may be able to advice on the process.

The first part of the process to consider, if you think S75 is a route to follow, is whether the supplier - creditor - debtor relationship is maintained through the booking platform used.

littleboo

I'd bit pretty miffed if I booked a detached property, which I always do, and then found part of the property was occupied by someone else. There is a reason for choosing detached.