Holiday cottage not as described

Grumpy_chap

For the suggestions to dob the owners into the Council, this appears to have been done above board, item 10.05 here:
https://newquay.ibabs.org/Agenda/Index/825fd381-84a7-44a6-b5bc-f3dbf9723cc1

mtc95

Okell said:

...
The issue is that the OP has read a "detached property" as meaning "exclusive use of a detached property".

Whether that reading is reasonable or not, I wouldn't like to judge...

The compensation issues aside, I do think that's very reasonable assumption when booking a holiday cottage (unless stated otherwise).

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

That's correct, it ran from front to back under ta least 2 bedrooms and an en suite 

If I looked at that listing and that photo then turned up to find a family living in that bit I wouldn't be happy and really can't see who else would be either.

Grumpy_chap said:

to the most bullish "minimum 25% plus £83")

25% is the min reduction based on a minor breached of the regs, £83 is the bottom end of what case law suggests for a run of the mill holiday (trying to base it on consumer rights rather than my personal opinion )

The OP staying doesn't appear to have any bearing from what I see, it's very much worth reading the link in the first post that covers all the case law on loss of enjoyment which seems to consider the situation greatly, starting from a complaint including the claimant being "in this hotel with no house-party at all, and no one could speak English, except himself" moving on to a complaint about inadequate bedding blankets, to a £2,000 award of wasted expenditure on a wardrobe of formal dining gowns among other things, to the wealthy suffering less loss of enjoyment as they can afford to go on holiday more often and kids suffering less loss of enjoyment because, well they are usually happy any way.

All of which is lot more involved than the usual "get over it" often presented on here  

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

25% is the min reduction based on a minor breached of the regs, 

So, I did look at the link you gave upthread and, to my reading, it did not support the 25% you referenced:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/27I

I have gone back again and think your interpretation of 25% as minimum reduction based on a minor breach may be incorrect.

271 (4) (a) "if the prohibited practice is more than minor, it is 25%,"

So, the minimum deduction is for a "more than minor" breach, not a "minor" breach.

The following clause (5) states how the seriousness is to be assessed.  In this case, it would seem to be 
271 (5) (b) "the impact of the practice on the consumer"

I am not certain that the OP has established that the impact is "more than minor".

It really does not help that the legislation has been written with such friendly phrases as "more than minor"

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

So, the minimum deduction is for a "more than minor" breach, not a "minor" breach.

Yes apologies, it's more than minor, less than serious, I've not seen anything crop up on this board that would IMO warrant a 50% discount as serious and I would disregard anything trivial so would class something that warrants a 25% discount as minor in my opinion, but to the (unhelpful) wording of the regs it is "more than minor" 

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not certain that the OP has established that the impact is "more than minor".

This is the part I would disagree with, it relates specifically to the main characteristics of the product (a product being either goods, service or digital content), looking at that photo I would expect the whole house, not part of it to be housing another family and I think the average person would assume the same. 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said: 

This is the part I would disagree with, it relates specifically to the main characteristics of the product (a product being either goods, service or digital content), looking at that photo I would expect the whole house, not part of it to be housing another family and I think the average person would assume the same. 

I guess there must be more than one of us commenting in this thread that are not average.

Ultimately, though, it will be for the OP to determine the impact as "more than minor" using the legal basis at 271 (5):

(5) The seriousness of the prohibited practice is to be assessed by reference to—

(a)the behaviour of the person who engaged in the practice,

(b)the impact of the practice on the consumer, and

(c)the time that has elapsed since the prohibited practice took place.

Money_Grabber13579

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

So, the minimum deduction is for a "more than minor" breach, not a "minor" breach.

Yes apologies, it's more than minor, less than serious, I've not seen anything crop up on this board that would IMO warrant a 50% discount as serious and I would disregard anything trivial so would class something that warrants a 25% discount as minor in my opinion, but to the (unhelpful) wording of the regs it is "more than minor" 

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not certain that the OP has established that the impact is "more than minor".

This is the part I would disagree with, it relates specifically to the main characteristics of the product (a product being either goods, service or digital content), looking at that photo I would expect the whole house, not part of it to be housing another family and I think the average person would assume the same. 

My view is that, fundamentally, converting the garage to a self contained apartment means that it is no longer a single dwelling and so cannot be described as detached. Perhaps I’m naive but as far as I can see, that building now contains two independently occupiable properties and I don’t see how that is any different to a semi-detached house, other than a semi detached house will typically be split along a vertical line, whereas this is split along a horizontal line.

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Will certainly get a push back as they stayed the full length.

A detached property can have more than one group living in it. All it means is that the property is not attached to any other.

From listing "detached coastal property", which it is.

Sorry I meant would S75 apply?  

OP

Is the bit in red the garage and you had the rest including the upstairs above the garage?

1st thing to know on S75 is who OP paid, holiday let company or actual owner.
Holiday co, then no debtor-creditor link. 

TBH, there is no mention in add about the area where the family were staying. So it would be realistic to think that it was a private area the family may use.

Poster has mentioned let co are changing the listing. Can they do that without owners permission? Not changed yet..

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

1st thing to know on S75 is who OP paid, holiday let company or actual owner.
Holiday co, then no debtor-creditor link. 

The Booking Terms say (clause 1) "We act as agents for the Owner. Therefore, when you make a booking through us the contract to occupy the Property is between you and the Owner." 

It appears as though payment is made to the Agent.

https://www.holidaycottages.co.uk/full-booking-terms

I wonder whether the OP has followed the complaints procedure set out in the terms?

There seem to be several parts of the terms that are not balanced.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP if you are still reading and paid the booking co directly then sadly S75 with the card co won't apply, you of course have the same rights against the owner it's just harder to enforce (bank is regulated and has a large pot of money for S75 so are more likely to pay out than other businesses, especially small ones). 

born_again said:

TBH, there is no mention in add about the area where the family were staying. So it would be realistic to think that it was a private area the family may use.

Are you on the sauce first thing in the morning I would expect the family to live somewhere else! Yeah maybe if this was AirB&B but if booking a holiday cottage though that kind of site I would expect the owner to greet me with the keys (or leave them in a lock box) and then not be seen again.

I'm surprised the booking site is happy to keep the listing with that kind of set up. Reviews are interesting, also surprised no one else has mentioned it but maybe the family hasn't been in the garage that long?