Discrimination over single person holiday

Options
2

Comments

  • hcb42
    hcb42 Posts: 5,962 Forumite
    Options
    sounds more like an error than a deliberate strategy i would guess...might be something as simple as the rate is not loaded against the occupancy.........? Might also be them yielding to ensure greater occupancy, but I would check/challenge.
  • arcon5
    arcon5 Posts: 14,099 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Give them the name of a second person who "might" be attending with you :)
  • boobies
    boobies Posts: 283 Forumite
    Options
    arcon5 wrote: »
    Give them the name of a second person who "might" be attending with you :)

    It's for five people, so still likely to attract an under occupancy charge. ;)

    I know of someone that bought holiday accom from ebay for one of the Radisson resorts in Malta. The ad specified that it had to be a couple (timeshare resort). She went on her own and was turned away. :o
  • arcon5
    arcon5 Posts: 14,099 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    boobies wrote: »
    It's for five people, so still likely to attract an under occupancy charge. ;)

    Give them 4 extra names then :D

    I know of someone that bought holiday accom from ebay for one of the Radisson resorts in Malta. The ad specified that it had to be a couple (timeshare resort). She went on her own and was turned away. :o

    :eek:

    On what grounds?


    Maybe i'm missing something, but I don't understand the logic if it's a villa
  • JimmyTheWig
    JimmyTheWig Posts: 12,199 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Options
    Depends on the set-up. If it's in a block then there might be facilities that they hope will be paid for.

    The only other explanation I can find is if it is a shared villa, where the OP is having one room. The price quoted would be per person, but with a suppliment for single people, which would be reasonable.
    Would also explain why someone (on a Money Saving website) wanted a five person villa for themselves!
  • fluffnutter
    fluffnutter Posts: 23,179 Forumite
    Options
    boobies wrote: »
    It does not fall into one of the protected groups, and why should it - it is simply targeted marketing, nothing wrong with that (and I am a single traveller).

    What are the protected groups?
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    Options
    fluffnutter wrote: »
    What are the protected groups?

    See http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/equality/law/principles/#characteristics
  • fluffnutter
    fluffnutter Posts: 23,179 Forumite
    Options
    antrobus wrote: »
    See http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/equality/law/principles/#characteristics

    See, this is what I thought which is why I asked. It includes marriage/civil partnership. So by that token, isn't placing a premium on someone holidaying alone in breach of this?

    Of course that person could be married and merely choosing to holiday alone, but that's a bit of a loophole IMO. Essentially charging a single person more because they are single is falling foul of discrimination law, isn't it?
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    Options
    fluffnutter wrote: »
    ...
    Of course that person could be married and merely choosing to holiday alone, but that's a bit of a loophole IMO. ..

    I imagine that would be the very loophole that the coach and horses would be driven through.
  • fluffnutter
    fluffnutter Posts: 23,179 Forumite
    Options
    antrobus wrote: »
    I imagine that would be the very loophole that the coach and horses would be driven through.

    No doubt.

    Even so, the majority of people holidaying alone probably are single (and possibly paying a premium as a result). Why isn't this challenged more often? I can't see that it's legal personally.
    "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.3K Life & Family
  • 248.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards