Hotel Booking - Made by phone, consumer protection?

[tt601]

Cant find a definitive answer, be interested if anyone has investigated similar.

Tuesday morning, booked a single nights Hotel room by telephone for the following Monday. No website involved. Saturday midday, plans changed ( ferry cancelled, can’t now get to hotel).

Over a period of 8 hours phone hotel, left messages/voicemails to try to discuss options. No reply , no return calls, no response from the hotel whatsoever, no contact.

1900 on sat eve received email from hotel headed ‘ Booking Confirmation’ . No seen or received this document previously at all. Finally managed to speak to hotel later sat evening, they advised that no cancellation option.

Looked at bit closer at this v late Booking Confirmation’ contains link to some T s and Cs, key one of which is ‘ any cancellation must be min 3 days before’, yet they only sent me this info 2 days before - so withholding key Ts and Cs from me, and then only sending when too late.

Did some digging, hotel had plenty of rooms still available on the night we had planned, so I have not prevented other people booking. Happy to understand an admin charge, but an email to hotel suggesting refund ( less admin) given the non supply of booking confirmation, and no loss of revenue got a zero response, no reply , no acknowledgement , nothing.

After some degree of chasing a one sentence reply was - Ts and Cs are in booking email ( that they delayed sending me ) or on website, which I didnt use.

Question, given the lack of detail/confirmation provided in response to a booking made by telephone , is there any consumer protection - ive had a look but can’t get to a confirmed position.

Hotels position is quite clear - kkkk off.!

Any thoughts?

[FlyVintage]

For what it’s worth, distance selling regulations don’t apply to hotel bookings so one could reasonably expect hotel terms and conditions to apply.

[Simpo Two]

Does 'booked' also mean 'paid for?

[InitialDave]

I assume that the "ferry cancelled" means the ferry operator cancelled that sailing from under you, and there was not an alternative offered?

Hmm.

I think that even if it's possible to win the argument with the hotel, just claiming from your travel insurance may be the path of least resistance here.

[tt601]

Thanks for comments. Re distance selling I sort of agree but I find some references to leisure type bookings being covered but can find detail.

Yes it was indeed paid for at the time of booking -c card.

Whilst I agree that travel insurance may be the last resort I have the time and inclination without stressing just to see if the hotel is being very ‘ sharp’ with its practices-eg not sending out booking confirmation until it’s too late etc.

The Mcferry? Yes that was a ‘ the ferry due to take you on Monday ( this being sat) isn’t turning up. Here’s your money back -soz….

[48k]

FlyVintage said:

For what it s worth, distance selling regulations don t apply to hotel bookings so one could reasonably expect hotel terms and conditions to apply.

Not quite true. Consumer Contracts legislation (what people refer to as distance selling regulations) do cover hotel bookings by phone.

However hotel bookings ("leisure bookings for specific dates") are one of the exclusions from the 14 day cooling off period.

So under the regs, they should have told him over the phone that cancellations are not allowed. (key terms and conditions should be provided before booking)

[Simpo Two]

tt601 said:

Yes it was indeed paid for at the time of booking -c card.

Whilst I agree that travel insurance may be the last resort I have the time and inclination without stressing just to see if the hotel is being very sharp with its practices-eg not sending out booking confirmation until it s too late etc.

The Mcferry? Yes that was a the ferry due to take you on Monday ( this being sat) isn t turning up. Here s your money back -soz .

I think this is quite easy.

1) You could point out to the hotel that the first you knew of the 3-day cancellation period was in the e-mail they sent you 2 days before departure. However if they're the sort who simply hide when faced with a problem, then:

2) Credit card chargeback or Section 75. It's not difficult - call up your CC company and explain what happened, and that you've tried to work with the hotel but they're ignoring you. They will advise you which way is best.

[OPUT]

Simpo Two said:

I think this is quite easy.

1) You could point out to the hotel that the first you knew of the 3-day cancellation period was in the e-mail they sent you 2 days before departure. However if they're the sort who simply hide when faced with a problem, then:

2) Credit card chargeback or Section 75. It's not difficult - call up your CC company and explain what happened, and that you've tried to work with the hotel but they're ignoring you. They will advise you which way is best.

regarding option 2.

Coincidently, I called my credit card company this morning.

A company (no name and shame), had decided to add "additional charges" to service completed a week ago. I emailed them at the correct address stating I contested the charge without any justification and saying they had 7 days to refund or explain. No response.

The call took 45 minutes and they repeatedly tried to duck doing anything. Eventually they did agree to open a case which might result in my getting a refund.

I certainly wouldn't say that they advise me, I had to kick them into agreeing to take action.

[omniflow]

For UK holidays, my Travel Insurance only covers hotel stays of 2 nights or more. Not sure if yours is the same.

[tt601]

48k said:

Not quite true. Consumer Contracts legislation (what people refer to as distance selling regulations) do cover hotel bookings by phone.

However hotel bookings ("leisure bookings for specific dates") are one of the exclusions from the 14 day cooling off period.

So under the regs, they should have told him over the phone that cancellations are not allowed. (key terms and conditions should be provided before booking)

That sounds v interesting and vaguely familiar to what I had in the back of my mind. I dont suppose you have any more detailed pointers or a link to where I can read/extract the detail please?

[tt601]

Simpo Two said:

I think this is quite easy.

1) You could point out to the hotel that the first you knew of the 3-day cancellation period was in the e-mail they sent you 2 days before departure. However if they're the sort who simply hide when faced with a problem, then:

2) Credit card chargeback or Section 75. It's not difficult - call up your CC company and explain what happened, and that you've tried to work with the hotel but they're ignoring you. They will advise you which way is best.

thanks, I did 1) and they didnt reply , noir to the second email pointing this out. At that stage I then called my bank. The initial phone call with the bank was promising suggesting it was exactly the sort of thing which S 75 was for and with encouragement to submit the detail and evidence which I did.

The banks decision however... and I quote


"We appreciate your position and understand that you believe the late provision of booking information affected your ability to amend the reservation. However, having reviewed the information available, we are unable to assist further with a chargeback claim in this instance.

The basis of a chargeback requires evidence that the goods or services paid for were not provided, were not as described, or that another applicable chargeback condition has been met. In this case, the accommodation remained available for use on the booked dates and there is no evidence that the merchant failed to provide the accommodation that was purchased.

While we acknowledge your concerns regarding the hotel's communication and their response to your enquiries, disputes relating to the merchant's customer service, administrative processes, or their handling of requests to amend a booking do not give rise to a valid chargeback right under the card scheme rules. As the accommodation was available and capable of being used as booked, we are unable to raise a chargeback against the merchant"


so no S 75 it would appear....

[slievenashaska]

tt601 said:

thanks, I did 1) and they didnt reply , noir to the second email pointing this out. At that stage I then called my bank. The initial phone call with the bank was promising suggesting it was exactly the sort of thing which S 75 was for and with encouragement to submit the detail and evidence which I did.

The banks decision however... and I quote


"We appreciate your position and understand that you believe the late provision of booking information affected your ability to amend the reservation. However, having reviewed the information available, we are unable to assist further with a chargeback claim in this instance.

The basis of a chargeback requires evidence that the goods or services paid for were not provided, were not as described, or that another applicable chargeback condition has been met. In this case, the accommodation remained available for use on the booked dates and there is no evidence that the merchant failed to provide the accommodation that was purchased.

While we acknowledge your concerns regarding the hotel's communication and their response to your enquiries, disputes relating to the merchant's customer service, administrative processes, or their handling of requests to amend a booking do not give rise to a valid chargeback right under the card scheme rules. As the accommodation was available and capable of being used as booked, we are unable to raise a chargeback against the merchant"


so no S 75 it would appear....

Your bank is considering it as a *chargeback* claim and not a *s75* claim - they are different. Very different.

Chargebacks are a commercial offering with no legislative backing and are more related to 'you ordered something and it didn't turn up' situations.

A s75 claim has legislative backing and places the bank jointly and severally liable with the retailer, but it only applies to purchases costing more than £100 (£100.01 and up) up to £30,000.

You need to insist the bank considers this as a s75 claim, and then if they still disagree you can refer it on to the Financial Ombudsman (which they won't want to happen).

[tt601]

slievenashaska said:

Your bank is considering it as a *chargeback* claim and not a *s75* claim - they are different. Very different.

Chargebacks are a commercial offering with no legislative backing and are more related to 'you ordered something and it didn't turn up' situations.

A s75 claim has legislative backing and places the bank jointly and severally liable with the retailer, but it only applies to purchases costing more than £100 (£100.01 and up) up to £30,000.

You need to insist the bank considers this as a s75 claim, and then if they still disagree you can refer it on to the Financial Ombudsman (which they won't want to happen).

thanks!

[48k]

tt601 said:

48k said:

Not quite true. Consumer Contracts legislation (what people refer to as distance selling regulations) do cover hotel bookings by phone.

However hotel bookings ("leisure bookings for specific dates") are one of the exclusions from the 14 day cooling off period.

So under the regs, they should have told him over the phone that cancellations are not allowed. (key terms and conditions should be provided before booking)

That sounds v interesting and vaguely familiar to what I had in the back of my mind. I dont suppose you have any more detailed pointers or a link to where I can read/extract the detail please?

https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/cont...

And actually I was incorrect about having to provide cancellation terms over the phone, as regulation 6 states that regulations 7-19 shall not apply to "contracts for the provision of accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services, where the supplier undertakes, when the contract is concluded, to provide these services on a specific date or within a specific period." and regulation 7 states the information that must be provided prior to conclusion of the contract (which includes cancellation terms) so therefore does not apply.

[paul_c123]

I don't think a Section 75 claim will be successful either. It boils down to, "is the fact they didn't provide cancellation terms in time to cancel", not "did they not provide the product/service promised". Both sides (and the bank) agree that the service was made available.

[qwerty360]

paul_c123 said:

I don't think a Section 75 claim will be successful either. It boils down to, "is the fact they didn't provide cancellation terms in time to cancel", not "did they not provide the product/service promised". Both sides (and the bank) agree that the service was made available.

Yep.

I would also note that afaik there isn't any requirement for a hotel contract to actually have agreed conditions re cancellation. The legal requirements in the UK are cancellation fees must be reasonable.

T&C's defining an agreement on what is reasonable make it easier for them to enforce, but can still be argued in court. The reason for them is the more marginal 'nothing 90 days before, half 60 days, full 30 days' conditions.



i.e. them going 'no cancellation' on a booking in 12 months for peak season when they are already full would likely have a court go 'you can bill them £10-20 for payment processing fees, regardless of what conditions say. But I suspect charging full costs is reasonable on 3 days notice. T&C's saying no cancellation a year in advance - I expect a court would tell them they can basically charge admin fees - so a few % to cover bank charges. A month, plausibly the same. 2-3 days, especially over a weekend and they can argue supporting services (any catering (breakfast), scheduling staff to clean rooms etc) has already been done. So its likely reasonable.


the obvious counter point to 'they should have given T&C's before the contract was made over the phone' being how happy would people be to spend 20+ minutes on the phone carefully going through T&C's when trying to book emergency accommodation when the ferry is cancelled/car breaks down/flight delayed/home caught fire etc...

[loskie]

why didnt you email them? Why didn't you look at the ts and cs online? You are able to do plenty of posting here.

Sympathies with any business' directly affected by the poor ferry service. This is in Scotland I presume?
These cancellations can and will close down business'. They would have to charge much higher rates (rates are high enough) to sustain refunds for issues outwith their control.

It's why folks need(quality) travel insurance although most that do only think they need it for foreign holidays.

[alscar]

paul_c123 said:

I don't think a Section 75 claim will be successful either. It boils down to, "is the fact they didn't provide cancellation terms in time to cancel", not "did they not provide the product/service promised". Both sides (and the bank) agree that the service was made available.

Would agree.
Banks aren’t there to replace Travel Insurance although usually that only comes into play in excess of 2 or more nights.
As already said , email from you cancelling might have stood you in some better stead with the hotel.
Appealing to their better nature and suggesting a visit at some other time may work albeit perhaps only to the tune of a credit note.

[paul_c123]

The whole concept of being able to buy something then obtain a full refund is something of a luxury. I can understand why the law is in place for online and other distance selling channels, for physical products, since you can't inspect the item in a shop. And I can understand why certain businesses might offer it as an additional incentive to choose them over competitors; or might choose to offer 2 prices - for example Travelodge stays can be booked with/without free cancellation protection.

Of course these are quite distinct from the "short term right to reject" if a product is faulty; or a full refund of a service promised but not delivered.

[skyebear]

Unless it was paid for with a credit card, all this talk of Section 75 is redundant.

The fact the hotel still has rooms available for that night strengthens rather than weakens their case not to provide a refund. If the hotel was full you could argue they'd easily resell your room and the law frowns on no refunds in this circumstance.

Was your trip for business or leisure? Where was the hotel?