Regrettably, Alex Brummer’s experience follows a predictable pattern that many have encountered. The typical scenario involves a disinterested letting agent who deflects responsibility to an anonymous property owner with whom direct contact is often nonexistent.
For individuals like Alex who have had disappointing holiday experiences, understanding their rights is crucial. When booking a combination of accommodation and travel, whether domestically or internationally, the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 generally provide protection. These regulations grant consumers various safeguards, including the right to seek remedies, such as compensation, if the holiday fails to meet its description.
However, most staycations fall outside the scope of these regulations as they primarily involve booking accommodations alone. Consequently, individuals like Alex and his family cannot rely on them. Instead, their protection derives from the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that UK property owners and holiday providers must provide accommodation that meets reasonable standards of cleanliness and safety.
Considering the issues encountered by Alex’s family, such as problems with the TV, a sofa emitting animal urine odors, a leaky shower, and a malfunctioning hot water system, it is evident that these failures likely contravened this legislation.
Apart from legal protections, Alex’s family is entitled to the specific accommodation described on the Suffolk Secrets website. This requirement entails not only an accurate description but also the inclusion of any pertinent information that could influence the decision to proceed with the booking. In this case, Alex asserts that knowledge of the adjacent construction site would have deterred their reservation. Thus, the responsibility to communicate this information lies with the property owner or holiday provider.
To fully comprehend the contractual dynamics, it is important to recognize that Suffolk Secrets fulfills the role of an “agent” under the law. Simply put, they function as intermediaries by advertising accommodations and facilitating bookings between consumers and property owners. Consequently, the contract in this scenario is between Alex’s son-in-law and the property owner, as stated in the terms and conditions provided by Suffolk Secrets.
Although property owners often seek refuge in such terms and conditions when faced with problems, I believe it does not absolve them of their duty to notify Alex’s family about the construction works, either at the point of booking or, at the very least, before the start of the holiday.
Considering the flaws in the holiday experience, Alex and his family are clearly entitled to compensation. Had they opted to reject the accommodation, they could have claimed a full refund and potentially sought compensation for any inconveniences and expenses resulting from the property owner’s breach of contract. Since they chose to stay despite the issues, the compensation offered would be in the form of a price reduction, as already accepted. Determining the appropriate amount involves evaluating the extent to which the family’s enjoyment of the holiday was affected and the resulting loss in value.
Although a 20% reduction has been offered and accepted, I believe this amount was inadequate in the circumstances and should have been rejected. In situations like these, it is important to assess the potential compensation a court would award, as litigation may be necessary if an agreement cannot be reached. While there is no fixed rule regarding the compensation amount, I would anticipate it to be around 35-40%.
When faced with a holiday disaster like Alex encountered, it is imperative to collect evidence substantiating the issues. This evidence should include photographs, videos, and any other relevant material that illustrates the problems. Additionally, promptly notifying the holiday provider, organizer, or property owner is crucial and should not be postponed until returning home.
If redress cannot be obtained through these means, the next step would be pursuing a claim in the ‘small claims court,’ which offers a straightforward and cost-effective process for claims valued at under £10,000 where parties typically represent themselves.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them, we may earn a small commission. This enables us to fund This Is Money and maintain its free accessibility. We do not create articles solely for promotional purposes, and our editorial independence remains unaffected by any commercial relationships.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
