Terrible cottage - extra costs!

[islandgirl]

I would welcome any views or ideas on the following please. Arrived at a cottage booked through a huge cottage company last weekend for a 5 night stay. It was absolutely freezing - had no heating (no oil in tank), no wifi (needed for work) and no equipment (2 plates, 2 glasses and a bowl in a cottage let for 4 sleeping 6). It was freezing! Although booked via the huge company it was owned by a business in a neighbouring town which has several lets. I first contacted them. They apologised and offered a refund saying they had nowhere to move me. They told me they had instructed the huge cottage company to refund me. I then contacted the huge cottage company. Finally got through to someone and reported the issue. Someone else rang back, apologised, said they would do all they could to help including relocating us. Promised to call back. Waited one and a half hours - no call. Tried to ring them - all gone home no human available! Bear in mind it is now well after 7pm and dark (clocks had not yet changed!). I went onto Air b and b - very few lets have hosts who reply immediately but I did finally find one about 50 mins from the cottage. We booked, paid and moved there. That cottage cost me £200 more than the original but it was "hobsons choice" (and absolutely fine I have to say!). I emailed the big company and said I want my refund and the extra £200 I was forced to pay. After hearing nothing for days I got hold of them via a whatsapp for owners and they emailed to say they will refund the £400. I am still waiting for it to arrive. I would like to claim the extra £200 when/if the £400 arrives. Do I have a case?

[echat11]

How did you pay?

[islandgirl]

I did use a credit card. They have now refunded the amount initially paid less £12. No mention of the additional £200

[echat11]

I did use a credit card. They have now refunded the amount initially paid less £12. No mention of the additional £200

Contact your Credit Card company, this is best done online, make a Section 75 claim.
Explain what happened, you booked a cottage for 6, ended up with a cottage for 4,
you complained and had no other choice, then to seek alternative holiday accommodation,
at short notice that was only available at additional cost, which you had to pay. Explain that
£388 has been refunded, but not the £200. Attach any evidence you have i.e. original booking
invoice for 4 and alternative accommodation for 6 invoice.

[islandgirl]

Thank you Echat11. So the cottage was £400, the air b and b £600. The credit card was only used for £400 with the initial company then £600 with the new hosts who were great - I cannot see why the cc would refund the extra £200 when the transaction was not with the initial company who are at fault

[echat11]

Thank you Echat11. So the cottage was £400, the air b and b £600. The credit card was only used for £400 with the initial company then £600 with the new hosts who were great - I cannot see why the cc would refund the extra £200 when the transaction was not with the initial company who are at fault

Under Section 75 of the UK Consumer Credit Act 1974, credit card providers are jointly liable with retailers for breaches of contract on purchases between £100 and £30,000.

This protection allows consumers to claim for the original purchase cost and "consequential losses".

[islandgirl]

Amazing thank you Echat I was not aware of the consequential losses element - much appreciated

[islandgirl]

Hi all - so I submitted the claim and my bank has denied it saying that because the agent processed the credit card but the awful cottage was run by a third party, there is no S75 claim to be made. Logically this is astonishing, as it means consumers (who used credit cards to book holidays thinking they are protected) can NEVER make a claim against Sykes, Cottages.com, Booking.com etc). This is big news. I am pushing back - any thoughts? They say "any claim must have a debtor, creditor, supplier relationship in place. This means the credit card payment must be taken directly by the retailer providing the goods/services or by an associate of the retailer" Associate is defined as same director or one exercising control over the other . They say the "Act doesn't offer you protection when you or the retailer processes the transation via another party". None of that makes sense to me.

[echat11]

That's disappointing.

Question: Did you get the £400 refunded?

'After hearing nothing for days I got hold of them via a whatsapp for owners and they emailed to say they will refund the £400. I am still waiting for it to arrive.'

If there isn't a contract / relationship in place, why are they 'refunding' you? You have evidence, the Whatsapp correspondence.

If I've understood correctly.

What you need to do is go through all the evidence you have to demonstrate there is a contract / relationship between the parties.

The following might help - https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....DRN0476951.pdf

[islandgirl]

Thank you. Good point. Sykes refunded the cost of Awful Cottage. They refused my claim for alternative accommodation (another £200). The fact that they refunded surely illustrates a contractual relationship!

[echat11]

Thank you. Good point. Sykes refunded the cost of Awful Cottage. They refused my claim for alternative accommodation (another £200). The fact that they refunded surely illustrates a contractual relationship!

They can't have an 'on, off relationship' when it suits them. You are claiming "consequential losses".

Just as a side note, if the Credit Card company don't refund the extra £200 that you had to 'fork 'out, through no fault of your own,
if you take the complaint to the FOS, it will cost them (the Credit Card) much more to look into your compliant.

[islandgirl]

Ohh that is worth knowing thank you. I am also saying that consumers need to know that they are NEVER protected under s75 when they book a cottage through an agency - do they really mean that? !!!

[des8]

It is well established that section 75 only applies to direct dealings between the lender, the borrower, and the supplier .
If a third party is involved (e.g. a payment platform such as Paypal) sec 75 will not be brought into play.

If your complaint to FOS goes forward as it is, I would expect FOS to reject it without even referring to the card issuer.

You might have more success if you can bring into play sec 56 of the Act (but it won't be easy!)

[islandgirl]

Thank you. I think there are further issues such as the cottage company, on hearing how bad the cottage was, offered to rehouse us but then went home. They were taking more responsibility. Also they refunded the money not the cottage owner. I am going back to the bank with this issue. I also think consumers need to know they are NEVER protected if booking cottages via Sykes, Cottage.com etc