Shame on firms refusing refunds

AS the lockdown goes on, holidaymakers continue to fight for refunds for cancelled UK breaks.

Those who booked a package holiday – such as an overseas trip with the flight and hotel together – are protected by the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.

But holidays in the UK, which are not usually packaged, are not protected by these regulations.

Instead they are covered by the Consumer Rights Act.

The good news is that the protection is very similar because as the act states that if you do not receive the service, the holiday, because it was cancelled, you will be entitled to a full refund.

The bad news is that I’ve been hearing holiday providers in the UK have been doing all they can to wriggle out of this, citing their terms and conditions as a good legal reason for doing so.

My Twitter feed has been inundated with complaints from readers struggling to get their money back from some UK firms.

In particular there seems to be an issue with holiday cottages.

Many sites advertise holiday lets on behalf of property owners so are claiming that holidaymakers have entered into a direct contract with the owner.

Some of these companies have been rejecting refunds outright without even consulting the property owners themselves.

But after I intervened they changed tack. Now the customers – including frontline NHS staff – will be refunded.

Other consumers have told me that despite constantly chasing refunds from UK companies, they’ve heard nothing.

Those who have been able to make contact have been told there will be no refunds but instead they can change the date of their break. The law

Many of these UK holiday brands have taken the same approach of refusing refunds.

They have pointed to their terms and conditions which, in many cases, say they have the right to cancel the holiday because of to circumstances outside of their control.

Some of the terms I’ve seen also state that rather than a refund the holiday provider can simply move the date.

Of course, the consumer is not afforded the same right in any of the terms I’ve seen.

In my view this is a clear breach of Section 62(4) of the Consumer

Rights Act 2015. This states that a term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights.

In other words, the law says that the rights of the holiday provider and consumer, within terms and conditions, must be balanced.

Many consumers who have been content to agree a new holiday date informed me that they were then told they would have to pay extra money because the break would work out to be more expensive on the new date they have chosen.

The Consumer Rights Act doesn’t permit this practice either.

It makes clear that a term in a contract – or terms and conditions – is automatically unfair and therefore not binding if it effectively allows a trader to increase the price without giving the consumer the right to cancel.

So, by telling consumers that they cannot have a refund but instead can move the date of their break and pay more money, the holiday providers fall foul of this.

Ultimately these companies will have to start giving consumers full refunds, where either they have cancelled the holiday or the consumer wants to cancel a booking due to take place before June.

For bookings due to take place after June, we will need to wait to see what the position is with regards to the lockdown.

See more advice from Dean at theconsumerlawyer.blog.