When a major tour operator promotes a newly-built hotel - a four star flagship property - is it reasonable for us to expect that tour operator to perform a completion check before sending customers there?
In April my family went with Virgin Holidays to the all-inclusive Coconut Bay Resort & Spa in St. Lucia. Virgin's brochure said the hotel opened in February. The hotel actually opened on 28th March, but when we arrived on 1st April heavy construction was still ongoing. Rooms were still being fitted out above and below us. Tarmac was applied to the road outside our block on day one. Bare wires were all around the hotel and pool area. Staff were not yet trained so service was a shambles in all parts of the hotel. Food was poor. Cocktail bars ran out of ice and bananas.
After several days it was also brought to our attention that there were no fire hoses and no extinguishers in our wing of the hotel and, when challenged, the General Manager even admitted they were still waiting on parts from abroad to make the smoke detectors work!
At the "Welcome Party" on the first morning the only alternative Virgin offered was a hotel that another family at the same Welcome Party had rejected after travelling there the previous day. They decided it was too horrendous and opted to come back to Coconut Bay. We asked for a full refund and to be flown home, but Virgin couldn't accommodate this.
We were one of three families with Virgin at the hotel. Guests arriving after 1st April were redirected elsewhere by Virgin. It was suddenly not possible to book our hotel on the Virgin website.
Whilst in resort we had daily contact with the Virgin reps and also emailed full details of problems back to Virgin's customer services. Now we're back in the UK, Virgin won't give a full refund because they say we've derived some benefit from 9 nights in the Caribbean. They've offered to refund the full cost of the hotel which amounts to 69% of the total holiday cost.
Am I right to expect a full refund?
Virgin must be guilty of gross misrepresentation and getting us to resort under false pretences. A week before we travelled they told us a few "minor" things were not complete at the hotel and gave us a small discount on the price we'd originally paid. Had they told the truth at that stage (i.e. before we travelled) then we could have cancelled and had a full refund.
Once in resort you have no option but to try to make the best of a bad job. I cannot deny we had some (limited) benefit from the holiday, but it came nowhere close to our expectations.
Can Virgin really be allowed to get away with such bad practise? How is this situation viewed under travel law?
If we take the compensation offered, then the problem just gets swept under the carpet and I cannot see what's to stop Virgin doing this again in the future.
Is this worth pursuing in the Small Claims Court or will we be wasting our time?
It sounds to me like you have a reasonable case to argue. However, if you paid by credit card, then I would have a go at chasing your credit card company for compensation first, as they will be jointly liable under the Consumer Credit Act, and they may well be more amenable to offering you a settlement you will be happy with out of court.
No you are not entitled to a full refund, you still had your flights and transfers etc, which you dont mention and were obviously fine, which make up a large portion of your holiday cost.
Their offer to refund you the accommodation cost is perfectlty fair, you werent happy with the accommodation, so there offering you the accommodation cost element back.
Their offer to refund you the accommodation cost is perfectlty fair, you werent happy with the accommodation, so there offering you the accommodation cost element back.
fallenangel-I dont know anything about compensation claims etc but if a company misleads a customer in their brochure would this not be an offence under Sale of Goods act (or some other relevant act) and if it is an offence wouldnt this mean that all monies they have taken would have been ilegally obtained by them.As i say i dont have any real knowledge of this kind of thing was just interested in this topic.
Caf
you should be able to get free legal advice here
http://www.holidaytruths.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1166
Good luck
Bridd
you should be able to get free legal advice here
http://www.holidaytruths.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1166
Good luck
Bridd
No you are not entitled to a full refund
With respect, whilst that may be your (presumably unqualified) opinion, an advice centre or a solicitor who is experienced in representing the interests of consumers in such cases may see it differently.
Given the circumstances, it is also possible that the amount a court would award for disappointment, stress and inconvenience could eclipse what you paid for the holiday in the first place; particularly as it would seem the tour operator may have misrepresented the situation with regard to the hotel's state of completion before you left on the holiday, and breached their duty to fly you home when you rejected the holiday in resort, in contravention of the ABTA code of conduct and the Package Travel Regulations.
Hi,
If you are ok on a computer, go to google and type in "holiday complaints". About 2.5 million hits come up with numerous websites offering legal advise and does and donts.
I posted a complaint recently and although i decided not to persue my issue and stated that on this forum, i did decide to do some homework on this subject for future reference.
good luck but remember to stay chilled out
If you are ok on a computer, go to google and type in "holiday complaints". About 2.5 million hits come up with numerous websites offering legal advise and does and donts.
I posted a complaint recently and although i decided not to persue my issue and stated that on this forum, i did decide to do some homework on this subject for future reference.
good luck but remember to stay chilled out
I'd have thought you should get a full refund, HOWEVER, I have had a bad experience with Virgin recently (Previously posted complaint under this section), with many letters to and from them, and virtually received no compensation. I could have persued it and probably could have got alot more, but in the end it was too stressful and I decided to call it a day. I hope you get it sorted and get the refund you deserve.
I would side with fallenangel. To be fair - or at least I hope you did - you received some enjoyment from the holiday (pool, food, drinks if on AI) plus services such as flight and transfers, therefore would have thought that any claim would be proportate on lost enjoyment through the non-provision of a service or component of the holiday. If the flights were OK, transfers OK, food and drink on AI OK, then in my opinion the tour operator/ABTA or small claims court would view that some benefits was received and therefore these parts of your holidays would not be refunded. A partial refund (the accommodation costs as offered by Virgin) seem fair in my mind.
Hope you still managed to enjoy some of your vacation and will not be put off returning to St.Lucia.
Hope you still managed to enjoy some of your vacation and will not be put off returning to St.Lucia.
Thanks for the replies. I'm taking up the offer of the free legal advice.
However, in the meantime I'm intrigued by the comments from fallenangel and Traveller and I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain where my expectations are wrong.
My thought process runs as follows:
1) Large tour operator onboarding new hotel must have signoff process to ensure hotel is fit to receive guests. This must be especially true if the hotel is rated 4 star and promoted as a flagship hotel. Tour operators must have such processes to protect their customers and their reputations.
2) The sort of problems we found at the hotel were fundamental issues that should have been picked up in the signoff process.
3) If Virgin weren't aware of the issues then I'd be very concerned.
4) If Virgin were aware of these major issues then they should have communicated this information to us before we travelled. This would have allowed us to cancel the holiday and receive a full refund.
However, in the meantime I'm intrigued by the comments from fallenangel and Traveller and I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain where my expectations are wrong.
My thought process runs as follows:
1) Large tour operator onboarding new hotel must have signoff process to ensure hotel is fit to receive guests. This must be especially true if the hotel is rated 4 star and promoted as a flagship hotel. Tour operators must have such processes to protect their customers and their reputations.
2) The sort of problems we found at the hotel were fundamental issues that should have been picked up in the signoff process.
3) If Virgin weren't aware of the issues then I'd be very concerned.
4) If Virgin were aware of these major issues then they should have communicated this information to us before we travelled. This would have allowed us to cancel the holiday and receive a full refund.
However, in the meantime I'm intrigued by the comments from fallenangel and Traveller and I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain where my expectations are wrong.
As people we all have very different expectations, and yours are pretty similar to mine. Had I found myself in the situation you describe, I would imagine I would be going through a very similar thought process.
Fallenangel and traveller, OTOH, are putting forward the kind of argument which tour operators are typically inclined to field in cases such as this, as a defence to straightforward claims for compensation where a hotel's standards have failed to come up to scratch.
In a straightforward case where a tour operator did not know that there were problems at a particular hotel before they flew their customers out there, this might be a reasonable defence. However, given the circumstances you describe, I'm not convinced that a court would buy into this, as it could be reasonably argued that the hassle, inconvenience and disappointment you experienced as a result of the hotel being unfinished when you got there counteracted any benefit that you derived from the holiday.
mrsJ - thanks, I'm glad someone agrees with me.
Reading into things a bit deeper, it seems that once you are in resort the tour operator can offer you an alternative hotel - perhaps one that tour operator was unable to sell through normal channels.
If you're not happy with the alternative then it seems to be a grey area. I cannot find anything in the ABTA code which puts the onus on the tour operator to fly you home and give you a full refund. But then if you've just arrived on holiday with children after the long build-up to the main family holiday, turning round and going straight home is not something most people would consider.
Whether you switch hotels or not in resort, it's difficult to prove you've had no benefit whatsoever from the holiday. ABTA suggest the holiday cost is split 60/40 between flights and accommodation, so the maximum refund you can expect is therefore about 40%.
If the tour operator tells the truth up front and you cancel, then you're entitled to a 100% refund and possibly more to cover the increased cost of trying to book something similar at such short notice.
So it seems to me there's an incentive for tour operators to be as economical with the truth as possible before you travel. Can someone point out the flaw in my argument?
Reading into things a bit deeper, it seems that once you are in resort the tour operator can offer you an alternative hotel - perhaps one that tour operator was unable to sell through normal channels.
If you're not happy with the alternative then it seems to be a grey area. I cannot find anything in the ABTA code which puts the onus on the tour operator to fly you home and give you a full refund. But then if you've just arrived on holiday with children after the long build-up to the main family holiday, turning round and going straight home is not something most people would consider.
Whether you switch hotels or not in resort, it's difficult to prove you've had no benefit whatsoever from the holiday. ABTA suggest the holiday cost is split 60/40 between flights and accommodation, so the maximum refund you can expect is therefore about 40%.
If the tour operator tells the truth up front and you cancel, then you're entitled to a 100% refund and possibly more to cover the increased cost of trying to book something similar at such short notice.
So it seems to me there's an incentive for tour operators to be as economical with the truth as possible before you travel. Can someone point out the flaw in my argument?
I cannot find anything in the ABTA code which puts the onus on the tour operator to fly you home and give you a full refund.
It's in the Package Travel Regulations. The ABTA code of Conduct does however place an obligation on the Tour Operator to comply with all relevant consumer legislation.
But then if you've just arrived on holiday with children after the long build-up to the main family holiday, turning round and going straight home is not something most people would consider.
Agreed. However, an alternative course of action open to consumers is to find a different hotel that they are happy with themselves and claim the difference in cost when they return home. You would have to take photos and/or other proof that the hotel the tour operator booked you into was not up to an acceptable standard to justify why you refused it, if you wished to pursue that route.
ABTA suggest the holiday cost is split 60/40 between flights and accommodation, so the maximum refund you can expect is therefore about 40%.
Since the onset of budget flights, I very much doubt that such an argument would stand up in court. What ABTA suggests does not always equate to what happens in practice.
ABTA is the trade body for the travel industry and its primary role is to look after the interests of tour operators and travel agents; not the interests of consumers. What people get in compensation is more likely to boil down to how well they argue their case.
So it seems to me there's an incentive for tour operators to be as economical with the truth as possible before you travel.
To a certain extent, I would agree with you, although it doesn't make for getting repeat business. The way the wind is blowing suggests that tour operators are going to need to retain a loyal customer base if they hope to stay afloat in the longer term, given the competition from budget airlines.
An alternative course of action open to consumers is to find a different hotel that they are happy with themselves and claim the difference in cost when they return home.
We didn't know this option was open to us (how many people do?) and Virgin certainly didn't volunteer this information. I would want to be very clear on the law before taking such drastic action in resort, because I'd be extremely nervous of not being able to reclaim the money when I got home.
One of the other families who arrived at Coconut Bay Resort a few days before us told how Virgin had offered to transfer their all-inclusive package to the Royal Rex for no extra charge. They travelled 1.5 hours to the North of the island only then to be told by the Royal (once the Virgin rep had gone) they'd need to pay an extra $90pppn to stay at that hotel. Obviously a misunderstanding somewhere, but the family declined to pay and were then transferred to a lesser Rex property, which they hated, but had to spend a night there. The following day the Coconut Bay got the air-conditioning working, so Virgin brought the family back to the Coconut Bay.
From what you're saying, had that family known their rights, they could have stayed at the Royal Rex and reclaimed all costs from Virgin. Is that correct or could Virgin have argued it was too high a standard of hotel and pay just a part of their claim?
You could probably have claimed the cost difference between the coconut bay and royal rex, if the extra night price was more at the Coconut bay.
But as its in hindsight, I would concentrate on your present situation.
But as its in hindsight, I would concentrate on your present situation.
From what you're saying, had that family known their rights, they could have stayed at the Royal Rex and reclaimed all costs from Virgin. Is that correct or could Virgin have argued it was too high a standard of hotel and pay just a part of their claim?
That would probably depend upon how the other hotel compared to the hotel they had booked. If it was a lower standard than the hotel they had booked and did not offer the same level of facilities, then they would have a reasonable case to argue for claiming back the difference in cost; although that would be something which they would have to thrash out with the TO once they returned home.
One of the fundamental principles of law when you are dealing with breach of contract is that the innocent party (i.e. the one who has not broken the contract) is entitled to claim damages for any reasonable additional costs they incur which result from the other party breaking the contract.
The Package Travel Regulations state that where a significant proportion of the services contracted for is not provided, (such as for example in this case, because the hotel is not finished) a tour operator is under a legal obligation to make suitable alternative arrangements, at no extra cost to the consumer, for the continuation of the package. In other words, the tour operator is expected to move you to a hotel of at least a comparable standard, (assuming there are vacancies) which provides an equivalent level of facilities to the one you booked.
If a tour operator fails to do this then they are in breach of contract, and as a general rule of thumb a holidaymaker who refuses to accept being stuck in an unsatisfactory hotel should to be able to recover any additional costs incurred by switching to a comparable hotel, provided that they tell the tour operator they intend to do this should they not be promptly offered suitable alternative accommodation, and give the tour operator reasonable opportunity to put things right first.
If a tour operator offers a customer alternative accommodation and it is unsatisfactory, the customer has the right to reject it provided that they can demonstrate good reasons for doing so.
I'm deeply indebted to mrsJ for her assistance.
I'm going to contact the credit card company to get their take on events as, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they have joint liability for faulty goods and services bought on credit.
Also, I've downloaded the Package Travel Regulations 1992 document to clarify a few points. It's only about 20 pages and quite easy to flick through to find what you need. In this case Virgin Holidays appear to have contravened clause 4 (Descriptive matter relating to packages must not be misleading) and clause 12 (Significant alteration to essential terms).
In addition, as mrsJ says, clause 14 says that if the customer rejects an alternative hotel and requests to be flown home instead, then the onus is on the tour operator to provide equivalent transport back to the place of departure. So it wasn't enough for Virgin Holidays just to check for empty seats on their own flights from St. Lucia back to Gatwick, they should have checked all flights - direct and indirect. Could I claim they've been negligent in failing to check for flights with other carriers?
I'm going to contact the credit card company to get their take on events as, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they have joint liability for faulty goods and services bought on credit.
Also, I've downloaded the Package Travel Regulations 1992 document to clarify a few points. It's only about 20 pages and quite easy to flick through to find what you need. In this case Virgin Holidays appear to have contravened clause 4 (Descriptive matter relating to packages must not be misleading) and clause 12 (Significant alteration to essential terms).
In addition, as mrsJ says, clause 14 says that if the customer rejects an alternative hotel and requests to be flown home instead, then the onus is on the tour operator to provide equivalent transport back to the place of departure. So it wasn't enough for Virgin Holidays just to check for empty seats on their own flights from St. Lucia back to Gatwick, they should have checked all flights - direct and indirect. Could I claim they've been negligent in failing to check for flights with other carriers?
If you had chosen alternative flights, you would most likely have been responsible for paying for these yourself, or the difference between your original flight and new flight.
I don't know the ins and outs of it legally but if it is a 40/60 split then it is very unfair. If you had known about the state of the hotel beforehand you wouldn't have needed the transport in the first place. I would certainly be agrieved if I were you. From the details you have given surely you have a case on the health and safety issue? Did you take photos to back up claims?
have you looked at the link Bridd gave for free advice?
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
Similar Topics
-
VIRGIN HOLIDAYS/VIRGIN ATLANTIC
Posted by 10con in Holiday Complaints
-
Virgin Holidays
Posted by Graham Hill in Holiday Complaints
-
Virgin Holidays
Posted by jacky in Holiday Complaints
-
Virgin Holidays
Posted by julie rosemary in Holiday Complaints
- Virgin holidays