The century-old oak crashed down on the very first day of his vacation. James and his partner Andrew had just finished breakfast moments earlier, causing a ruckus with tables and chairs that ended up damaging the windshield of a rental car on the terrace.
Their Airbnb cottage in Provence, France, was entangled in branches that shattered the living room windows and breached the roof. “I was convinced there was a ceiling above us,” James remarked. “If it had fallen moments earlier, we could have been seriously hurt or killed.”
A day was needed for the host to clear the tree from the cottage and make temporary repairs, but the shaken couple opted to book a hotel for the remainder of their vacation, concerned that their accommodation might be structurally compromised.
Airbnb showed little concern. “I understand this has caused you inconvenience,” was the start of countless identical AI-generated replies before the comical, unresolved case was ultimately labeled as “keep safe.”
The host also seemed unbothered. “All that happened was you heard a loud noise and saw the tree on the terrace,” she responded to their refund request. “You chose to remember worries and trauma instead of celebrating unique experiences.”
Now that summer has passed, the tale of Holiday Horror Story is overflowing on Guardian Money.
Unfortunate travelers report being stuck or locked out of accommodations—whether real or not—and facing issues during mysterious nights in unknown cities. Accounts of dirty rooms, unsafe items, and illegal sublets abound. A common binding factor for these ruined trips is that they were booked via online platforms that deny refunds.
The rise of services like Airbnb and Booking.com has encouraged travelers to plan multiple getaways. These companies showcase their expansive global real estate in efforts to fulfill wanderlust on a budget.
However, consumer protections have not adapted alongside this growing industry.
The 100-year-old oak, which struck during James and Andrew’s stay in Provence.
Package deal customers have legal protections for travel nightmares as outlined in Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements; however, those booking accommodations through third-party sites often find themselves at the mercy of the host.
While some platforms promote extra protections, your agreement lies with the accommodation provider.
James and Andrew had spent £931 for a week at Proven Zal Cottage. Feeling unsafe upon returning, he switched to a hotel. They remain unsure if the damaged rental car liability falls on them. Nonetheless, Airbnb’s Air Cover pledge to refund customers in the event of serious rental issues, indicated that it was up to the host to grant any refunds, according to the host who insisted that Airbnb made the decision.
After 10 weeks of automated responses to James’ complaints, Airbnb decided to close the case, stating that the matter had dragged on for far too long. The host concluded that repairs totaled 5,000 euros (£4,350) and offered no reimbursements. Instead, she suggested the couple should celebrate their survival and “turn the event into a beautiful story.”
Eventually, Airbnb issued a full refund along with a £500 voucher after scrutiny of its health and safety policies. A spokesperson expressed, “We apologize for the initial handling of this case, which did not meet our usual high standards. We will conduct an internal review.”
The sightseeing time for one Booking.com customer was cut short due to a broken lock. Photo: Alejandro García/EPA
I was trapped
Kim Pocock booked a flat through Booking.com for a two-night stay in Barcelona. She and her daughter found themselves locked inside for almost the entire duration of their only day in the city due to a malfunctioning front door security lock.
“The host sent a maintenance man, but he couldn’t assist,” she recalled. “Eventually, a locksmith arrived, attempting to access the lock from the outside. He even had to purchase rope, which he used to hoist tools up to our window.”
Pocock sought a full refund for the stress and ruined trip. Booking.com informed her that it was up to the host to decide. Not only did the host refuse, but they also deducted a deposit of 250 euros to cover the replacement lock. Although that sum was eventually returned by Booking.com, Pocock felt the burden of the 446 euro rental fee.
“Had there been an emergency during our confinement, our lives would have been at significant risk, yet the hosts blamed us for using the lock,” she lamented.
Another Booking.com customer, Philip (name withheld), found himself locked out of a London flat he had booked for £70 just as he was about to check in. The owner informed him that he was abroad and suggested Philip find alternate accommodations for the night. Consequently, he spent an additional £123 at a hotel, only to face four months of futile efforts to obtain a refund.
“Booking.com essentially claims there’s nothing they can do because the owners are unresponsive,” he remarked. “I can’t comprehend how businesses can function this way without any accountability. The additional twist is that the property is still listed on the platform.”
Following intervention from Guardian Money, Booking.com refunded both customers. The platform confirmed that the host who had locked Philip out of the rental could not be reached. When questioned about why problematic accommodations are not delisted, the response was that they rely on guest feedback to ensure property suitability.
Reviews do not always tell the complete story. A consumer group reported last year that Booking.com’s default system shown reviews classified as “relevant,” which makes it easy for users to miss a surge of recent reviews that indicate a listing might be a scam or unavailable.
Booking.com responded by stating that it allows customers to sort reviews by newest or lowest ratings to facilitate informed decisions about the property.
Is it the same? The report noted that listings frequently flagged as fraud were still present. Booking.com responded by affirming that it relies on hosts to adhere to their terms of service and maintain up-to-date availability.
Booking.com insists that customers must review guest feedback to ensure the property is “suitable.” Photo: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
Grey Area
The issue for travelers who receive substandard services is that their contracts are with the accommodation providers rather than the booking platforms.
Both Airbnb and Booking.com claim they will assist in finding alternative housing during emergencies, but securing compensation for a problematic stay is a more complicated battle. Both platforms generally rely on hosts to act responsibly.
Consumer advocate and journalist Martin James argues that the sector requires stricter regulations. “With online platforms essentially policing themselves, if a dispute isn’t resolved, your only option is legal action,” James explains. “But who would pursue that? There’s a contract between you and the host, meaning you need to initiate legal steps in your own country.”
He adds, “You might contend that the online marketplace has failed to manage your complaints adequately, but pursuing this is a legally ambiguous matter. Both companies are registered abroad and have substantial resources.”
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act, which came into effect in April, mandates online platforms to “exercise professional diligence” concerning consumer transactions promoted or conducted on their platforms.
A DBT spokesperson stated: “This government supports consumers and has implemented stringent new financial penalties for breaches of consumer law to safeguard people’s money.”
They further stated: “Companies providing services to UK consumers must adhere to UK legislation. We have strengthened their competitive stance and market power to ensure they face significant penalties for non-compliance.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
