New Rule of 6 in England

[Sandra544]

Hello

can anybody help as Airbnb support haven’t come back to me promised .

the new Rule if 6 due to be introduced in England from Monday September 14th renders the vast majority of our upcoming bookings invalid as our properties sleep 15.

how do I best go about cancelling them so as to ensure the guest gets a full refund and I do not get penalised in the process as it would now be illegal for those bookings to go ahead.

i cancelled one today but Airbnb refused to unblock the dates on my calendar post cancellation so I don’t even have a chance of taking a new booking that meets the 6 person rule. 
thanks for any help 

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Sandra544 I would contact the guests and ask them to cancel with Airbnb claiming that the contract has been frustrated by the change in the law from Monday. I think it is the guest that will be breaking the law so they should be keen to cancel and get their money back.

[Helen350]

@Matt3688 This situation is similar to yours! So this thread may be of interest to you!

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Sandra544 This is not the case. What @Mike-And-Jane0 is doing once again is "putting the cart before the horse". Airbnb cannot legislate on UK Law as it is beyond their jurisdiction.

It does depend on the date of the contract in force, but since 14th March 2020 there has been specific terms in the Airbnb Guest/Host contract which excludes any full refund Covid-19 related cancellations as Covid-19 was then a known risk and guests who booked did so fully aware of the risk. In managing this risk, guests should have put in place appropriate travel insurance to cover any potential losses. (including the change of law).

The post March 14th EC policy clearly states..

... COVID-19-related circumstances not covered include: transport disruptions and cancellations; travel advisories and restrictions; health advisories and quarantines; changes to applicable law; and other government mandates such as evacuation orders, border closures, prohibitions on short-term rentals, and lockdown requirements. The host’s cancellation policy will apply as usual.

It is clear, that in any case of a cancellation, that the host's cancellation policy will apply as usual.

Initially, before ever the frustrated contract condition be taken into account there needs to have been a cancellation. Airbnb are NOT UK Government Lawyers and Judges rolled into one. Airbnb are in no position to sit in judgement of any 'possible' frustration and find in Guests' or Hosts' favour. All Airbnb can do is administer the letter of the contracts in place which they instigated. These cannot be changed. Only UK Law can judge whether this is legal or not and every case will be individual and after the fact.

We, for instance, let our Airbnb as a single accommodation without charge per guest but as a whole accommodation. Limiting the size of the group in attendance is entirely down to the guest. If it is illegal to attend with more than 6 guests then there needs to be only 6 guests in attendance. Guests are quite capable of reducing the size of their group in attendance to be complicit with the law, and as frustrating as this is we've already had many groups need to, and have done this. One group of eight, who lived together, didn't need to. I've heard that other groups who were attending 'an arranged sporting event' didn't need to either. So not all groups greater than 6 are affected.

Like speeding, it would be great to travel at 90 Mph everywhere - and the car is capable - but legally you're not allowed to do that, and you need to adhere to the law. Not attaining 90Mph everywhere is not the fault of the car.

The Airbnb Guest /Host contract says that - Changes to the law are not covered, and the Host's cancellation policy will apply as usual. The logical deduction is that guests will not get a full refund, they will get the refund which is assigned to their contract by the hosts cancellation policy.

If guests are not happy with that arrangement, then they should take up their complaint at court in the UK Legal system.

The CMA, or Competition and Markets Authority have their own view on this.. This is not law. (Although many like to claim it is...) They are advisory's, and it is their opinion. This is their interpretation of matters and is not law until a specific case is taken and judged appropriately at Law. Their covering introduction states this quite well, they say "This statement should not be regarded as a substitute for, or a definitive interpretation of, the law. Rather, it sets out the CMA's views as to how the law operates, to help consumers understand their rights and to help businesses treat their customers fairly. Ultimately only a court can decide how the law applies in each circumstance."

Guests are in no position to claim "frustrated" contracts with Airbnb as Airbnb are in no position to judge on this. Airbnb can only judge on their own Airbnb Guest/Host contract. Getting this wrong for them, will lead to many more arbitration or potentially (now) group action claims against Airbnb for failing to apply their Guest/Host contract correctly, specifically in this case as defined in their March 14th update.

[Super47]

Absolutely correct @Ian-And-Anne-Marie0. All this speculative and inaccurate information being peddled about Airbnb refunding  guests due to 'frustrated contracts' is damaging to hosts and needs to stop. 

Airbnb may be arbitrarily and routinely over-riding hosts' cancellation policies and wrongly awarding guests with unwarranted refunds, but that has everything to do with their upcoming IPO and precisely nothing to do with 'frustrated contracts'. Or Edward the bloody eighth.  

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Super47 I am not sure of your logic from this and other posts.

I thought it was that Airbnb were not paying hosts on purpose to shore up their IPO finances.

How does refunding guests help shore up their finances?

The only thing that will help their IPO is to show they are a responsible company that complies with the law in the countries in which they operate.

Perhaps, as well as the law, we should consider what is right. If a host cannot legally take a guest then is it really right to make the guest pay?

[Super47]

@Mike-And-Jane0

The Independent and The Telegraph, both in the last 2 days... 

 

 

 

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Super47 Rental companies (and hosts) would certainly do well to try to move a booking rather than have it cancelled.

If however the guest wants to cancel due to having 8 people rather than the 6 allowed and the host/Airbnb refuses then it would have to go to court. Based on case law the verdict will depend on the extent to which 8 people was key to the trip. Given that most guests will be able to say a family or friends reunion for 8 people without 8 people is not a reunion they are highly likely to win.

Have you read about Edward VIII's non coronation? The case law is fairly clear that accommodation booked solely for the coronation is refundable even though the accommodation existed and could have been used. 

[Super47]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

"How does refunding guests shore up their finances?"

I've already explained this many times but once again - if guests are refunded in cash (which is rarely now), in the vast majority of instances, Airbnb still gets to retain their service fees. But more often than not, they'll be refunded in single-use, one-time-only vouchers, while Airbnb sits on the cash to pad out their quarterly financials. (And even the service fees are often refunded in voucher form)

At least 25-30% of these vouchers will never be redeemed, netting Airbnb a huge chunk of unearned change, while countless more guests will use their vouchers to book another trip costing a portion of their voucher value, with plans to use the other portion for s future trip, totally oblivious to the fact that their voucher can only be used once and they automatically forfeit the remaining balance of the voucher.

Another sizeable  percentage of guests that have used their vouchers to book a second trip in the latter part of the year believing that the pandemic would be over by now, may again have to cancel their trips due to new travel restrictions, personal circumstances, or any number of reasons. By cancelling, they will also then automatically lose their vouchers, again leaving Airbnb quids in for the corresponding amount.

You see how it works now? 

[Super47]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

"The only thing that will help their IPO is to show they are a responsible company that complies with the law in the countries in which they operate" 

You are kidding, right? Have you been living under a rock? Do you have any idea how many court battles Airbnb has been forced to fight worldwide as a result of not complying with the laws in the countries in which they operate?

And riddle me this.. if Airbnb is so worried about complying with the laws of the countries in which it operates, why did it still permit hotels and 'serviced apartments' to freely advertise on its HotelTonight portal during UK lockdown, while the calendars of regular hosts were blocked? And why also did they only block the calendars of hosts in a small number of countries during local or national lockdowns, while failing to do so in the vast majority of regions? 

"Perhaps, as well as the law, we should consider what is right. If a host cannot legally take a guest then is it really right to make the guest pay?" 

Yes, you're absolutely correct. We should consider what is right. And what is absolutely NOT right is for hosts to yet again be forced to act as free travel insurers to guests who took a known risk by booking a trip/holiday during a pandemic, possibly blocking the hosts' calendars for many months, and now demanding full refunds. (A fact which would have major influence over any decisions reached in a court of law) 

"Have you read about Edward VIII's non coronation?" 

Shoot me now... 

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Super47 

---

@Super47 wrote:

@Mike-And-Jane0 

"Have you read about Edward VIII's non coronation?" 

Shoot me now... 

---

😂 😂 😂 

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 I wrote a long response but sadly lost it with an unexpected error.

Suffice to say I wish you luck with any claims you make and hope that the Boris clampdown on illegality of people breaking the rule of 6 does affect you.

Sadly, if people break, or allow others to break, the rule of 6 then its highly likely we will be all be shut down again - Thanks for this!

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 I wrote a long response but sadly lost it with an unexpected error.

Suffice to say I wish you luck with any claims you make and hope that the Boris clampdown on illegality of people breaking the rule of 6 does affect you.

Sadly, if people break, or allow others to break, the rule of 6 then its highly likely we will be all be shut down again - Thanks for this!

No need to be so vindictive Mike, we're talking facts here - not Henry VIII baloney. It was probably a blessing your post was lost, it saved us all a load of misinformation.

Your objective on this forum making hosts liable for every single breach of contract or breach of terms is well known. Even when Airbnb illegally changed their Terms, you made that to be the Hosts fault ! I did not see your straight laced legal deducement alleging that was illegal (it was btw). At what point do you ever take the side of a host in any situation - apart from when you need help and can't get it? Obviously and selfishly when it suits you it seems.

Airbnb Terms are clearly stated and those Terms are what govern contracts between Hosts and Guests. Deviation from those terms is illegal. Those Terms state that Covid-19 excuses are no longer applicable to, amongst others:  changes to applicable law;  and The host’s cancellation policy will apply as usual.

Furthermore, government exceptions to the rule of 6 as stated on their website here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-di... clearly defines many exceptions to their rule of 6. One example I gave which was provided by another group who stayed at an Airbnb with greater than 6 is contained here. I was going to argue points, but clearly you don't read what is put before you, so here is a copy and paste:

There are exceptions where groups can be larger than 6 people. These include:

• for work, or the provision of voluntary or charitable services
• registered childcare, education or training
• supervised activities provided for children, including wraparound care, youth groups and activities, and children’s playgroups
• providing support to a vulnerable person
• providing emergency assistance, and to avoid injury or illness or to escape risk of harm
• for arrangements where children do not live in the same household as both their parents
• fulfilling a legal obligation, such as attending court or jury service
• elite sporting competition and training
• wedding and civil partnership ceremonies and receptions – up to 15 people
• funerals – up to 30 people. This does not include wakes, other than for religious ceremonial purposes
• exercise classes, organised outdoor sport or licensed outdoor physical activity, and supervised sporting activity (indoors or outdoors) for under-18s
• indoor organised team sports for disabled people
• support groups of up to 15 participants – formally organised groups to provide mutual aid, therapy or any other form of support. This includes support to victims of crime, recovering addicts, new parents, people with long-term illnesses, those facing issues relating to their sexuality or gender, and those who have suffered bereavement.
• protests – if organised in compliance with COVID-19 Secure guidance. All individuals must be socially distanced

FYI: It surprises me how 'grown up' many of our guests have been over this rule of 6. We have only had 3 groups over 6 even though we accommodate 8. This is partly because of a rise in demand for family and small group gatherings away from their homes forcing supply of such places to be limited. So fortunately, the rule of 6 has had small impact and those grown up guests have made alternative arrangements. This does not however, provide me with an opportunity to scoff and berate other hosts who might find themselves in a less fortunate position. There ARE options and they are all legal. Racing towards a refund stating a non-applicable, untested law against a Guest/Host contract is just naive.

Parting point from the Government website:

..no more than 6 people unless you all live together (or are in the same support bubble).

[Jerry250]

We also have 2 upcoming bookings that will breach this new English government rule preventing gatherings of more than 6 people. Our property sleeps 10 and is mostly booked by groups over 6.

One of the guests arriving as a group of 8 next Saturday has been in touch today asking what their options are. I have suggested they contact Airbnb and ask for a full refund including the service fee as cash (not a voucher). I'v also said we can reschedule to next year, but the guest has already paid in full and no one knows when the law will be changed. 

@Lizzie Do you know if Airbnb has plans to refund guests who have booked for +6 in England? Their contract is now invalid under English law? I suspect this is an issue that will affect a good many listings / bookings. I read that one agency in Suffolk 30% of their properties were for 7 or more guests.

[Jerry250]

@Sandra544 Did you get a reply from Airbnb support? I've also sent a message but no response yet.