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 

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Jerry250 

Congratulations on your marriage!

On Simon Calder, the pasted text I posted was ONE example of the application - or not(?) - of that frustrated contracts law. It is plainly evident that the law is untested and cannot be applied in expectation of any specific outcome. Simon posted other applications, not applicable to this thread and not applicable to our accommodation provision - but probably more to your liking. 😀 Equally, those still are untested and still speculative guidelines.

Hosts interpretation of 'space' or 'people' in the contract will differ. Just as some hosts charge a sliding scale for increasing guests 'people' quantities and some hosts just charge for the space.

Airbnb's idea of their booking system is that "You do not know and you you do not ask who will be arriving or where they are arriving from" That is secret information only Airbnb are privy to and stated clearly so in their off platform policy. As a host with Airbnb you are not allowed to ask if the group live together or garner details of their habitat before arrival.

This is ambiguous too. How can a guest not listed on a travel itinerary be the subject of claim for a cancellation when only the booking guest is listed as representative of a group of 2-30 - for example?

I'm all for being upfront. Discuss and agree with the guests the conditions of the contract to accommodate such unforeseen circumstances. We've done that. We do that in our direct bookings too. If those details are not discussed, we simply refer to the contract. Thats what its there for.

We would have to disagree on your band issue as I would side with your band in your example. They could play quietly, the numbers were legal, you could prevent dancing and CMA guidelines are just that. Guidelines. Not Law. You might have the right to sue them, I'm not sure. The premise of the frustrated contract law forces no liability on either party and prevents one party from suing the other. Trying to argue that whilst in order to make a judgement of one party being liable would indeed be an interesting and convoluted argument in court! Back to the contract again.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Jerry250 

On a seperate more general point:

I'm not a big fan of Simon Calder, he does tend to support the industry though, and has been urging people to travel throughout the pandemic (which I don't agree with). 

Your calendar is still open for bookings and you've got reviews for July and August. Does that not encourage and urge "travelling through a pandemic". Would you not be shut down completely if you disagreed with travel so much? Much the same as @Mike-And-Jane0 If you cull a group of 8, one member having the virus to make a group of 6. How do you know you have culled the one with the virus?

Booking information provided by Airbnb on which to guide your acceptance for a booking is as detailed as " Somebody, Somewhere. With a group".

[Jerry250]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 It was Simon's urging (on the Jeremy Vive, R2 show) as the pandemic was unfolding to take flights to Europe that I disagreed with. A lot of his travel consumer advice is also suspect. We are definitely not against free travel in the UK when it is permitted, and yes we took new and honoured existing bookings. We are also Visit England 'Good to Go' accredited and actually do all the stuff that entails.

We didn't 'cull' guests at all. The guests took that decision to comply with the law. They are the ones who would be fined £200 each. It's not clear whether self catering accommodation providers would be liable to a £1,000 fine if the operators are not present 24 hours a day. But then Dominic Raab (member of the Cabinet) didn't know the answer when asked if customers at McDonalds would have to order at table (yes, he answered, the correct answer is 'no' because its not a licensed premises). These are difficult times for everyone, let's be nice to each other.

I won't be suing the wedding band. The CMA advises they could deduct legitimate costs from the deposit, and it was small. Their need is probably greater than ours as they have apparently had 70 postponed bookings this year. Next year doesn't look too promising for them either. As a 6 piece with a sound engineer and DJ they would be 8 of the 15 guests allowed (new rule from Monday in England), deduct the couple and just 5 other people would be present to not dance or sing, or shout...(which would be manageable, but not fun).

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Jerry250 

I didn't insinuate that you or anybody "culled' guests, but the guests do cull themselves.  In the process of things that option would be viable, I was just pointing out that the action is not necessarily beneficial or in many cases altogether necessary for health benefits. 6 seems like  such an arbitrary number when compared to other legal gatherings.

The missing "." Might have been confusing before the capital "I".

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Jerry250 

I was just rereading the government 'Guidance' in that link I posted, researching how the rule affects groups of university students. At the bottom of those bullet points it is stated:

Where a group includes someone covered by such an exception (for example, someone who is working), they are not counted as part of the gatherings limit. This means, for example, a tradesperson can go into a household of six without breaching the limit, if they are there for work.

Your point about the numbers of the band needing to be part of your gathering numbers seems wrong, unless the government guidance changed since 22/9/20 ?

[Helen350]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 Bit of a difference between an emergency plumber & a knees up?!  -(Discuss.) - Who knows??

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Helen350 

It was all part of the same group exclusion list. Here it is in context...

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

[edit]...

• 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
• [/edit]

Where a group includes someone covered by such an exception (for example, someone who is working), they are not counted as part of the gatherings limit. This means, for example, a tradesperson can go into a household of six without breaching the limit, if they are there for work.

When the band is there for work, their number is excluded. It certainly reads that way. You might find it hard justifying a plumber at a funeral as well. How about a troop of strippers? Definitely not at the funeral either - I'd guess, but might go down well at the exercise class ?. 😁

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

From Martin Lewis @ Moneysavingexpert:

If your holiday provider refuses to offer a refund, whether you're legally entitled to one isn't entirely clear-cut.

When we asked the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about consumers' refund rights in this situation, it pointed us to guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which says that consumers should get a refund if they cancel or can't use a service because of Government health measures. 

As the new six-person rule is a legal restriction (unlike the previous rules on households staying together, which are guidelines) and consumers could face a fine if they break the law in order to use their holiday booking, the CMA guidance suggests they'd be owed a refund. 

But it's important to note CMA guidance isn't a definitive interpretation of the law, and this is a new scenario which hasn't been tested – so while you can point your holiday accommodation provider to the guidance, complain to the CMA or even pursue legal action, there are no guarantees you'll get a refund.

Another option would be to try your travel insurer if you can't get a refund directly from your accommodation provider, but this will likely depend on your policy.

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 If a large travel company stops refunding in full due to legal restrictions on usage then the CMA will launch a test case(s) and the law will be clarified. The fact that no travel company is willing to do this suggests they think they will lose.

The insurance industry challenged the CMA's view of their insurance contracts and lost. I just don't see Airbnb winning in a court given the reams of case law in existence. 

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

That's all supposition Mike. That's not fact.

Airbnb don't need to win in a court. It is not their responsibility to fight legal cases, it is their responsibility to uphold the Guest / Host contract as they amended it. They amended it to exclude legal changes from the Covid-19 policy which the 6 person rule is, and they amended it so that the Hosts cancellation policy would still stand. That's a responsibility towards both Hosts and Guests.

That's the contract.

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 I'll try one more time and then give up. Please see excerpt from European T&Cs below. The bit I have bolded is the bit that allows local laws of guests to override Irish Law and the contract.

Once more - No contract can override the law. You may not like this but it is true.

21. Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

These Terms are governed by and construed in accordance with Irish law. If you are acting as a consumer and if mandatory statutory consumer protection regulations in your country of residence contain provisions that are more beneficial for you, such provisions shall apply irrespective of the choice of Irish law. As a consumer, you may bring any judicial proceedings relating to these Terms before the competent court of your place of residence or the competent court of Airbnb's place of business in Ireland. If Airbnb wishes to enforce any of its rights against you as a consumer, we may do so only in the courts of the jurisdiction in which you are a resident. If you are acting as a business, you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Irish courts.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

You are completely missing the point.

@Mike-And-Jane0 

..If a large travel company stops refunding in full due to legal restrictions on usage then the CMA will launch a test case(s) and the law will be clarified.

You cannot have an unclarified law override ANYTHING no matter what jurisdiction or country of residence it is in.

And as is clearly pointed out:

As a consumer, you may bring any judicial proceedings relating to these Terms before the competent court of your place of residence or the competent court of Airbnb's place of business in Ireland.

If guests are not happy they have a right to challenge the contract and especially as the contract relating to Covid-19 has a change of law exclusion for a full refund.

[Helen427]

@Sandra544 @Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 

@Mike-And-Jane0@Jerry250 @Super47 

The Governments response to Coronavirus19

Human Rights implications -  Joint Committee on Human Rights - House of Commons published 21 September 2020

The Lockdown Regulation

"Conclusions and Recommendations

2. More care must be taken by the Government to distinguish between advice, guidance and the law, in the media announcements as well as in official online sources."

Unfortunately I'm not on a computer at the moment so I'm unable to put the link up, alas it's  worth while bearing those words in mind with ABB Hosting & as a Guest as well as in general terms.

 There's also mention how the above has changed  on a weekly basis which adds to confusion.

As an aside, has anyone located who's Peer reviewed Scientific Research papers have been used to establish Rule of 6?

Food for thought & worthy of a conversation & legal challenge in itself, if it's not already under Judicial Review.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

+ +  UK HOSTS ++ PLEASE READ ++ RULE OF 6, NOT VIABLE REFUND OPTION ++

A guest claim for cancellation and a full refund based on having greater than the allowed six guests on a reservation was overturned and the Guest / Host contract was upheld to the benefit of a host and the full cancellation fee due on the cancellation was paid to the host.

With thanks to a question asked of @catherine-powell regarding the implementation of the post 14th March Guest / Host contracts and Terms relating to Covid-19 full refund payments, the direct answer provided by Catherine provided the foundation for us to obtain our contractually agreed Strict cancellation policy payment of 50% against a guest claim that they had more guests than allowed by the ‘rule of 6’.

The pertinent fact of the answer from Catherine was "Guests cannot cancel bookings made after March 14th under the policy because of COVID,… ” ( I will post full details in the Host Circle in due course).

Having more than 6 guests on a reservation is NOT a viable reason for a full refund.

The guest did cancel and did initially receive a full 100% refund. They demanded a full refund based on the frustrated contract argument, and were promised payment equivalent to a full refund. We challenged Airbnb’s decision on this based on the facts of the post 14th March Guest / Host contract.

Airbnb upheld our claim that their decision was wrong and they agreed to pay out our full 50% cancellation fee.

Further details will be posted in the “Host Circle” forum.

@Mike-And-Jane0 

@Sandra544  In light of this new information, and for full transparency it might be prudent to change, or ask the Community managers to change your “Accepted Solution” answer.  This will be a great help to all other UK hosts and guests in this similar situation and prevent the spread of 'fake news'.

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 Very interesting. Lets see if the guest takes this to the small claims court or involves the CMA. If the purpose of the trip was dependent on there being more than 6 people then they will likely win.