Nice guests turned me down

[joddle]

This is not a complaint - more of an observation for comment. I had an enquiry which I answered and quoted for and supplied a copy of our T&Cs etc. As is often the case the person replied saying they had now booked another villa but as this happened so fast I thought I would follow up and ask if there was anything in the quote which had dissuaded them. I had expected there maybe an issue with our new prices which were raised for 2016 after two years of staying the same! I received a very nice reply stating now the prices were fine - but they had been concerned about a statement in the T&Cs which points out they may wish to take out insurance as cover against "possible non availability due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner or manager".

We have always included such a statement because as owner renters we feel it is impossible to guarantee availability - we could die, or previous occupants could trash the place, or there could be damage from weather or fire or other causes.

I think the people were very fair to let me know of their concerns and it has set me thinking if I should modify my statement or leave it out altogether! – although I feel that although many others omit it – as a responsible owner I should let people know there is a risk – however small so they can allow for it. What do others think/do?

[Jot]

I recently had an enquiry from a guest, who reading the T and C's asked what guarantee I could give that the villa would actually be available.
Maybe you could add a sentence to your T and C's that in x many years you have never had to cancel a reservation (if that's the case) to give some reassurance and maybe also state the reasons for why a cancellation may be necessary (so they understand that this would be extremely rare and not just because you fancy staying at your holiday home yourself).

[Ben McNevis]

That's an unusual reaction.

On the bit of our website headed "The small print", we have:

Do check that you have travel insurance. The
unexpected should be allowed for. For example,
a storm in early 2013 left the village with intermittent
electricity for almost a week, making the house
almost uninhabitable! Suitable insurance should
cover you for this kind of risk.

So, we say a similar thing but we expand on it to say why. Maybe that would be less scary. In any case, it's a small minority who bother to read the T&Cs and an even smaller minority who would be deterred by a suggestion that they should have travel insurance. I wouldn't worry about it, personally.

[Gordo]

Vacant Possession is normally mentioned in property sales or rental contracts. It has to be as it satisfies the dreaded question "what's the worst thing that could happen?"

I use the clause below. I deliberately use the words "at any time on the first day booked" to give me a 13 hour window for delays in getting outgoing guests out (so incoming guests can't ask for refund for delays less than that...


NON AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY All bookings are strictly subject to vacant possession, hence the importance for departing guests to ensure they are ready to check-out on time (normally by 1100hrs on day of departure).

If for any reason beyond the owner's control the property is not available at any time on the first day booked, all monies paid will be refunded in full, however the hirer shall have no further claim against the property owners or any agents acting on behalf of the owners.

.

[newtimber]

Vacant Possession is normally mentioned in property sales or rental contracts. It has to be as it satisfies the dreaded question "what's the worst thing that could happen?"

I use the clause below. I deliberately use the words "at any time on the first day booked" to give me a 13 hour window for delays in getting outgoing guests out (so incoming guests can't ask for refund for delays less than that...


NON AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY All bookings are strictly subject to vacant possession, hence the importance for departing guests to ensure they are ready to check-out on time (normally by 1100hrs on day of departure).

If for any reason beyond the owner's control the property is not available at any time on the first day booked, all monies paid will be refunded in full, however the hirer shall have no further claim against the property owners or any agents acting on behalf of the owners.

.

I'm not sure this is reasonable for the guests. They can hardly be expected to wait until nearly midnight to check in to their accommodation. If they have kids, they would have to find somewhere else for the night. I'm not sure that the guests leaving so late that you cannot get the cottage ready is something totally beyond the owners control - it depends on how persuasive the owner is, the owner's policies, security deposits etc etc ...

[greenbarn]

The important part for me is the guest understanding the need to insure against circumstances that prevent them reaching the accommodation, including weather.
Reading about insurance as cover against "possible non availability due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner or manager" could raise different concerns in the mind of the guest - eg are you planning to sell the place and they'll be left with no holiday and no time to book something else, or other odd possibilities.

At a guess (and that's all it is) if the place was trashed, burned down or the owner died (or went bankrupt as happened at a property not far from us, leaving booked guests high and dry and out of pocket) I question if that would be an insurable risk? It would probably take a lot of wading through policy documents to answer that one - anyone up for the job?

So maybe the way it's worded could plant doubt in a guest's mind where there's no need to.
A thought, anyway.

[Casscat]

I do not provide T&Cs/booking contract at enquiry stage - and with all the rentals I've personally enquired about over the years I have never been sent T&Cs up front. I do think that your prospective guests are either struggling to find an excuse that will not offend you or are just plain weird.

[Gordo]

I'm not sure this is reasonable for the guests

I can see your point newtimber, but rightly or wrongly a vacant possession clause exists to protect the renter/seller and nothing else.

You might consider a comparison with any everyday housebuyer, perhaps a family with young kids etc. If all the legal ducks haven't been lined up correctly and they have nowhere to stay that night then the housebuyer has little recourse for action as the contract they'll have signed will have a VP clause.

Aside from maybe a 5 hour changeover being reduced to 4 hours due to delayed out-goers I've yet to encounter any problem but I do have a heart and would of course do my best to manage any out of line situation. Having said that there's always the possibility of out-goers delaying (they could lose their deposit) so any owner would be wise to protect themselves from a shall-we-say 'over zealous' incoming guest who wants a full refund for say a 1-2 hour delay!

Out of interest, how do you (or other owners) protect yourself from that very scenario?

.

[Bunny]

Although my T&Cs recommend taking out insurance, it is more for guests having to cancel. If I had to cancel a booking on a guest, regardless of whether it was within my control, I undertake in my T&Cs to refund in full. I had not considered it really reasonable to expect guests to insure against our risks? Perhaps I need to rethink this. However if guests delay the arrival of subsequent guests, I reserve the right to make a charge from their security deposit to compensate the next guests. I can see why the mere suggestion that, in the very rare event of a property not being available, that a guest could lose everything, could be off putting for some.

[COYS]

Regarding the OP, & as an example, I'd imagine that there are plenty of properties affected by the current weather in the UK, & the clause in Joddles terms would cover this among any number of factors that could (but thankfully rarely) occur beyond our control.
Personally I'd leave your clause in & I agree with Casscat that it's not necessary to provide contracts or T&C's at enquiry stage. Sounds more like a polite way out for your enquirer as opposed to a genuine concern as I'd imagine almost all owners have a 'force majeure' type clause in some form or another.

[CSE]

Extract from the first post:

T&Cs which points out they may wish to take out insurance as cover against "possible non availability due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner or manager".

Is that not the reason why the owner should have public liability insurance? or alternatively an insurance to cover them from loss of earnings. Any insurance payment will pay compensation due.

[greenbarn]

Extract from the first post:

T&Cs which points out they may wish to take out insurance as cover against "possible non availability due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner or manager".

Is that not the reason why the owner should have public liability insurance? or alternatively an insurance to cover them from loss of earnings. Any insurance payment will pay compensation due.

I think that may be the point I was trying to make: if the guest can't get there it's for the guest to have insurance against that possibility, and not expect the owner (or the owner's insurance) to pay up.
If the guest can get there but the accommodation is trashed, it's down to the owner to have insurance and not expect the guest (or the guest's insurance) to pay up.

[CSE]

Sorry did not mean to dismiss your posting.
Had a bit of wine at the time. Even more as the night went on

[greenbarn]

Sorry did not mean to dismiss your posting.
Had a bit of wine at the time. Even more as the night went on

No, hadn't occurred to me you were being dismissive at all! It's just another viewpoint that I saw as being in line with what I was thinking. Do you find wine brings a certain clarity of understanding to otherwise intricate topics? At least the first bottle anyway!

[joddle]

Extract from the first post:

T&Cs which points out they may wish to take out insurance as cover against "possible non availability due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner or manager".

Is that not the reason why the owner should have public liability insurance? or alternatively an insurance to cover them from loss of earnings. Any insurance payment will pay compensation due.

I think that may be the point I was trying to make: if the guest can't get there it's for the guest to have insurance against that possibility, and not expect the owner (or the owner's insurance) to pay up.
If the guest can get there but the accommodation is trashed, it's down to the owner to have insurance and not expect the guest (or the guest's insurance) to pay up.

Yes we do have public liability but we also like to think of ourselves as caring for our guests so that's why we specifically mention possible non availability. Reading the posts here I am now convinced we do the right thing but may benefit from adding some more information as to why we think this is important - an example as a for instance!

Putting it into perspective, this is the first time anyone has mentioned this but we don't know if others have thought the same as our recent enquirer - but thanks to all of you who have shared your opinions - very useful indeed.