Accor Charging Me More for a Confirmed Stay

[transpactraveller]

I imagine they'd use the 'subject to availability' to deny that one...

True, although there should be a room available if it were requested at the same time as cancelling the current booking!

 

[equus]

The text of the email if anyone is interested.

What they are really saying is our revenue management team stuffed up and under estimated demand for NYE for some reason and we are fully booked already. We are now reviewing bookings that were made at a cheap rate and attempting a try-on to see if anyone will bite and let us jack up the price.

The "free night subject to availability anywhere in the next 12 months" is a real con - they want you to cancel so that they can resell the room for $700 more than the currnet booking - and they are offering something worth about half that.

I would suspect that they know (or soon will) that they don't have a leg to stand on under ACL, and are just hoping they don't get called, but will honour the bookings for those that stand firm. The NSW Consumer Affairs link that @MEL_Traveller provided includes a specific example of a right to compensation:

An accommodation provider made a booking error and cancelled Joe's accommodation. The accommodation provider was unable to provide alternative accommodation within a reasonable time and Joe was required to book new accommodation with an alternative host. The new accommodation cost $300.00 more than the original purchase. Joe may be able to seek compensation for the cost of the new accommodation or the difference paid for the new accommodation.

 

[SeaWolf]

Might also be worth putting a review on TripAdvisor and Google Maps about this experience. Hotels seem to take those very seriously for some reason and frankly, they deserve some bad publicity for trying this stunt.

EDIT: Might also be worth posting to the r/Sydney Reddit. That often generates quite a bit of attention and media are often looking there to see what's going on around town that might be a worthwhile story. It's a shame the ABC's "The Checkout" isn't still running, this would have definitely been the sort of thing they'd be interested in covering.

 

[Seat0B]

The text of the email if anyone is interested.

Wow this all but says they want to have your room back and sell it at a higher price. You should seriously think about not rolling over on this.

 

[aikman]

I would think that the options and expectations on both sides would be different if it was a prepaid non refundable booking vs a pay on arrival cancel a day prior booking.

 

[muppet]

I think at this stage the hotel hasn’t actually done anything to breach contract or act unlawfully, has it?

The hotel has just asked for more money, it will be interesting what is said when the OP refuses to pay more or take the free night. Then we’ll know the hotel’s true position.

 

[Phoenix-1]

What they are really saying is our revenue management team stuffed up and underestimated demand for NYE for some reason and we are fully booked already. We are now reviewing bookings that were made at a cheap rate and attempting a try-on to see if anyone will bite and let us jack up the price.

This is my interpretation as well. The fact that they try and fob this off as a system error is just scummy.

I have sent a reply last night staying I intend to keep the reservation but will not pay anything extra and that the options appear to breach ACL.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What they are really saying is our revenue management team stuffed up and under estimated demand for NYE for some reason and we are fully booked already. We are now reviewing bookings that were made at a cheap rate and attempting a try-on to see if anyone will bite and let us jack up the price.

The "free night subject to availability anywhere in the next 12 months" is a real con - they want you to cancel so that they can resell the room for $700 more than the currnet booking - and they are offering something worth about half that.

I would suspect that they know (or soon will) that they don't have a leg to stand on under ACL, and are just hoping they don't get called, but will honour the bookings for those that stand firm. The NSW Consumer Affairs link that @MEL_Traveller provided includes a specific example of a right to compensation:

The right to compensation is payable if there has been a failure to meet a consumer guarantee, per the same document I linked.

Does this case fit under ACL? And if so, which guarantee has been breached?

Is it the failure to provide a service with due care and skill? As in Accor did not provide due care and skill in selling the Pullman’s room on NYE (Accor should have been aware a higher price was likely to be charged?)

If the OP goes in hard under ACL but there is no ground it could make it difficult down the track.

I think the NSW fair trading department picks up on the requirement to have a right to cancel by the provider in the contract… which I can’t see. But is that ACL or contract law?

 

[equus]

I think at this stage the hotel hasn’t actually done anything to breach contract or act unlawfully, has it?

Does this case fit under ACL? And if so, which guarantee has been breached?

Possible breaches would be for false or misleading representation with respect to the prohibtion on "make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;" as far as assertations that the original price is now wrong, or possibly Unconscionable conduct for the attempt to extract more money under threat of cancelling the booking - where the email itself, especially the deadline and implied threat to cancel unless more money is paid may constitue harrasement in contravetion of "A person must not use physical force, or undue harassment or coercion,"

Take your pick IANAL.

 

[Phoenix-1]

Does this case fit under ACL? And if so, which guarantee has been breached?

Personally, I would consider this a "major failure" of the service. No one would book a NYE holiday 12 months in advance if they knew the hotel is not able to provide the service without charging an additional 140%.

EDIT: Might also be worth posting to the r/Sydney Reddit. That often generates quite a bit of attention and media are often looking there to see what's going on around town that might be a worthwhile story. It's a shame the ABC's "The Checkout" isn't still running, this would have definitely been the sort of thing they'd be interested in covering.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see how they respond first.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Possible breaches would be for false or misleading representation with respect to the prohibtion on "make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;" as far as assertations that the original price is now wrong, or possibly Unconscionable conduct for the attempt to extract more money under threat of cancelling the booking - where the email itself, especially the deadline and implied threat to cancel unless more money is paid may constitue harrasement in contravetion of "A person must not use physical force, or undue harassment or coercion,"

Take your pick IANAL.

I think this is where the OP should call NSW consumer affairs… it’s a free call and they should be able to offer some guidance. I’m not sure this fits under deceptive pricing as per the definitions/examples under ACL.

It may indeed be a mistake by the hotel, but I don’t think it’s a mistake they can use to cancel the contract.

 

[drron]

Yes I hope you have called consumer affairs already.
Once when a rental car company tried to do that to me I emailed the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Worked a treat.

 

[Ansett Nostalgic]

I think at this stage the hotel hasn’t actually done anything to breach contract or act unlawfully, has it?

The hotel has just asked for more money, it will be interesting what is said when the OP refuses to pay more or take the free night. Then we’ll know the hotel’s true position.

It is an anticipatory breach of contract because they are saying the OP needs to choose between paying extra or cancelling. It suggests that the hotel is unwilling to perform its end of the bargain.

It also amounts to misleading conduct, drip pricing, and unconscionable conduct, amongst other things.