Covid cancelled our Guides trip but Kingswood wouldn’t refund in full

The difficulties experienced by many consumers in getting refunds from holiday companies through the pandemic have been widely covered in the press.

Yet the problems that schools and community groups (such as Scouts and Guides) have encountered have hardly been covered at all.

Angela got in touch to say that she had two trips booked with Kingswood Camps for her Guide groups and that the company was not giving her a full refund, as required by law. 

It wanted to keep the deposits for both trips and offer a credit against a future trip.

Angela got in touch to say that she had two trips booked with Kingswood Camps for her Guide groups and that the company was not giving her a full refund, as required by law. It wanted to keep the deposits for both trips and offer a credit against a future trip.

For the first trip Angela booked a Rainbow Group (age 5 to 6) to have a one night stay at Dukeshouse Wood in Northumberland, part of the Kingswood Group. She paid in full for 8 adults and 25 children, a total cost of £960.

The cheque was cashed on 20 April 2020, several weeks after lockdown came into force. 

She let them cash the cheque (which she had sent in March before lockdown) after making a telephone call on 20 March to confirm that everything could be transferred to a different date at no extra cost, if necessary.

Non-refundable deposit?  

Despite the full amount being paid in full, Kingswood stated that it would keep £720 as a non-refundable deposit. 

It would refund the difference (£240 as cash) only if she signed the cancellation form.

This form agreed that Kingswood would give Angela £20 discount per child against a stay costing £54 in 2021. So, she would still have to pay £34 per child.

The total cost of the same stay to be taken before April 2021 would be £1,620 and Kingswood was offering a discount of £600. 

The full refund she would receive would be £240 plus the discount amounts, equalling £840.

So, in effect, she was actually losing £120 (plus the cost of the difference between the 2020 and 2021 prices) if she were to take this offer.

This holiday had to be taken before April 2021. Girlguiding has advised against all trips until at least May 2021.

For the second trip she paid for one group to have a two-night stay in Dukeswood Northumberland, part of the Kingswood Group. 

This was for 57 children and 11 adults for 10 July 2020. 

The booking was made on 24 November 2019 and the total cost was £5877.60. A cheque for a deposit of £1,488 was cashed on 16 December and the booking was confirmed on 5 December.

Consumer Fightback: How to get help with your problem 

Helen Dewdney, The Complaining Cow, writes This is Money’s Consumer Fight Back column.

Helen can help with your consumer complaints. She will explain how you can gain refunds, repairs, replacements or improved service with advice on how to complain and get results. 

If you have a problem you need help solving, please email [email protected] with Consumer Fightback in the subject line, include a short paragraph about your issue – if we need more details we will get in touch. 

Helen Dewdney, right, runs The Complaining Cow site and has written a best-selling book – she is here to help This is Money readers

If it is chosen, we will forward your email and process any information you provide to us in accordance with our privacy policy and Helen will contact you with advice on what to write and you can then get the appropriate solution and redress for yourself.

If the company fails to act, she will then ask them why and what they plan to do.

Helen is the author of best-seller How to Complain: The Essential Consumer Guide to Getting Refunds, Redress and Results! and runs The Complaining Cow blog. 

Find Helen on:

Facebook

Twitter: @complainingcow

Youtube: Helen Dewdney

After numerous emails, Kingswood offered only £20 per person off a booking for 2021, with no refund. 

The total Kingswood was offering for this 2021 trip was £1,040 against a trip costing £6770.40. In effect it was offering £0 credit against a £1,488 deposit already paid.

The email sent to all Kingswood customers from the company’s CEO, Alex Williamson dated 24 June 2020, stated that:

‘We will either provide a discount balance to the account of every customer financially compromised, equivalent to their lost 2020 first deposit.  

‘This per person discount balance, to be set against 2021 brochure prices, will – for all customers from May onwards – provide an option equivalent to a full refund.

‘Or 

‘For March and April customers able to bring the same cohort of guests, we are committed to a roll forward of your entire balance to a trip taken on similar dates next year.

‘Again, this provides a scenario where no money need be lost. 

‘If you are unable to bring the same cohort then we will apply the discount balance explained above.’

However, this was not the case, as the group was losing out financially, as described above.

Amanda asked for advice from Girlguiding but on 9 July Girlguiding told Amanda in an email that ‘I understand that is not your preference however taking the current financial climate into consideration, the loss of deposit at £24 pp is actually quite a good outcome for all those concerned.’

The call for help   

At that point Amanda approached me for help.

Whilst I was helping Angela with her cases I was also communicating with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) about school trips and whether they should have the same cover as any other consumer.

It was immensely difficult to get clarity. Eventually the CMA updated its guidance with a ‘Statement on coronavirus (COVID-19), consumer contracts, cancellation and refunds‘.

This states:’… rights to a refund will usually apply even where the business says part of the payment is a non-refundable deposit or advance payment.

This is because the contract will have been frustrated and terms which allow a business to provide no service but keep a consumer’s money (including deposits or advance payments) are likely to be unfair, and therefore unenforceable under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.’

 What does the law say?

I helped Angela write her emails to Kingswood explaining that she was legally entitled to a full refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the service had not been delivered.

For the avoidance of doubt we mentioned and linked to the guidance too.

The CMA wants consumers to Report a business behaving unfairly during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak so we threatened to do this and take the company through the Small Claims Court if a full refund was not forthcoming.

In response to the email regarding the first trip Kingswood offered a full postponement of the stay to a date in September 2020 (having already been advised that this was not possible) or two possible dates in May 2021.

Whilst Angela would then not be financially out of pocket, and in effect slightly better off because she would be getting the 2021 trip for 2020 prices, she would not have the cash to refund the parents as it would be a different cohort next year.

In addition there are of course worries about companies going into administration and so there was the risk of losing all the money. Angela wrote back demanding the full refund to which she was legally entitled.

What guidance did Girlguiding give?

A spokesperson for Girlguiding said:

‘We are aware that a number of cancelled trips were booked through Kingswood. 

Whilst Girlguiding doesn’t have a nationwide partnership with Kingswood, we have been supporting our members with advice where possible and continue to monitor the UK Government guidance website and the Association of British Insurer’s website for further guidance.

 It is our understanding that in some cases Kingswood have offered members with cancelled bookings the opportunity to postpone trips.

Girlguiding does not support or condone any company that does not act within the law. 

This is not something that has been raised as a concern by those members that have been in touch with us directly regarding bookings with Kingswood.’

However, Amanda has been in contact with Girlguiding and indeed Kingswood was refusing full refunds. I hope this article helps Girlguiding in revising their advice.

Time to go to the Small Claims Court   

Angela submitted a claim for the full refund through the Small Claims Court and awaited a response from Kingswood. 

Bizarrely, the company asked for more time for a response and then said that it had given Angela £300. The response was rejected by Angela and the claim carried on. 

Mediation was offered. It is always a good idea to accept this (it is free), as it could go against you in court if you don’t. Kingswood offered £400 on top of the earlier £300, for a total of £700.

Angela went back with £660 and the court fee which was met with £500 and no more offers. Angela said £500 and the court fee, to which Kingswood agreed.

Personally, I would have loved to have seen this go all the way to the end as I think Angela would have won and it would have set a precedent to help other consumers.

However, we are advised by the mediator that the backlog for court hearings is about a year now, which is a long time to wait, especially as a lot of families are involved and she took the £160 loss to be shared across all the families. 

The gain was considerably more.

It is quite ridiculous that a company such as Kingswood let it get this far. It ended up paying the full refund minus £160 but paid £70 court fees. 

In essence it has kept £90. 

Was it really worth all this time and effort and damage to Kingswood’s public relations? 

Round Two

We did similar for Trip 2.

For this one, Angela contacted Kingswood and told them that she would consider not going to court for the return of the £1,488. 

Kingswood offered 50 per ceny and Angel settled for 80 per cent, £1,190.40

When I emailed the CEO of Kingswood Learning and Leisure Limited to ask if the company was refunding groups for trips that did not/would not be taking place, he passed my email to a PR Crisis Management company.

I was told that I was wrong to assert that consumer law applied because schools and groups were considered businesses. 

The company also said that the groups had the option to claim on travel insurance. However, most insurance companies would not pay out because Kingswood is legally liable for the refund.

It stated that Kingswood was ensuring that no customer would be left out of pocket.

This ranges from a full refund through to rescheduling or credit to the full value of the booking. 

However, as we can see from Angela’s trips, this was not the case. 

The company also said that the groups had the option to claim on travel insurance. 

However, most insurance companies would not pay out because Kingswood is legally liable for the refund.

I explained that the parents are consumers and their contracts were formed on their behalf by the Scout/Guide groups acting as their agent. So, the contract is between the parents and the holiday firm, not the Scouts/Guide groups and the firm.

Incidentally, the same would also apply to schools which he mentioned in his email.

The legal concept of Agent and Principal applies in this instance. It means the relevant consumer law does apply and gives rights to those parents.

Legal advice

Gary Rycroft, solicitor at Joseph A. Jones & Co, agreed with me and said, ‘This is a situation where it does help to de-construct the legal relationships involved in order to understand the rights and responsibilities that the various parties have with and to each other. 

‘The Terms & Conditions for Kingswood which I have seen on their website do not make it clear who the Party entering into the Contract with them is.

‘They have told Helen that the contractual relationship is ‘business to business’ by which they mean Kingswood with the Guide Group and not Kingswood with the parents/guardians, in which case the Consumer Protection legislation intended to protect individual consumers would not apply. 

‘However, I agree that there is an argument to say that the Law of Agency is relevant in which case Kingswood would be the Principal who have entered into a Contract through their Agent (the Guide Group) with the Consumers (the parents/guardians of the Guides), in which case there would be a direct line of responsibility by Kingswood to the individual consumers. 

‘However, whatever the analysis and arguments on that front, the fundamental point remains that the contract to provide the holiday was not performed.

Where possible consumers should try to reach a mutually agreeable solution which might, for example, be postponing an event or taking a discount for a future booking.

‘That was not the fault of Kingswood, the Guides or the parents/guardians. It arose because of an event which was unforeseen when the booking was made, namely Covid-19, which caused the commercial purpose of the contract (to stay overnight and have fun) impossible to go ahead.

‘This is classic territory for what is known as the doctrine of ‘frustration of contract’ and in that case whether the parties to the contract be business to business or business to consumer, the law says the parties should be restored to their original position, which means a full refund should be paid out by Kingswood’

Incidentally, deposits have to be a small percentage of the overall cost ‘… set low enough that it merely reflects the ordinary expenses necessarily entailed for the trader‘ so this high percentage of 25 per cent is also potentially an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in any case.

Conclusion

Whilst the majority of us understand the incredible difficulty that businesses are under during the pandemic, it is not for consumers to shoulder the burden, especially when they too are under financial pressure.

Where possible I would urge consumers to reach a mutually agreeable solution which might, for example, be postponing an event or taking a discount for a future booking.

Where this isn’t possible companies must abide by consumer law. 

If they do not do so then they must be reported to the CMA, which may then take enforcement action, as it has already done against a number of companies in 2020.

This post first appeared on Dailymail.co.uk