Are Airbnb's booking policies sexist?

[pileapetals]

Last April, I cancelled an overseas holiday due to Covid (planes weren't flying, was the responsible thing to do anyway, etc.) Airbnb credited my account instead of giving me a refund at the time (a refund was not an option).

This year, I find out I'm pregnant and due date is end November. Airbnb's credit expires end December this year. As I'm pregnant (ie. lower immunity) and still have no idea when I can get my covid shots, it's unreaslistic to expect travel whilst pregnant, and definitely don't see myself taking a holiday in December with an infant just a few weeks old.

So I call Airbnb and ask for the credit to be extended for a year so the credit doesn't go to waste. Airbnb flat out refuses, saying "you agreed to our terms and conditions". I escalate the case, and get passed from one male representative to another male rep. I again explain why I would be unable to travel given the ongoing uncertainties relating to travel in my current condition. The rep insists that they won't do anything and the voucher will just have to expire. Though he's fully aware of my condition and the enhanced risks that Covid poses to those pregnant, he further adds that they won't do anything because their policies need to reflect "equality and impartiality".

Implicit in his statement is that he cannot make an exception for pregnant women because it's not something that can be applied to male customers. I find his statement and Airbnb's booking policy extremely sexist. By his definition of what is equality and impartiality, maternity leave should not exist in the world because that's a benefit that is extended only to the gender capable of giving birth, and health insurers cannot extend coverage for screening of prostate cancer since that's only a test applicable to men but not women. What a horrible world that would be!

In my view, Airbnb's booking policy makes no consideration for the one of the most basic biological phenomenon on the planet: pregnancy, the very thing that gives us all life.

I can let the voucher expire worthless and waste my money, but I don't see why I should, especially since I've done nothing wrong here?! Unless Airbnb's view is that my one crime is being pregnant whilst in a Covid world?!

AIBU to think they are being ridiculous for refusing to extend the voucher validity here?

Re: question on why I don't want to travel domestically whilst pregnant, I have been classified by the NHS as a high risk pregnancy. So I don't want to risk getting caught out in an unfamiliar place if there is a medical emergency. Believe me, I'd LOVE to travel if I could.

Unless you have been explicitly told to stay on bed rest, which I doubt you have as that would have been a much better argument than just ‘I’m pregnant’ to Air B&B then I don’t understand this point? Surely you can just travel to a big city where lots have state of the art hospitals? NHS records are stored on a data base and accessible within them all?

I have an extremely complex, rare medical condition and fell sick 300 miles away from home whilst sight-seeing and they were AMAZING with me. You don’t want to do a domestic holiday, which is fine I wouldn’t either if I’d planned on going abroad but don’t use that as an excuse because it’s silly.

@GreenestValley

Just give it to someone else and they pay you the value of it

This was my first thought too. Is this an option?

I'm not sure it's sexist, but I think i's a shame Airbnb won't help, as you cancelled due to no flights, not a change of mind.

Were you insured?

@pileapetals

It's not the pregnant part that makes travel risky - in a non-Covid world, I'd have no issues using the voucher somehow. But with Covid, which is beyond my control, and with no timeline for my own vaccination, travel is something that can put you/your baby at risk. Sure you can say "oh people are vaccinated so even if you aren't, you'll be fine". But as a potential parent, that's definitely a risk there.

Re: question on why I don't want to travel domestically whilst pregnant, I have been classified by the NHS as a high risk pregnancy. So I don't want to risk getting caught out in an unfamiliar place if there is a medical emergency. Believe me, I'd LOVE to travel if I could. It was one of my favourite things pre-covid. I just don't think I should only think for myself and what I would enjoy since I'm responsible for the wellbeing of someone else right now as well.

If you're medically advised not to travel, then surely your travel insurance should cover you?

If you didn't take insurance out when you first booked, then you took the risk to lose them money, and it's got nothing to do with covid.

Sorry YABU, and a bit ridiculous to scream sexism, it's not like they have cancelled the voucher or told you that you can't use it because you are pregnant, you are choosing not to because of your circumstances

The policy is the policy

? You can use the vouchers, just not abroad. You need to be the one adjusting your own plans and expectations rather than insisting that the vouchers are changed to fit around your pregnancy.

I think you're unreasonable here

Did you make the actual booking before 14 March 2020? If so, their website says you should be offered a refund or travel credit:

www.airbnb.co.uk/help/article/2701/extenuating-circumstances-policy-and-the-coronavirus-covid19

If not, I'd do what CirclesWithinCircles suggested.

@CirclesWithinCircles

I'm a lawyer, and I agree with you OP.

The comment from Air B&B about "equality" - equality laws are based on equality of opportunity, not some imaginary minimum standard.

I would actually tackle this in an entirely different, easier way though. I would say that Covid initially frustrated the contract with Air B&B, and the remedy for frustration of contract is the return of all contractual outlays, with no further liabilities owing on either side. The contract is frustrated through illegality/impossibility.

And if you had been deemed to have accepted their contractual amendment, your contract has been further frustrated by impossibility/illegality.

This is a very well established point of contract law - I don't know why Air BnB are messing around with, other than I assume their business would crash if they dealt with it properly (as many businesses have had to do).

I'd do a Small Claim against them to get their money back. I'd also mention the sex discrimination ground and proceed on both grounds.

Utter chancers. This is appalling. It is not your pregnancy which has caused the difficulty with the contract, but Air BnB's attempt to negotiate new terms and to extend the contract for an indefinite and lengthy period on terms which favour themselves.

How do you know there isn’t a force majeure clause in the contract? If there is we would need to know what it said before advising of the consequences of covid.

assuming it's UK law then even if there was a force majeure it would be deemed an unfair term under UK contract law.

Good lord. Really? You should have asked for a refund in the first place, you didn't so they extended it for a year and now you want them to extend it again because you are pregnant? Use it now or don't, it's your call not theirs.

@Comefromaway

assuming it's UK law then even if there was a force majeure it would be deemed an unfair term under UK contract law.

Under English law, it would depend what it said surely.

@ChristmasArmadillo

First pregnancy then, is it? You’ll look back in five years and be mortified at yourself.

Urgh, there’s always at least one with this sort of crappy comment.

Were you aware of Covid when you booked the Airbnb?

How do you know there isn’t a force majeure clause in the contract? If there is we would need to know what it said before advising of the consequences of covid.

Why would I need to know? The basic principles of contract law override contractual terms and in the case of frustration of contract, it is a statutory term. Otherwise, the principle of frustration of contract (which was developed by the courts to deal with these types of events around the turn of the previous century) wouldn't exist.

Its clearly illegality/impossibility and the case law is well established. The frustrating event, particularly the illegality surrounding the ability to travel, is unforseeable and the alternative offered is not anywhere approaching equivalent. But theres still ongoing illegality.

I'd be surprised if AirBnB challenged a Small Claim on this basis and didn't just settle it, possibly with a confidentiality agreement of some kind attached.

This is really not very difficult or anything...

It was clarified last year by (I think) the Office of Fair Trading) regarding Covid related frustration of contract and companies being unable to provide services due to lockdown restrictions. As far as I'm aware no company has sucessfully challenged their ruling.

Circles explains it better.

@Comefromaway

assuming it's UK law then even if there was a force majeure it would be deemed an unfair term under UK contract law.

And absolutely yes to this too, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would have relevance here, if it were necessary to go beyond the basic frustration argument.

Possibly also CRA 2015 too depending on the dates involved, but tbh I'd just argue frustration and skeleton arguments on anything else.

@Comefromaway

It was clarified last year by (I think) the Office of Fair Trading) regarding Covid related frustration of contract and companies being unable to provide services due to lockdown restrictions. As far as I'm aware no company has sucessfully challenged their ruling.

I actually missed that (I'm in Scotland so I do have an excuse!) but glad that has happened.

It is shocking what some companies will try to get away with, although you can see why they try, judging by some of the replies on here!

It was the CMA

"In some circumstances, due to lockdown laws, a contract cannot go ahead as agreed or at all, and is therefore ‘frustrated’. A contract will be frustrated as a matter of law if, due to no fault of the parties, something happens after the contract was entered into which means it can no longer be performed at all or performance would be radically different to what was agreed.

As a result, the contract comes to an end and, where consumers have paid money in advance for services or goods that they have yet to receive, they will generally be entitled to obtain a refund.

They will also not be required to make further payments.

In particular, for most consumer contracts, the CMA would expect a consumer to be offered a full refund where:

a business has cancelled a contract without providing any of the promised goods or services
no goods or services are provided by a business because this is prevented by the lockdown laws
a consumer is prevented from receiving any goods or services, because, for example, lockdown laws in the UK or abroad have made it illegal to receive or use the goods or services
In most cases, consumers will contact a business to ask for their money back, but there is no requirement for consumers formally to communicate with a business before becoming entitled to a refund.

Examples of legal restrictions in lockdown laws include:

restrictions imposed under the original lockdown laws in the early stages of the pandemic
restrictions imposed by local lockdown laws
specific restrictions imposed by local authorities under their legal lockdown powers
mandatory self-isolation following a direction from a public health officer
mandatory self-isolation when returning to the UK from certain countries which may affect the consumer’s ability to use a service during the self-isolation period (provided that the requirement to self-isolate was imposed after the consumer had entered into the relevant contract and was not reasonably anticipated by the consumer)
If laws in another country prevent a business from providing a service under a contract with a UK consumer or prevent that consumer from receiving the service, then in most cases consumers will also be entitled to a refund.

Businesses should not require consumers to take unreasonable or unnecessary steps in order to obtain refunds. A business imposing such barriers may breach consumer protection law by doing so.

(then a paragraph about certain exemptions where part of a service has already been provided)

Credits and re-booking
Consumers can normally be offered credits, vouchers, re-booking or re-scheduling as an alternative to a refund, but they should not be misled or pressured into doing so. A refund should still be an option that is just as clearly and easily available.

In particular, businesses should not give consumers the impression that they are not entitled to a cash refund where that is their legal right, and in the CMA’s view this would be likely to breach consumer protection law.

Any restrictions that apply to credits, vouchers, re-booking or re-scheduling must also be fair and made clear to consumers."

Op I am also having a high risk pregnancy, we will still be having a week long holiday in the lake District in July, there's no reason you can't use your voucher in the UK even with a high risk pregnancy. Pick a city break if your worried about quick access to medical care.

Use it for a UK break, you don't need to go abroad- December with your baby would be a lovely time to go away and have something to look forwards to.

While it is unfortunate, no, it isn't sexist. Don't be ridiculous, calling things like this sexist just weakens the feminist movement.

Oh FFS. Enough with the cries of sexism just because you’re not given special treatment when pregnant!

@CirclesWithinCircles

How do you know there isn’t a force majeure clause in the contract? If there is we would need to know what it said before advising of the consequences of covid.

Why would I need to know? The basic principles of contract law override contractual terms and in the case of frustration of contract, it is a statutory term. Otherwise, the principle of frustration of contract (which was developed by the courts to deal with these types of events around the turn of the previous century) wouldn't exist.

Its clearly illegality/impossibility and the case law is well established. The frustrating event, particularly the illegality surrounding the ability to travel, is unforseeable and the alternative offered is not anywhere approaching equivalent. But theres still ongoing illegality.

I'd be surprised if AirBnB challenged a Small Claim on this basis and didn't just settle it, possibly with a confidentiality agreement of some kind attached.

This is really not very difficult or anything...

Maybe it’s different in Scotland - but if not how does s2(3) of the law reform (frustrated contracts) act sit with your analysis? The statute itself says the force majeure deals “fully and completely” with the issue then that the court will give effect to the contractual provision.

Also in England UCTA doesn’t apply to Consumer Contracts, so if OP takes your advice to litigate then she would need to use the consumer rights act.

*Says IF the force majeure clause deals fully and completely