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?

So you haven’t actually been told you can’t travel at all - U.K. or abroad? You have decided not to but expect to be refunded?

@Comefromaway

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."

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

Even if this has force of law, this paragraph is relevant. OP says a refund was not an option at the time - did you ask OP?

I'd just use it for a UK break instead. Take your notes with you (if you've still got paper ones) and find out where the nearest maternity unit is in advance - we went away for a short break at 36 weeks pregnant and that's what I did.

Even if this has force of law, this paragraph is relevant. OP says a refund was not an option at the time - did you ask OP?

I agree. A lot will hinge on whether OP was misled that a refund at the time was not an option.

The Laws referenced are the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 & Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Of course you can travel in the UK while pregnant. So it’s completely your choice not to use the voucher. It would be different if government advice was “all pregnant women to fully shield for the entire pregnancy and not stay away from home under any circumstances” but it’s not - that’s a choice you’re making. I’m 28 weeks pregnant and just spent a lovely week in Wales. You’re making a choice that just happens to be based on being pregnant, it’s not Airbnb’s problem.

I agree with the OP that it is a sexist policy, regardless of the intention.

The government in my opinion should have intervened with legislation about refunds and credits given the pandemic. Think of this issue, then the Ryanair months to refund issue, and many others.

Give over OP

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.

It isn't different in Scotland but competition law protection and enforcement can vary and the jurisdiction and competence of the CMA is affected by the Scotland Act.

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.

I'm not "advising" anyone. Your comments are very odd.

There are a number of grounds on which the OP could proceed. I don't think inventing someone giving free legal advice under a fictitous name on an internet site (as opposed to discussing a legal topic) or fictitous, incredibly effective force majeure clauses in contracts are particularly helpful. If I were her, I'd issue a PAP letter, show willing for mediation and look for a settlement.

Rather than running around making excuses for a business evading its potential legal obligations.

And for god's sake, indirect discrimination (which has a disproportionate effect on certain people sharing protected characteristics) does also exist and has done for decades!

What the hell are they teaching in the GDL these days? Its only going to get worse too...

@newnortherner111

I agree with the OP that it is a sexist policy, regardless of the intention.

The government in my opinion should have intervened with legislation about refunds and credits given the pandemic. Think of this issue, then the Ryanair months to refund issue, and many others.

The existing laws do deal with it adequately though. It appears that the problem is knowledge of existing law and the usual lack of widespread awareness of consumer rights/difficulty in enforcing them.

So perhaps you are right. The Government has had no issue in quickly legislating to deal with the rest of the coronavirus crisis.

It is a sexist policy, because it has a disproportionate effect on women, who are obviously the only sex likely to have their holiday plans disrupted by pregnancy related health concerns, whether those are serious health matters or not.

@newnortherner111

I agree with the OP that it is a sexist policy, regardless of the intention.

In what way is Air bnb's policy sexist?

We also had a booking with Air BnB when the first lockdown hit. We pushed for a refund at the time and didn't accept a credit/voucher/moving the dates (this was in USA so we were, and continue to be, banned from flying into so don't know if that made a difference) and were successful.

I don't know if this is something you could retrospectively push for, although I think once you've accepted a voucher/credit it might be too late. I don't think they are being sexist as such, they are just trying to push their luck in what has been a very difficult year.

Not to derail but you know you can use the voucher in the UK rather than abroad or for a whole range of experiences rather than stays ?

@CirclesWithinCircles

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.

It isn't different in Scotland but competition law protection and enforcement can vary and the jurisdiction and competence of the CMA is affected by the Scotland Act.

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.

I'm not "advising" anyone. Your comments are very odd.

There are a number of grounds on which the OP could proceed. I don't think inventing someone giving free legal advice under a fictitous name on an internet site (as opposed to discussing a legal topic) or fictitous, incredibly effective force majeure clauses in contracts are particularly helpful. If I were her, I'd issue a PAP letter, show willing for mediation and look for a settlement.

Rather than running around making excuses for a business evading its potential legal obligations.

And for god's sake, indirect discrimination (which has a disproportionate effect on certain people sharing protected characteristics) does also exist and has done for decades!

What the hell are they teaching in the GDL these days? Its only going to get worse too...

There is absolutely no need for the snark, I have not been impolite to you. I didn’t “invent a fictitious” clause, I merely said we don’t know if there is one.

You said:

And absolutely yes to this too, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would have relevance here

Whereas it in fact has no relevance at all as that statute doesn’t apply to consumer contracts, yet you’re making shitty comments to me about what they teach on the GDL.

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.

Go somewhere with easy access to a good hospital/maternity unit - it really doesn't have to be difficult .

Three weeks before my DC was due, we went on an autumn trip to the Lake District. We just made sure that we were staying within easy reach of the local hospital and not in the more inaccessible areas. It was a great trip. I was the size of a house but it was precious as our last childfree trip away.

But you can make it work. A village 20 minutes up the road. Book for family or friends to come and stay close to you.

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.

Which is indirect discrimination, the Equality act and other legislation allow for differences due to sex and pregnancy.

Get back in touch and tell them they are breaking the law.

I was going to say yabu, until you mentioned his statement about “it can’t be applied to male customers”. That’s patently not a good reason, as there are loads of policies in the world (pregnancy related included) that can’t be applied to male customers.

I’m nit sure if this creates such a problem for them as to invalidate their entire policy though - I expect not

I’d use it for a U.K. booking instead.

It’s weird though, as I’ve had Eurostar vouchers extended automatically even though I’ve got no particular reason.

Just going to put this out there again because I don't think this has anything to do with Covid or sexism, it's to do with the OP choosing not to travel unless she has been medically declared as unfit to travel, in which case travel insurance would kick in.

Also - what would they do if it were a different medical reason? A broken leg?

DragonMuff You said:

And absolutely yes to this too, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would have relevance here

Whereas it in fact has no relevance at all as that statute doesn’t apply to consumer contracts, yet you’re making shitty comments to me about what they teach on the GDL.

You need more attention to detail if you're going to go down the "you said, she said" road. I only mentioned UCTA 77 because another poster raised it and I was being polite. Go back and read the relevant posts before swinging accusations around.

You also accused me of "giving legal advice" which I am really not happy about.

This post is actually about a very interesting consumer law point, which I'm personally quite enjoying discussing. I'd rather not get side-tracked dealing with what are frankly some quite odd accusations.

Is that ok? If you want to debate the "he said, she said" stuff, you could start a new thread to do so? Please, no more personal accusations. I just want to stick to discussing the law.

Although actually DragonMuff UCTA 77 would apply to any exclusion clause which attempted to exclude death or personal injury resulting from negligence, and this policy does appear to be potentially negligent as it may discriminate against pregnant women.

I'm astonished that the writer of the email working for Air BnB put those comments about his interpretation of equality in writing!

@CirclesWithinCircles

DragonMuff You said:

And absolutely yes to this too, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would have relevance here

Whereas it in fact has no relevance at all as that statute doesn’t apply to consumer contracts, yet you’re making shitty comments to me about what they teach on the GDL.

You need more attention to detail if you're going to go down the "you said, she said" road. I only mentioned UCTA 77 because another poster raised it and I was being polite. Go back and read the relevant posts before swinging accusations around.

You also accused me of "giving legal advice" which I am really not happy about.

This post is actually about a very interesting consumer law point, which I'm personally quite enjoying discussing. I'd rather not get side-tracked dealing with what are frankly some quite odd accusations.

Is that ok? If you want to debate the "he said, she said" stuff, you could start a new thread to do so? Please, no more personal accusations. I just want to stick to discussing the law.

This is bizarre and I don’t want to derail so I’m going to leave the thread.

You aren't giving birth for months yet. Just book some time in this country.

Can you book a fancy air b n b in the UK but near you? That way you won't have to travel far from your chosen hospital but can still have a luxurious break.

It's slightly different but pre ds dh and I wanted to book a big last adult holiday. We booked Barbados not realising the zika risk at time of paying the deposit (zika was a known thing but we hadn't appreciated how high the risk was and on reflection decided it was too much) we cancelled but lost £400 which we accepted because it was our choice. Likewise you could go away now or once delivered but you have chosen not to, you haven't been medically advised not to, which I think would make a difference. Its rubbish but I'm not sure it's secret in your case.