Holiday cottage - Booting family out, AIBU?

[HolidayCottageAnnoyance]

I have a holiday cottage which does not allow children under 12. This is for health and safety reasons (think steep stairs, pond, open and functioning fireplace etc). It says on the listing at three different points on the listing page that children under 12 are not allowed. This includes babes in arms. It also makes it clear when you book (i.e. once you've selected dates and you get through to payment) that children are not allowed. There is literally no way this can be missed.

I had a phone call from a neighbour this morning as they had seen a toddler in the garden and had noticed that the car that the 'couple' arrived in has a baby-seat in it. I rang the cottage company before lunch and received a rather passive response that made it clear they didn't want the grief of turfing the family out. I was very firm and said I wanted them out by the end of the day. Long story short they are still there (I have texted said neighbour to check).

So here is my AIBU: would I be completely unreasonable to send a relative tomorrow to boot them out if they are still there? As it's all done through the cottage company I have no way of getting in touch with them myself, so either relying on the ineffectual cottage company or sending a relative are my only choices.

YABU: Let it go, the child hasn't been injured so far and it's only four more nights.
YANBU: They're cheeky fucks and you should boot them out even if the holiday cottage company isn't going to help. Then you should find a new holiday cottage company to list through.

The post says they saw a toddler in the garden and a car seat. They were being nosey, if they were so concerned and felt there was a danger they'd have acted swiftly and went straight over or called the police. They've been curtain twitching 😂

I agree with @ArmchairPanic and I would never dream of suing anyone for accident in their property

It’s very relevant when so many posters are freaking out about a family staying for four days near a pond. Goodness me, you’d ll hyperventilate if you ever saw say, a farm

No, really, it isn't. If this family in their everyday lives live on or near a farm, or a lake, or a busy road, that's their business and completely different.
I'll say it again: it's the OP's house and she set the rules, which these people have flouted. It doesn't really matter whether she set the no-under-12s rule because of H&S concerns or for another reason; they're clearly set out and people need to notice, understand and follow them.

The neighbour knew the owner/the OP does not let out to families with children. They were doing the right thing contacting the OP, who could then contact her agency.

Just have your own basic website and book your own visitors it’s far cheaper and easier or use Airbnb

Any other site will have the same problem. Bookings rely on the veracity of the guests and it also requires them to read the listing and rental agreement properly.

Yes, but again,

once you remove the group of responsible parents that would not in fact leave their children unsupervised near bodies of open water, stats once again decrease......

Were talking about a small group of irresponsible people, having to care enough about their kids, to book a holiday and then leave their kids unsupervised.

Yes child drowning is horrific that it happens at all. But, let's be reasonable, your child is probably more likely to die when you strap them into a car, let them cross a road... And you still do that everyday without panicking about insurance.

Utterly misleading, useless statistics. So now we know what 111 is as a percentage of 3 million and something. Well great. Except those 3 million haven’t all gone anywhere near a pond (in fact you haven’t explained where you’ve got the 3 million from, but I’m guessing it’s the number of kids below a certain age in the uk or whatever).

You’d need to know how many kids have been exposed to a garden pond before you can find out anything about the level of risk.

Your drivel would just be mildly amusing were it not for the fact we’re talking about 111 dead children.

You might as well argue that there is no need to wear a safety belt because there is a much reduced risk of injury now that everyone wears safety belts.

Well no because, as for risk you adjust to make safe, so seat belts in cars, supervision while crossing roads and, near ponds or fireplaces.. Youre completely right, I didn't take that into account have a great day 🙏💕

Original poster of statistics said
Out of under 5s in the UK. Not under 5s exposed to water.

My bad. I'm autistic. Have a great day x

The other poster just stated, correctly, how many under 5s died in the UK. They didn’t make it out of anything. You took that figure and turned it into a pointless, misleading percentage. Not the other poster’s fault at all.

I agree. Your bad.

I don't see why not, the family who booked it totally ignored several warnings that it was not for under 12s. They're CFS and need to be told.

Renters most likely did not inform management company which now has an obligation to remove the family.

I've attempted to resuscitate a toddler who had fallen in a pond. Tragically, we got a heartbeat back. For the child's sake it would honestly have been better if we hadn't. How many dead or brain damaged toddlers do you consider to be acceptable collateral damage?

Exactly. If you were as clear as you said you were, then if something happens, then I don’t see how you would be held liable, especially as you’ve alerted the holiday letting company.

Are you ok? Zombie thread.