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.

I'd have thought the risk to a child is higher in a place that (a) they're not familiar with, (b) their parents aren't familiar with and (c) while they're on holiday. Not everybody relaxes on holiday, but a good few adults see it as a chance for a rest and may be having a drink if they're not planning on driving anywhere.

Incredible that the letting agency's in the same location as the property and they still won't do anything, but then they're probably only interested in the £££

Obviously you need to change agencies immediately, but did your relative who visited their office get anything out of them?

Kick them out faster. You do not want to be on the hook for the death of a toddler. Even though you were clear that small children are not allowed prior to their taking possession, once YOU were made aware by your neighbor that a small child was there, you might now have some kind of a larger duty to protect the child. But why would you even want to be involved in something like that? And, God forbid, if something happens, your insurance may not cover a tragedy if the insurance company learns you were made aware of the child being present and did not remove them immediately thereafter. The Insurance company will interview the neighbor to find out when you were made aware. Insurance companies will contort themselves to not pay or reduce the amount they do pay and leave you with the remainder. Get the toddler and family out, stat.

Fair point - but I'm thinking from the point of view of not wanting a child to die needlessly rather than just the liability side!

Then again, they could hardly sue if the owner explicitly said it was not suitable for young children and they took one anyway.

Sad to say, OP might need to go down the McDonalds 'Warning: Coffee is hot' route and spell it out even more explicitly. Explaining WHY it's unsuitable and thus strictly forbidden for under 12s, that anybody found having brought a child in WILL be ordered to leave without any refund, and that any liability for child-specific accidents is 100% on them. And if it isn't already in place, a signed promise from the bookers that they will not bring anybody under 12 in to the premises.

Some people will be a mixture of obstinate, selfish and just dim, and will otherwise assume that you've just said no under 12s for the sake of it or through paranoia. Maybe you're worried about sticky fingers on the walls or can't be bothered to provide a cot or high chair or similar - and they reckon they 'can manage' regardless and you needn't worry about it.

As I and PP said before, though, it's not like there won't be plenty of other places available that are explicitly suitable for pre-school children - especially during term time.

This is so ridiculous. I can’t understand why people think that any insurer would have rules like this. Do you really think it’s possible to get public liability insurance that excludes coverage of under 12s?

If there is an accident, the cottage company are centre to any culpability claim but it'll be claimed on your insurance - I assume you fund the insurance. I'd go back, ask to speak to a manager explain the liability for any h&s issue is there's and the families, so if it affects you or yoyr holiday let in anyway you will sue for damages. Insist the family is removed. Tell them they need a process to check for under 12's.

It's not about kicking out a family it's about keeping everyone safe. I'd kick the family out for being stupid.

Am i literally the only person on here thinking that this is on the parents? They booked it knowing the risks, and presumably they are adult enough to not let their baby drown or burn and if in the unlikely event they did, neither the agent or owner have done anything wrong. I have had 3 babies with an open fire and pond and they’ve still alive.

this is nannying! They booked the cotrage knowing the risks and presumably risk assessed.

Two 'presumably's in that post. You are giving them the credit of assuming they're as sensible as you.
Personally I tend to agree with whoever said you should never underestimate people's stupidity. Or maybe pig-headedness is more accurate here. But you take my point.
And no, I don't disagree that it's on the parents in the sense that they made the decision. But the pertinent point is who it's on legally/financially should anything happen.

But the parents accepted the risk when they rented the property.
if anything happens to their child, it’s on their watch and op would have nothing to feel guilty about.

but it’s blocks anyway, she just doesn’t want children , which is fine-but she shouldn’t dress it up as concern for the child’s well being.

Ive got holiday lets-you just buy public liability insurance. In some policies they ask about ponds etc and as long as you answer truthfully, there are no exclusions (for children).

You put it all on the holiday let company.

you write a very strongly worded letter that you wish you hadn’t found out that the holiday company was negligent, but you have and you explain why children aren’t allowed.

you make sure the holiday let company know that it’s a major problem and any problem no matter how small will result in a major problem for them,

if it’s a legal reason children can’t stay, tgfn they have to be gone now.

Simply an investigation would be carried out by police etc and if negligence ( no gas cert and co2 poisoning for example) the LL would be charged and coukd be sued.

renting out a cottage with a pond to a family with a child under 12 is not negligent and especially if it was clear on the booking form.

Places don't have rules so that people can go ahead and break them but it's fine because it's on them. The rules are the rules, whether it's for healthy and safety or because the OP hates kids in her house, it's irrelevant, and also irrelevant whether the parents are vigilant safety officers who watch their kids like hawks or lax bastards who'd let their kids drown. The rule of the property was that no under-12s were allowed. It's not no under-12s are allowed unless you want to bring them and take the risk. They aren't allowed so the contract is null and void and they can be turfed out with no refund because they broke the rules. End of.

It’s her holiday cottage with necessary risks. OP can do what she wants, the tenants have breached the rules of the contract, but agents if they knew of child did too. If the worst happens and there’s an accident it’ll be on her head be it.

And I totally agree with you. But the OP should own that -rather than all the bullshit that’s its h and s and insurance.
if I said I didn’t want kids/dogs I would be pissed off fir that reason and not out of faux concern fir the child.

Yes. This is literally how insurance works.

Gosh, that must have been an emotionally exhausting and very challenging role.

Of course it duesnt. Are you saying that if a child walked past the house and a tile slipped off the roof and hit them or if the property exploded due to a gas leak and a child was not staying there or in anyway connected and injured, that just because they are under 12 they wouldn’t get a pay out?

public liability insurance is literally that. It protects the public.

They booked the cottage against the rules of the cottage.
If the cottage was no dogs allowed, it wouldn't be ok for them to take their dog and it be "on them".
Maybe they booked the cottage because it was cheaper than places they looked at that allowed them to bring a toddler.

Then they’re what MN would call CFers. And I’d agree. You just don’t do what they’ve done. And if you’re found out well, pay the consequences.

Totally agree. I would also be pissed off if I were op. But it’s nothing to do with h and s.

They arrived with a child's carseat in their car, it's most likely their child.

The danger to a toddler of a garden with a pond is pretty obvious- they could drown. The toddler could make their way outside when each parent thinks they're with the other parent, or still inside.

It can happen very quickly.

It happened to me.
Working in the garden on a summer's day with my then DH. DH was showing 2 yr old DS how to plant something while I was doing something else.
Heard a light splash, turned round and DS was face down in the pond.
DH hadn't noticed he had wandered off.
I quickly grabbed DS out of the pond, and he was fine 🙏, just a bit shocked and upset. He had been in the water a very short time, a few seconds, so suffered no ill effects. But it was very scary.
Scariest thing was that if I hadn't been there, DH hadn't registered the splash so our DS could have died.
He filled in the pond that afternoon...

So, yes, don't have toddlers/kids around ponds.

OP, if I were you I would either fix a metal grid cover over the pond, or get rid of it.

Have you ever seen a public liability policy?

this thread reminds me of my children’s headteacher who tells them the aren’t insured to use the climbing frame after 3pm. I assumed she only said it to 10 year olds because they were daft enough to believe it…..

Yeah, pond made me shudder. I really hate drownings.

No you're not being unreasonable. It's your cottage, your rules. You've said it would be impossible to miss the 'no under 12s rule' so it sounds as if the people have chosen to ignore this rule. Isn't that just a thing with society nowadays thinking rules don't apply!? It's a bit like the one I read a week or so back - the cottage says no dogs but would it be OK to take the dog, it's only a small one and I haven't got a dogsitter. NO! It's not ok! The rules are there for a reason!

The holiday company dealing with the booking needs to take action on this, either way it's not unreasonable to expect the family to leave. Heaven forbid there's an accident, but think of the can of worms that could potentially be opened if something were to happen.

Let us know how you get on 😊

Of course it does, because the risks of injury/death are why the OP specifies they don't want children under 12 in the property.

The OP is within their right to not want to childproof her holiday home.