Travellers with accommodation booked through online travel giant, booking.com, now find themselves facing challenges with rebooking and cancellation, following COVID-19 international travel restrictions.
Booking.com has a ‘force majeure’ clause in place, which, according to its website, is enforced when guests are unable to travel or stay at accommodation in areas that are severely affected, and when international travel restrictions are placed on travellers who have recently been in areas severely affected by COVID-19 (in most cases, within the last 14 days).
The clause requires booking.com’s partners to “respect the inability of guests to stay as intended”, and to arrange one of three options: new dates for a future stay through booking.com; a voucher issued by the property for a future stay, for the valuepaid by the guest or a higher amount (at the property’s discretion); or a full refund of any prepayment/deposit. In cases where the reservation is cancelled, booking.com offers to waive all commission.
However, when responding to travellers who opted not to book for a higher rate, which covered free cancellation, the website states that the customer should contact the accommodation directly to see if they are able to make an exception.
On April 3, the website said the force majeure conditions would not apply to bookings made from Monday, April 6 onwards, and further said control of responses to cancellation requests for reservations made on or after this date would go directly to the partners, absolving booking.com of any responsibility.
The website’s community page has countless complaints from customers who cannot travel due to restrictions. And, according to the page, there are even cases of hotels that have suspended operations but are still not willing to issue refunds. Many are accusing the website of not doing enough to protect its customers.
Tammy MacFie, leisure travel manager of Reynolds Travel Centre, said they had two recent bad experiences with Booking.com. In the first incident, Booking.com did not want to take ownership of the client’s cancellation, and referred the agency directly to the hotel in Amsterdam. “We actually preferred dealing direct with the establishment and we were able to take control of the booking and negotiate fair terms for our clients,” Tammy said.
The second incident was when clients did not want to rebook in 2020, requesting to travel again next year. Booking.com would not consider refunding the deposit, and they could not rebook in 2021. “The lack of understanding and compassion towards the clients is extremely frustrating. We will think twice before making use of Booking.com again,” she said.
Clients often come back to agents for assistance with issues that arise when booking direct, says Vera Lala, director of Veto Travel. “Clients appreciate agents when they are in a situation like this, and will consider using an agent next time they book.”
Jo Fraser, executive manager franchise of Club Travel, said travel agents were using aggregators on behalf of clients, just as much as clients were booking direct. “As a consortium head, it’s very important to deal with aggregators that are in South Africa. We have an agreement in place with Bedsonline, which has representatives in most South African cities, making it easier to pick up the phone or email to deal with bookings.” She said ITCs might have to book on booking.com on behalf of clients, but encouraged them to deal with preferred suppliers who were easier to reach. “What’s the chance of getting an answer from booking.com?” she asked.
Sarah Bezuidenhout, senior consultant at Go 2 Bangy Travel, said she used booking.com when it offered the best deal available. “We charge a service fee for offering the service to clients. I don’t want to quote operators only, and lose the booking because the client can find it cheaper online,” she said. “In saying this, I give the client the freedom to choose a non-refundable versus changeable rate.”
