Becky Stewart* and her partner were getting ready for the first full day of their short break in Barcelona when a group made up of police, social workers, council staff, a judge and a locksmith came into their flat and told them to leave within two minutes.
It transpired that the place they were staying in, along with other travellers who had taken rooms, was an unlicensed rental property. And the people advertising it on Booking.com had not paid their rent for months, prompting the morning raid by the authorities, who were not even aware that tourists were staying there.
The “upsetting and frightening” incident in September was followed by a months-long process of attempting to get compensation from the website for the replacement hotel the couple had to book.
It also raises questions about the checks carried out by Booking.com into the background of the people renting the property. “The property and the renters were clearly unsafe,” says Stewart.
In London, Alan Kennedy* found himself in a similar situation, albeit from another angle, when a flat he owns and was renting out in east London was sublet on Airbnb – prompting complaints about noise, litter and cannabis smoking. He complains that the website failed to act immediately and merely contacted the person renting from him.
“These are clear breaches of the company’s own terms of service and standards,” he says. “I have been passed around from agent to agent within Airbnb. They have denied all responsibility as an online platform, and the only thing they have done is notify the host.
“Neither have they removed the listing, nor cancelled reservations by the host, despite being informed about serious breaches to their own policy, and criminal activity facilitated by their platform.”
The two cases have prompted calls for both companies to improve the checks they carry out, so that holidaymakers – many of whom will be making bookings this month for their summer break – can be certain their accommodation is safe and reliable.
Stewart’s nightmare started at 10am on her first morning in Barcelona. She had paid £234 for three nights in the shared flat, which had four bedrooms and communal areas. The police and officials entered the property and initially mistook them for the illegal renters, demanding they leave immediately.
When the police realised they were tourists, they were allowed to gather their things, but had to spend hours in a police station filling out statements. A last-minute replacement hotel cost more than £500 for two nights.
After two months of complaints, the pair had only received the money back for the two aborted nights in the original apartment. It was not until the end of November that Booking.com told them that they would get an additional £365 – well below the £509 expense the couple say the rebooking cost them.
Booking.com apologised and says Stewart has been refunded in full, with “an additional gesture of goodwill as further compensation”.
“We find Booking.com’s offer insufficient and a further demonstration of their poor customer care,” says Stewart.
When questioned on how the Barcelona property came to be listed in the first place, the firm said in a statement that hosts must agree to terms and conditions which verify they are legally permitted to rent the accommodation. It says it carries out “multiple controls and checks before listings become available”, which includes checks by “security, customer service and local support teams”.
In London, Kennedy was alerted that his property had been put on Airbnb by neighbours.
“I have … received multiple complaints from our neighbours about noise, litter and the premises being used for illegal activities while hosted (including the smoking of cannabis).
“Despite raising these concerns with the tenants, the tenants have continued to use the Airbnb platform to take reservations, and the complaints have continued. We have issued notice for termination of the tenancy,” he tells us. Kennedy says he was passed from agent to agent on email and over the phone when he complained to the company.
When contacted by the Observer, Airbnb said: “We have zero tolerance for illegal or antisocial behaviour, and we’ve suspended this listing while we look into this matter.”
It says hosts are responsible for making sure their listing is in compliance with the law and any contracts, such as a lease agreement.
Consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft, from Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors, says that when platforms such as Booking.com say they provide “controls and checks”, holidaymakers should get extra protections.
“In my view, this assurance could, and should, also be construed as a contractual term, so that the consumer also has a contract with Booking.com for them to have carried out their controls and checks – aka due diligence – to ensure incidents like the Barcelona situation do not arise,” he says.
“In other words, I say Booking.com and Airbnb are not merely ‘agents’, but also provide a service to consumers who use their sites, and who pay a ‘booking fee’ for that benefit.”
If sites do not properly vet hosts, demand will decrease and they will lose business, he says. “Consumers may as well go to the hosts direct and miss out the middleman.”
Booking.com says that when a customer books, they have an agreement with the property owner or manager, and it acts as an intermediary.
“We can advocate on behalf of the customer while also supporting our partners to understand that, in order to list on Booking.com, all local laws must be followed,” the company says.
“In the extremely rare instance that there might be some cause for doubt or concern, we may investigate and take further action, including removing the property from our platform if found to not be in compliance, as we have done in this case.”
Airbnb says it operates a marketplace where hosts can list accommodation, and it encourages people to resolve problems themselves. If that does not work, it says, the company forwards communications to the hosts. It says service fees are used to cover costs such as customer support.
Rycroft says that a sensible way to reduce risk is to book using a credit card, so that you can take advantage of the protections offered under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. This allows users to hold the card provider jointly liable in the event that a company fails to deliver items, or if there is some other breach of contract.
* Names have been changed
