Wedded to the venue – Which? warns couples are still being left out of pocket by venues keeping their cash
Which? is calling for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to be given greater powers to deal with businesses that break consumer law – after hearing from several couples still struggling to get refunds for weddings cancelled due to the pandemic.
A year after the consumer champion first raised the alarm that venues were leaving couples out of pocket, Which? has found that some hotels, barns and country houses are still not treating couples fairly.
According to the CMA, there were 2,400 cancellation and refund complaints about weddings in the year to March 2021 – with an average of £6,500 at stake.
The CMA has been clear that couples should in principle be refunded for weddings that are prevented by lockdown laws from going ahead on the agreed date. It issued guidance for businesses on contract cancellations and refunds in April 2020 and released updated advice specifically for the wedding industry in September 2020. These statements set out the CMA’s view of what the law requires.
However, this guidance alone is not legally binding and as things stand, only a court can decide how the law applies in each case. Some couples have struggled to get their venues to take notice of it. With coronavirus restrictions and laws changing so rapidly, it can also be confusing for couples to navigate if and when they are entitled to a refund.
Which? has spoken to six couples struggling to get a refund from their venues. One couple has since come to an agreement, but five are still waiting on refunds from their venue for weddings cancelled due to Covid and stand to lose more than £26,000 combined.
One couple Which? spoke to was due to get married in May 2020. They planned to invite 100 day guests and 140 guests in the evening.
In March 2020, when lockdown restrictions were on the cards, the venue postponed the wedding to March 2021 and gave the couple a new contract for the rescheduled date.
When it got to September 2020, the government announced that a 15-person limit on weddings would likely be in place until March 2021. The couple’s wedding fell a few days outside of the six month restrictions but they saw the CMA’s guidance and believed they would be entitled to a refund as their wedding looked unlikely to go ahead as planned.
Management asked them to postpone rather than cancel. The venue has since argued that as it was not confirmed that the September guest limit would still be in force by their wedding date in March, the wedding was cancelled by the couple and therefore, they were not entitled to a refund.
Eventually the venue offered them a settlement of £4,011 which they then increased to £5,000 in December. But this meant more than £5,000 of their money would be unrecovered.
Without trying to test the law – including the fairness of the terms of their wedding venue contract – through the courts, the couple cannot establish their final rights to some or all of their money back.
The couple has since married at another venue in November 2020 and put in a claim with their wedding insurer for the rest of the money.
Another couple Which? spoke to booked their wedding for 11 July 2020 with 120 guests. The venue cancelled in May and said they would offer another suitable date.
The venue did not offer a like-for-like Saturday wedding date and after looking at the CMA guidance, the couple decided to ask for a full refund. This was refused by the venue and all of their suppliers, aside from the caterers.
At this point, the couple decided to stop trying as they felt they were fighting a losing battle and were left to foot the bill for a £700 non-refundable booking fee.
The venue claims it has already undertaken work to justify keeping the money. But when the couple asked for an itemised breakdown of these costs the venue did not supply one.
This is an industry-wide issue which continues to affect couples whose weddings have been impacted by the pandemic, so Which? believes the CMA must be given the right tools to swiftly and efficiently prosecute companies who have clearly broken consumer law.
The consumer champion is calling for the CMA to have stronger enforcement powers. This would include stronger powers to conduct investigations and impose appropriate fines on companies that breach the law, whether in the weddings industry or in other sectors.
Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said:
“It is disappointing that some wedding venues are still ignoring guidance from the regulator and charging couples for circumstances completely beyond their control. This is especially frustrating for couples when they rearranged their wedding date early on in the pandemic at the request of the venue.
“The current system allows rogue businesses to slip through the net and does not punish those harming consumers. The Competition and Markets Authority must be given stronger powers to hold businesses accountable and fine those that break the law.”
– ENDS –
Notes to editors:
The CMA’s guidance states that the starting point under the law is that couples should be offered a full refund for weddings which national or local lockdowns laws prevented from going ahead on the agreed date. That would include non-refundable deposits. Couples should also not be liable for any further payments.couples should be entitled to a full refund for weddings which could not go ahead during national or local lockdowns.
If their wedding could go ahead but with significant changes – for example with fewer guests due to restrictions – they may be entitled to a refund.
There may be some circumstances where couples are not eligible for a full refund. For example, venues and suppliers might be able to deduct some money from the refund if they already incurred costs before it became apparent the wedding wouldn’t go ahead due to lockdown laws.
Link to full CMA guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/
Link to Which?’s first warning on wedding venues flouting the CMA’s guidance: https://press.which.co.uk/
Which? Legal provides members with advice on a wide range of issues, including consumer law, travel and employment. Find out more about joining Which? Legal: https://legalservice.which.co.
Case studies
Danielle and Ryan were due to get married at Le Petit Chateau, Otterburn, in May 2020. They planned for 100 day guests and 140 guests in the evening.
In March 2020, when lockdown restrictions were on the cards, the venue postponed the wedding to March 2021 and gave the couple a new contract for the rescheduled date.
But when it got to September, the government announced that restrictions on weddings would likely be in place until March 2021. Danielle checked their contract and believed they would be entitled to a refund of 75 per cent of what they’d paid. She then saw the CMA’s guidance and felt confident they could get their money back.
The couple spoke to various members of management who asked them to postpone, rather than cancel.
However, the venue has since argued that as it was not confirmed the September guest limits would still be in force by their wedding date in March, the wedding was cancelled by the couple and therefore, they were not entitled to a refund.
Eventually the venue offered them a settlement of £4,011 which they then increased to £5,000 in December. But this meant more than £5,000 of their money would be unrecovered.
Without trying to test the law – including the fairness of the terms of their wedding venue contract – through the courts, the couple cannot establish their final rights to some or all of their money back.
Danielle said: “By this point we were sick of it and didn’t know how long it was going to go on for so we accepted their offer. We’ve lost a lot of money and had no service from them. We didn’t have our tasting event or our final wedding meeting, there might have been some admin involved but definitely not enough to total £5,000.”
Danielle and Ryan married at another venue in November 2020 ahead of the national lockdown coming into force. They have since put in a claim with their wedding insurer for the rest of the money from Le Petit Chateau and are waiting to hear back.
Sarah (not her real name) booked her wedding at the Beverley Barn, Yorkshire, for 11 July 2020 with 120 guests. The venue cancelled in May and said they would offer another suitable date.
They offered Sarah the option of a weekday or a Sunday date in 2021 instead of the Saturday she’d originally booked for.
Sarah was pencilled in for a new date but after reconsidering and looking at the CMA guidance, the couple then decided to ask for a full refund, which was refused by the venue and all of their suppliers, aside from the caterers.
Sarah said: “We were really stressed and upset, I was really busy at work because I’m a mental health nurse and was working extra hours through the pandemic with a toddler and my partner working away too.
“It started affecting our relationship, our anxiety was through the roof. We didn’t know what to do – we knew we could go to the small claims court but we were worried about losing and having to pay their fees. We felt out of our depth.”
At this point, the couple decided to stop trying as they felt they were fighting a losing battle and were left to foot the bill for a £700 non-refundable booking fee.
Rights of reply
A CMA spokesperson said: “Being forced to cancel your wedding can be hugely distressing and people shouldn’t be left out of pocket for circumstances beyond their control. We expect wedding providers to pay people the refunds that they are due, whether these are full or partial.
“We have clearly set out our position on refunds, specifically in relation to weddings that could not go ahead due to the pandemic, to help couples understand their rights and to help providers treat their customers fairly. Couples can also refer to our interpretation of the law when taking up their case with their wedding provider.”
The Apartment Group, which operates venues including Le Petit Chateau, said the couple’s contract was not frustrated as it wasn’t certain that the 15-person guest limit that came into force on 28 September 2020 would still be in place on their rescheduled date of 30 March 2021. It said the Prime Minister only said to assume the rules could perhaps be in place for six months but this was not set in stone. It also said the couple’s wedding date did not fall in the six month period regardless. In the venue’s view, therefore, the wedding was cancelled by the couple. Its cancellation policy meant there was no entitlement to a refund. It also said it made enormous efforts to find an alternative wedding solution and despite the CMA guidance not being applicable to their situation it decided to make a partial refund to the couple based on the outcome of another CMA case involving the Bijou Weddings Group.
The Beverley Barn had not responded to Which?’s request for comment at the time of publication.
About Which?
Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that influences politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. As an organisation we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.
The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.
Press Release: Adam French, Consumer Rights, weddings