After arriving at their vacation rental cottage, a BC family had a nightmarish experience discovering mouse droppings on a towel.
The family’s mother, CS, decided to pursue legal action against someone representing the vacation company and claimed a refund of $3,740.24 for the planned eight-night cottage stay.
BF, who was representing Lloyd’s Travel and Cruises, told the tribunal that there was an agreement that the family would stay the night they arrived and then move to a different cottage the following day, adding that they were owed nothing more on top of the future stay credit they received.
The family didn’t get the result they were hoping for.
In the spring of 2023, CS rented the three-bedroom cottage for eight nights between July 21 and July 29. She planned to stay there with her husband, another occupant (SSM), SSM’s spouse, and that couple’s two children.
While the rental was supposed to begin on July 21, the family checked in on July 22.
Shortly after arriving at the rental cottage, the family discovered mouse droppings on a towel in one of the bedrooms. SSM called the after-hours emergency line to report the discovery. The tribunal referred to someone (DZ) who picked up the phone, but both parties disagreed about what was said.
CS says DZ told SSM that there was nothing they could do but that they would send someone the next day to investigate and bring clean towels. CS claims alternative accommodation was not offered.
BF offered the tribunal an email statement from DZ, which stated that during the phone call, both parties agreed that it was late and would have no choice but to stay in the cottage that night. DZ also said they’d send someone the next day to investigate.
The following day, July 23, the family discovered more mouse droppings throughout the cottage. CS demanded a refund that day. The group left by 10 am and didn’t return.
One problem with the whole case was determining whether BF was the proper respondent. BF’s name does not appear in any of the booking receipts or emails.
“I find there is no evidence she had a contract with [BF] personally. A corporation is a separate legal entity distinct from its principals. When a corporation enters into a contract, it does not automatically bind its directors or officers,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal added that the family could easily start another case against the proper respondents, but in this case, they ultimately dismissed all the claims against BF.
More details about the BC vacation rental case are in the full decision, which is posted online.