News

A high-end holiday B&B on the outskirts of Beijing, billed as the ‘Private Hot Spring Estate’, turned Ms Chen (a pseudonym) and her family away on the spot after they visited the property with their children during this year’s May Day holiday. Discrepancies between online advertising and the actual conditions, coupled with the withholding of key information, were the main reasons they refused to stay and demanded a refund.

In response to such incidents, Mr Ge You Shan, Director of the Supervisory Committee at JAVY Law Firm, gave an exclusive interview to the ‘Ask Beijing’ programme on Beijing News Radio, providing an in-depth analysis.

01 Is the highly-rated ‘Private Hot Spring Manor’ not as advertised?

During this year’s May Day holiday, Ms Chen (a pseudonym) spent 9,145 yuan via Ctrip to book four suites at the ‘Private Hot Spring Manor’, a holiday cottage on the outskirts of Beijing with a rating of 4.8. The platform advertised a detached courtyard, private hot spring pools, an infinity pool and a children’s playground, presenting it as a high-end holiday retreat.

However, upon arriving at the address, she was met with a small village comprising a few painted cottages and a patch of overgrown vegetable plots – bearing no resemblance whatsoever to an ‘estate’ or ‘private hot spring’. After contacting the caretaker, she was taken to view the rooms, only to discover they were scattered throughout the village. The caretaker stated, ‘These are two of them,’ adding that the other two would be ‘shown to you by car’. The Ctrip booking page had never mentioned that the rooms were scattered, which Ms Chen found unacceptable.

An on-site inspection revealed further issues: the property was situated right next to ordinary residential homes, with the air thick with the odour of livestock; the smell of fermenting manure was noticeable even from a short distance away. Upon opening the door to the room, a strong musty smell hit her; the bed had not been made, the room was in disarray, and there were no supporting facilities in the vicinity. As she was travelling with an elderly relative in their 90s, she decided immediately not to stay and requested a refund at around 2.00 pm (before the 3.00 pm check-in time).

Ms Chen applied for a refund on the grounds that the accommodation did not match the description and alleged false advertising. Ctrip stated that negotiations with the merchant had broken down and that the payment had already been settled with the merchant. However, Ms Chen pointed out that the money had been paid to the Ctrip platform, and that the platform had settled the payment with the merchant despite being aware of the dispute; she therefore demanded a refund from the Ctrip platform.

02 Holiday Home: Bookings cannot be cancelled 30 minutes after confirmation

Among the 443 reviews on this holiday home’s Ctrip page, there are five negative reviews spanning nearly three years, the content of which closely resembles Ms Chen’s experience. The booking page clearly states: ‘Bookings cannot be cancelled or amended 30 minutes after confirmation.’ The holiday home explained that, as it is a suite rather than a standard room, once the booking is locked after 30 minutes it cannot be sold to others, and therefore cannot be cancelled. Ms Chen raised the issue through channels such as the Shanghai 12345 hotline and negotiated with Ctrip on multiple occasions, insisting on a refund of no less than 80 per cent.

Ctrip responded that it had verified the matter and found no obvious discrepancies in the accommodation provider’s registered address or page information. Local regulatory authorities have intervened but have not identified any issues with the provider. Should inaccuracies in the information displayed or other problems be discovered in the future, they will be dealt with in accordance with the rules, whilst the review mechanism for non-standard accommodation will be strengthened.

Regarding the refund, Ctrip stated that it had been facilitating communication since receiving the complaint at 14:16 on 1 May; however, the consumer’s cancellation request had exceeded the merchant’s negotiable time limit (cancellations made before 18:00 are eligible for a 20 per cent refund). The merchant applied the agreed full forfeiture of 9,145 yuan, and mediation failed to reach an agreement. The platform proposed a goodwill gesture (emotional compensation of 2,000 yuan), which was not accepted.

03 Legal Analysis and Recommendations

On 18 May this year, the China Consumers’ Association released a report analysing public sentiment regarding consumer rights protection during the ‘May Day’ holiday. Data on consumer rights protection-related information and complaints collected between 1 and 6 May revealed that the accommodation sector had become one of the areas with the highest number of consumer complaints during the holiday period.

Lawyer Ge You Shan explained that current legislation, including the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the Advertising Law and the Civil Code, all contain provisions regarding false advertising and consumers’ right to information. “For example, Article 20 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law explicitly stipulates that when business operators provide goods or services to consumers, they must provide comprehensive and truthful information regarding their quality and performance, and must not engage in false or misleading advertising. This explicitly stipulates that consumers have the right to understand the true nature of the goods or services they are purchasing. Naturally, this also constitutes a legal obligation for business operators to provide accurate information. In Ms Chen’s case, the fact that the booked properties were situated in separate, non-adjacent courtyards constituted important information for the consumer, as the family was travelling together and this was a key factor in their decision-making. Failure by the business operator to provide comprehensive disclosure may constitute an unlawful act of concealing the true circumstances. Regarding discrepancies in the environment, if the promotional images of the holiday home have been carefully staged or embellished, leading consumers to expect a high-end holiday estate that differs from the actual situation, this may also constitute a point of consumer misrepresentation.”

Lawyer Ge You Shan also stated that terms unilaterally imposed by businesses, such as ‘cancellations or amendments are not permitted 30 minutes after order confirmation’, may not be legally valid. ‘Legally speaking, this provision should be classified as a standard form clause. Article 26 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that operators must not use standard form clauses to exclude or restrict consumer rights; The Civil Code also stipulates that standard terms must be fair and must not unreasonably exempt the business from liability, impose additional liability on the consumer, or exclude the consumer’s principal rights. Clearly, this ‘no cancellation after 30 minutes’ clause restricts or excludes the consumer’s rights and, from a legal perspective, should be deemed invalid. If the trader claims that the booking has been locked, preventing others from making a reservation, and that the cancellation was due to the consumer’s personal reasons, they may deduct a reasonable penalty for breach of contract; however, the burden of proof typically lies with the trader.”

To better avoid such consumer disputes, lawyer Ge You Shan offered the following advice: “Each consumer’s expectations may differ. For instance, if a consumer is travelling as a family, they may be more concerned about the location of the accommodation or its surroundings. In such cases, it is advisable for consumers not only to view relevant online images or promotional materials but, if an on-site visit is not feasible, to confirm each detail of concern with the business one by one.”

A dispute over the enforcement of rights following a homestay booking serves as a true microcosm of the online consumption landscape for non-standardised accommodation. As rural homestays continue to gain popularity, an increasing number of consumers are opting for distinctive homestays as an alternative to traditional hotels. However, issues such as discrepancies between online presentations and the actual on-site experience, incomplete disclosure of key property information, frequent disputes over cancellation and amendment policies, and poor communication regarding post-purchase rights enforcement have become common pain points in homestay consumption.

Unlike standardised hotels, rural homestays are predominantly individually run, with highly personalised facilities, courtyard layouts and surrounding environments. The industry itself possesses certain unique characteristics; it is precisely for this reason that effective information sharing and the clarification of rights and responsibilities among the three parties—providers, platforms and consumers—are all the more essential. The essence of consumer disputes often lies not in an absolute judgement of right or wrong, but in conflicts arising from information asymmetry and unclear rules. The core competitiveness of cultural and tourism consumption will always lie in authentic experiences and warm, attentive service. It is hoped that all parties will proactively address information gaps, refine service rules and facilitate open communication channels to minimise the occurrence of similar consumer disputes. This will enable the rural homestay industry to move beyond controversy and chaos, achieving more stable and sustainable long-term development, whilst ensuring the public can travel with greater confidence and peace of mind. ‘Ask Beijing’ will continue to monitor developments in this matter.