Vacation rental marketplace Airbnb has permanently removed a property listing for a French chateau and issued a full refund after a London family discovered operational security cameras inside the rental during a holiday in Versailles.
The guest, C.H. from London, had booked the property through Airbnb for three nights at a cost of £1,500 at the end of August. She was staying with her husband and three young children following a birthday celebration elsewhere in France, using the location near Paris as a stopover before returning to the UK.
Versailles, situated west of Paris, is home to the historic Palace of Versailles. Airbnb operates a global platform for short-term home and vacation rentals.
During their stay, the family noticed several cameras inside the property, including one mounted on the upstairs landing between the bedrooms and the bathroom. As none of the bedrooms had en-suite facilities, family members crossed the landing wrapped in towels, partially dressed, or naked, believing the devices were turned off.
On their final night, the family returned to the chateau at 11pm after visiting central Paris to view the illuminated Eiffel Tower. Upon entering, they saw one of the indoor cameras powered on and operating in the dark.
Fearing they had been filmed over the previous days, the family took photographs of the camera as evidence and reported their concerns to Airbnb upon returning home.
Under Airbnb policy updated in 2024, indoor security cameras and recording devices are banned from all interior spaces, including hallways, bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, and guest houses, even if turned off or disconnected. Hidden cameras have never been permitted. Violations of the policy can result in account or listing removal, while exterior cameras are permitted only if disclosed in the listing.
Airbnb initially investigated the report and told C.H. that the host confirmed the cameras were turned off and that no footage was taken or stored. The company offered a 50 per cent refund of £750 as compensation.
When C.H. noted that she had seen the camera operational, Airbnb stated: "We cannot provide further clarification on the status of the camera," and closed the case without ruling out that footage had been captured.
Following an intervention by consumer journalist Sally Hamilton, Airbnb reopened the complaint, reimbursed the remaining £750 to provide a full refund, and removed the listing from the platform.
An Airbnb spokesman said: "Our initial handling of this report fell short of our usual high standards. We've refunded the guest in full and removed the listing from Airbnb. Indoor cameras are banned on Airbnb regardless of their location, purpose or prior disclosure. In the rare event of a violation of this policy we take action."
Airbnb said the case was referred to a quality team for review to identify areas for staff training. The company urged guests with safety concerns to contact its 24-hour safety line via phone, email, or chat. C.H. stated she is investigating reporting the incident to police in Versailles, who could potentially seize the cameras to check for footage.
Avanti West Coast postal rail compensation dispute
Train operator Avanti West Coast has agreed to issue compensation to an 82-year-old passenger after failing to process a paper claim submitted by post for a three-hour journey delay.
Passenger C.S., from Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, booked return tickets with her partner from Oxenholme in the Lake District to London Euston in July. The tickets cost £179.90 using a senior railcard.
Oxenholme Railway Station serves as a railway junction for the Lake District national park, while London Euston is the London terminus for the West Coast Main Line. Avanti West Coast operates long-distance passenger rail services across Great Britain.
The outward journey was delayed by 28 minutes, while the return train terminated early at Preston, resulting in the couple arriving home three hours late. Staff advised them to apply for compensation online or by Freepost, and C.S. sent the form the following day because her IT skills and equipment are limited at age 82.
Under the national Delay Repay scheme, rail payouts for return journeys range from 12.5 per cent for delays of 15 to 29 minutes up to 100 per cent for delays over two hours.
After three weeks without news, C.S. contacted Avanti and was told the firm had no record of the claim, adding that internet claims were prioritized. C.S. felt this policy amounted to age discrimination.
Avanti asked for ticket photocopies, which C.S. provided. Ten days later, C.S. phoned to chase the claim, only to be told there was no record of either the initial claim or the follow-up. She emailed copies the next day, but was told they were not legible. After sending them again, the copies were accepted, but she was warned processing could take up to another 28 days.
Following Hamilton's intervention, Avanti confirmed payment was on its way and apologized. Company figures show Avanti repaid £4.7 million to delayed customers during a four-week period between May 31 and June 27.
Avanti stated that just 1 per cent of claims are submitted by post, which usually take up to four weeks to process. Online claims also require ticket photos and can take four weeks for payment. After experiencing another delay, C.S. claimed online and received payment within a few days, though she questioned whether postal and online claimants are treated equally.
John Lewis lamp replacement following store distance complaint
Retailer John Lewis has apologized and arranged a replacement for a customer who was told she had to make a 100-mile round trip to exchange a damaged item.
B.D., from Stamford, Lincolnshire, purchased a £140 lamp at a John Lewis store while visiting family. Upon opening the box at home, she discovered the wood base had a chip.
John Lewis staff initially advised her that a replacement could only be obtained by returning the item to her nearest store, 50 miles away, and refused to allow an exchange at her local Waitrose store.
John Lewis & Partners is a British department store chain owned by the John Lewis Partnership, which also operates Waitrose supermarkets.
John Lewis apologized, stated that wrong information had been provided, and arranged to send a new lamp directly to the customer.
Admiral settles rejected travel insurance claim with compensation
Travel insurer Admiral has agreed to pay an £1,100 claim, refund a £90 medical fee, and provide £500 in compensation after rejecting a customer's claim following emergency hospitalization.
Customer J.P., from Hove, East Sussex, had booked an £1,100 holiday for May 19, but was admitted to hospital five days prior, on May 14, rendering the customer unable to travel. J.P. paid £90 for a medical report to support the claim.
Hove is a seaside town in East Sussex, England. Admiral is a major British financial services company providing general insurance products.
Admiral rejected the claim because the policy was taken out on May 6, asserting that the customer should have known hospitalization was likely.
Admiral later apologized, stating that the symptoms causing the hospital stay could not have been anticipated, and settled the claim in full alongside the £90 fee and £500 compensation.
Kent Reliance investigates missing ISA transfer funds
Financial provider Kent Reliance has launched an eight-week investigation after failing to account for funds during a customer's ISA transfer.
M.R., from Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, held a fixed Individual Savings Account (ISA) with Kent Reliance that ended in June, instructing the institution to transfer the funds to another provider upon maturity.
An ISA is a tax-free savings scheme in the United Kingdom. Kent Reliance is a British banking brand operated by OSB Group.
Attempts to transfer the money using two different providers were rejected. When asked for an explanation, Kent Reliance gave four different excuses and could not locate the funds.
Kent Reliance stated it is treating the complaint as a priority, but declined further comment and told the customer that the investigation will take eight weeks.
