Yes, you are both correct. Thank you.
1 Like
Did you mean “the 3/15 cutoff” ?
The letter you posted before specifically said for reservations booked before March 15 with check-in after May 31, but this one is for May 29. This is a quote from your previous post.
Basically, this specific reservation falls outside of reservations that letter was referring to. However, the point is still somewhat valid. If they extend the EC policy and the host already canceled, then the host can’t complain about not getting money from their strict cancellation policy.
Yes, I hadn’t thought about hosts with reservations still left in May, but it’s true, it would keep you from getting a payout if you cancel.
However, the letter specifically addressed reservations after May 31 and also noted that they wouldn’t be covered under the support fund anyway (and initimated that they would be covered under the extending of the covid policy). I think they are hoping that hosts cancel so that they don’t have all of the trouble of guests cancelling and wanting full refunds and hosts complaining about that. They did angle it as helping hosts so that hosts can clear their calendar for long term stays and not have to deal with last minute cancellations. It is true that it is helpful in that manner. But it is also their way of saying that your cancellation policy is irrelevant for anything booked prior to March 15.
I think the bigger issue is for any hosts that have applied for unemployment benefits. You can’t really cancel the reservations and then say you don’t have any reservations because of covid. So anyone applying for unemployment needs to let their guests cancel. Unless of course you are going to cancel them to get other guests and then won’t need the unemployment anyway. But I know a lot of hosts are staying shut for health reasons and such.
1 Like