Booking.com Faces Flood of Fair Trading Complaints

Holiday Havoc: Homeowner Left Devastated by Wild Party and Alleged Booking Platform Failures

A suburban Sydney home, intended for a tranquil holiday stay, was trashed by an estimated 200 revellers, leaving a trail of destruction and a homeowner questioning the safeguards of major online travel agencies. The incident has highlighted growing concerns over guest verification and complaint resolution processes, with local residents left feeling unsafe and property owners facing significant financial losses.

Joyce Zhang, the owner of the short-stay accommodation in Sydney’s southwest, described the aftermath as an ongoing “nightmare.” The party, which was booked through online travel giant Booking.com just before Christmas, flagrantly disregarded the property’s strict house rules. The extent of the damage is staggering, with holes punched in walls, knives reported stolen, and an estimated $15,000 in direct repair costs.

CCTV footage from the property captured disturbing scenes, including a partygoer deliberately kicking a fence before engaging in a confrontation with a local resident. In another alarming incident, two individuals trespassed onto a neighbour’s property, with one even falling into their swimming pool.

Ms Zhang expressed deep dissatisfaction with Booking.com’s vetting process, alleging that the platform failed to adequately verify the identities of guests. The individuals who booked her property had falsely presented themselves as a small group on holiday from Cairns. However, Ms Zhang later discovered that one of the applicants actually resided in the local area and had used a pseudonym for the booking. When she pressed Booking.com for details on their identity checks, she claims the platform admitted they had not conducted thorough checks due to privacy concerns.

Adding to her distress, Ms Zhang’s initial damage claim of $500, the maximum allowable, was rejected by Booking.com without explanation. “It is a nightmare,” she stated. “I will never put my property on Booking.com again.” Her lawyer has since estimated the total financial impact, including lost rent and damages, to be over $27,000, a sum she is now pursuing through civil action.

When asked about Booking.com’s investment in its reservation and complaint handling systems, Ms Zhang was unequivocal. “I think so, because they are a huge platform,” she asserted, suggesting that a company of their scale should have more robust systems in place. Ms Zhang is planning to lodge a formal complaint with Fair Trading and has reported the incident to NSW Police, who are currently investigating.

Following inquiries from the ABC, Booking.com announced it had permanently blocked the guest account responsible for the damage and reversed its decision on Ms Zhang’s claim, promising to pay the $500 and inquiring if further support was needed.

A Surge in Complaints and Consumer Frustration

Ms Zhang’s experience is not an isolated incident. Fair Trading has reported a significant increase in similar complaints, prompting renewed warnings for consumers to scrutinise booking terms and conditions, especially amidst current global travel disruptions. Last year, Booking.com ranked as the fourth most complained-about company to Fair Trading NSW.

The ABC has spoken with five customers, including Ms Zhang, who claim the online travel giant failed to adequately address their concerns. They described the company as playing hardball with its terms and conditions and frequently trapping customers in a “responsibility loop,” where blame is deflected to other parties.

One customer recounted being forced to sleep in her car during Canberra’s Summernats festival due to a double-booked accommodation. She stated that Booking.com’s slow release of funds prevented her from securing alternative lodging in time. In response to the ABC’s questions, Booking.com confirmed they offered the guest a relocation budget and a full refund for the double-booked accommodation.

NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Natasha Mann stressed that travel companies like Booking.com need to improve their service. “We certainly, as a regulator, do not want to be the de facto complaints department for a large company like Booking.com,” Ms Mann commented. She advised consumers to meticulously review all terms and conditions before making bookings, particularly given the current travel climate, where conflict could introduce specific clauses affecting bookings.

Booking.com is a major brand within one of the world’s largest online travel conglomerates. Its platform boasts over 28 million accommodation listings globally, spanning numerous countries, and also offers flights, rental cars, and attraction bookings. In Australia, it holds a dominant position, accounting for over 30 per cent of online travel agent bookings, according to IbisWorld. The parent company, Booking Holdings, reported revenues exceeding $38 billion last year and owns other prominent travel brands such as Agoda, Kayak, and Priceline.

National data reveals that state and territory consumer bodies received 842 complaints concerning Booking.com over the past two years. However, this figure is likely an underestimate, as Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory do not publicly disclose individual company complaint data. Fair Trading NSW recorded the highest number of complaints, with 558 lodged in 2024 and 2025, primarily relating to disputes over refunds, accommodation quality, cancellations, and associated fees. This number significantly surpasses its closest competitor, Expedia Group, which had 180 complaints in NSW during the same period.

Booking.com declined an interview request but issued a statement asserting that complaints are “extremely rare,” representing less than 1 per cent of millions of annual reservations in Australia. They highlighted their 24/7 customer service team dedicated to resolving issues.

Scams and the “Crickets and Bots” Experience

Beyond booking issues, Booking.com is also being implicated in scams, either as a platform used in fraudulent activities or as a lure to entrap victims. Scamwatch data from the ACCC indicates a rise in reports mentioning Booking.com, with 515 in 2025, up from 416 the previous year.

Lesley Dodd, a Western Sydney resident and former frequent user of Booking.com’s “Genius” loyalty program, has vowed to cease using the platform after a serious accident in Japan left her with nearly $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses. “The one time that things went a bit pear shaped, they weren’t there,” Ms Dodd lamented.

During a family holiday near Hiroshima, Ms Dodd slipped and broke her leg, requiring hours of rescue and subsequent surgery and a 17-day hospital stay. Her request for a refund for her Tokyo accommodation was denied due to a “no cancellation” clause. Despite explaining her extenuating circumstances, including her hospitalisation and surgery, her appeals were met with a flat refusal. “I should’ve received something,” she stated, noting her history of over 80 bookings without issue.

What particularly frustrated Ms Dodd was the perceived lack of human interaction. Many of her communications were met with responses she believed were generated by AI chatbots, while other correspondence went unanswered. “There was nobody to help you,” she said. “There was just crickets and bots. Something needs to be done, they need to be held accountable.”

Interestingly, Booking.com reversed its decision regarding Ms Dodd’s refund after being contacted by the ABC, offering her a full reimbursement. However, the company maintained that refund policies are ultimately set by their accommodation partners.

Caught in a “Responsibility Loop”

The sheer volume of complaints has led NSW Fair Trading to assign a dedicated officer to handle Booking.com cases. Commissioner Natasha Mann reiterated the need for well-resourced companies like Booking.com to bolster their complaint resolution services. She noted that by the time customers reach Fair Trading, they are often at their wit’s end.

“When something goes wrong, consumers will try to seek redress through Booking.com,” Ms Mann explained. “Booking.com will send them to the service provider, so the airline or the hotel, only then for the consumer to be sent back from the service provided to Booking.com, and so they find themselves in what we call a responsibility loop.” Approximately half of these cases are successfully resolved through Fair Trading’s intervention.

In a separate development, two Dutch consumer groups are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Booking.com, alleging that the company’s agreements with hotels led to inflated prices for Dutch travellers over 13 years, resulting in an estimated 1 billion Euro in losses. These agreements, known as price parity clauses, reportedly prevented hotels from offering lower prices on their own websites. Critics suggest that the substantial commissions charged by Booking.com may also contribute to higher overall pricing for consumers.

Booking.com has refuted these allegations, labelling them as “incorrect and unjustified” and highlighting the highly competitive nature of the travel market. They stated that hotel partners control pricing on the platform and that Australian accommodation providers pay “some of the lowest” commissions globally, averaging around 15 per cent.

Their competitor, Expedia, also commented, stating they strive to resolve customer complaints through their round-the-clock service, even when customers seek assistance from consumer bodies. “While we do our best to advocate for travellers looking to change their booking outside our travel supplier policies, when issues arise ultimately the decision to allow additional flexibility is up to the travel supplier who sets the policies for cancellations and refunds,” a spokesperson said.

The ACCC has previously investigated price parity clauses used by Booking.com and Expedia. In 2016, this led to the removal of contractual requirements that barred Australian accommodation providers from offering cheaper rates to competitors or lower prices for walk-in or telephone bookings. However, concerns remain within the accommodation sector that some clauses still prevent hotels from advertising lower prices on their own websites.