logo
Diners warned to ‘read the fine print' when making restaurant bookings

Diners warned to ‘read the fine print' when making restaurant bookings

RNZ News10-07-2025
SkyCity is reviewing how its restaurants display their cancellation policies to ensure customers are clearly aware of fees.
Photo:
RNZ / Ziming Li
The Restaurant Association warns diners to "read the fine print" when making reservations after reports have emerged that some customers in the country's largest city are being charged a fee for cancelling bookings.
Auckland resident Jessie Chen made a reservation through Google at SkyCity's Huami for five people to have lunch on 4 July.
On the afternoon of 3 July, she fell sick and cancelled the booking in a phone call to the restaurant.
A day later, Chen was surprised to find that Huami had deducted $250 from her credit card, which had been saved on Google.
"I was like, 'I didn't end up eating at Huami, why was there a deduction of more than $200?' It's so strange," she said.
Chen phoned Huami for an explanation and was told the restaurant charged $50 per person to cancel a booking if the cancellation was made less than 24 hours prior to the reservation time.
She claimed not to have noticed any information relating to cancellation charges when making the booking.
She also claimed the staff member she spoke to when cancelling the booking didn't flag any charges either.
"Had they told me about the fee, I would have probably asked the other four people to go ahead with the meal ... or I could have asked others to help order some takeaway," Chen said. "I wouldn't let this money be deducted like this."
Restaurant Huami in Auckland CBD.
Photo:
RNZ / Ziming Li
A SkyCity spokesperson said customers must click through terms and conditions that set out cancellation policy details at Huami when making a booking for five or more people via Google.
"Before the booking is finalised you must tick cancellation policy box," the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson said the cancellation policy clearly stated that "you will be subject to a cancellation fee of $50 per person which will be charged to the credit card details provided at the time of booking for any no shows or cancellations made less than 24 hours prior to your reservation time".
"However, given the diner made every effort to cancel the booking in advance due to sickness, as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability, we will refund the diner's $250 cancellation fee," the spokesperson said.
"We are also reviewing how we display our cancellation policy to ensure customers are clearly aware of this fee."
MASU by Nic Watt in Auckland CBD
Photo:
RNZ / Ziming Li
Another diner, Cici Guo, made a reservation to have dinner at SkyCity's MASU by Nic Watt in September last year.
She made a booking for two people via Google at noon for dinner on the same day but cancelled the booking 15 minutes later after her friend suggested another place.
Guo was upset when she discovered the restaurant had deducted $100 from her card.
She claimed not to have noticed any information relating to cancellation charges when making the booking but did find the policy outlined on the restaurant's website later.
"I was mad," Guo said. "If I had seen this clause earlier or if I had known it was like this, I would have gone there to eat, right?"
She called for the cancellation fee policy to be displayed more prominently.
The SkyCity spokesperson didn't make further comments on Guo's case.
Sahar Lone, communications and campaigns manager at Consumer New Zealand
Photo:
Supplied
Sahar Lone, communications and campaigns manager of Consumer New Zealand, said restaurants were entitled to charge a fee for cancellations or "no shows".
"However, any cancellation terms must be reasonable and must be clearly disclosed to customers when they make the booking," she said.
Lone said Chen "ideally ... would have received a courtesy reminder when cancelling by phone".
Lone said businesses should also "provide a mechanism for people to edit or cancel their bookings in a timely way".
"Making a booking with a restaurant creates a contract which places obligations on both parties," Lone said.
"If you don't turn up, the restaurant can legitimately claim you have broken the contract and caused it to lose business.
"If you realise in advance, you won't be able to make it, let the business or service provider know. They're unlikely to charge if you tell them within a reasonable timeframe."
Marisa Bidois, chief executive at Restaurant Association of New Zealand
Photo:
Supplied
Marisa Bidois, chief executive of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, said it was not uncommon for restaurants, particularly higher-end venues or those handling large group bookings, to charge cancellation fees.
Bidois said cancellation policies should be clearly communicated at the time of booking, whether online or over the phone.
Cancelling at late notice often meant there was little opportunity for restaurants to fill the empty seats and recover costs.
"Fees are typically only charged when the restaurant has incurred costs in preparation for the booking, such as ordering premium or perishable ingredients," she said.
Many restaurants were compassionate and could waive or reduce fees depending on circumstances, so it was worth a polite conversation, but people needed to remember that there were often costs associated with cancellations for the business, Bidois said.
"Restaurants work on very tight margins, and last-minute cancellations or no shows can have a significant financial impact," she said.
"We encourage diners to always read the fine print when booking and, where possible, give as much notice as they can if their plans change."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession

Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."

Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?

RNZ News

time5 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?

RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."

Infratil and Ebos help drive NZ stocks higher
Infratil and Ebos help drive NZ stocks higher

NZ Herald

time15 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Infratil and Ebos help drive NZ stocks higher

Late in the New Zealand trading day, Australia's S&P/ASX 200 was down 43.10 points at 8,666.30. The index has lost 1.04% for the last five days, but sits just 1.25% below its 52-week high. The main influences on the local S&P/NZX50 index were infrastructure investor Infratil, up 26c or 2.3% at $11.45, and medical supplies distributor Ebos, up 41c at $41.17. On the downside, utilities software provider Gentrack dropped by 61c or 5.5% to $10.52 after announcing it had been informed by an Australian customer it was no longer in the frame for replacing the customer's current platform. 'Whilst the financial impact of this does not warrant disclosure, out of caution we are providing this update to our investors,' Gentrack said. Salt Funds managing director Matt Goodson said Gentrack had lost out to its main competitor, Kraken, which is part of Britain's Octopus Energy. 'It should not have come as a shock because it was suspected by some, but the actual confirmation of it has seen the stock fall,' Goodson said. Sky Network TV fell 8c to $3.06 after spiking higher earlier in the week on news it would buy the troubled Discovery NZ for $1. Among the minor issues, takeover target Metro Performance Glass, which has a market cap of $9m, gained 0.3 of a cent to 5c. Competitor Viridian NZ's 8c per share offer for Metro Glass is before the Commerce Commission, which today issued a 'Statement of Issues' relating to the application. 'The commission has identified potential adverse competitive effects arising from a loss of competition between Viridian and Metro in glass processing, supply and installation markets where they are close competitors,' it said. Goodson said the commission 'clearly has issues' with Viridian buying Metro Glass because they are the two major players in glass processing and installation. 'I guess the question then is if Viridian is not allowed, what becomes of Metro Glass, given their debt levels,' Goodson said. Looking ahead, annual meetings on Wednesday for Ryman Healthcare and Mainfreight should give investors some clues as to how the two leading stocks are tracking in the current financial year. Later in the week, second-quarter results from Apple, Amazon and Microsoft – part of America's so-called Magnificent Seven – are due out. In the big picture, the ongoing spat between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell continues to be a concern for the financial markets as investors worry about the US central bank's independence. Jamie Gray is an Auckland-based journalist, covering the financial markets, the primary sector and energy. He joined the Herald in 2011.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store