This policy establishes the framework of procedural mechanism through which booking-related disputes are:
- Logged
- Assessed
- Investigated
- Classified
- Resolved
- Enforced
This Framework applies to all booking-linked conflicts between Hosts and Guests.
1. DISPUTE INITIATION PROTOCOL
1.1 Valid Channels
Disputes must be initiated through:
- In-platform reporting tools
- Designated support channels
- Resolution Centre interface
Off-platform communications do not constitute formal dispute initiation.
1.2 Minimum Reporting Requirements
To open a dispute, the reporting party must provide:
- Booking reference number
- Nature of issue
- Timestamp of occurrence
- Supporting evidence
Incomplete submissions may be rejected.
2. PRELIMINARY REVIEW & TRIAGE
Upon submission:
Step 1: Technical Validation
- Confirm booking authenticity
- Confirm reporting within eligible timeline
- Confirm policy coverage
Step 2: Risk Screening
Cases are screened for:
- Safety exposure
- Fraud indicators
- Regulatory implications
- Financial impact
Cases flagged for high-risk exposure may be escalated immediately.
3. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
Dispute resolution is evidence-driven and may include:
- Timestamp reconciliation
- Booking history pattern review
- Account behavioral analysis
- Cross-listing comparison
- Payment transaction trace
Bayut is not obligated to disclose internal risk-scoring logic.
4. EVIDENCE STANDARDS
4.1 Acceptable Evidence
Evidence must be:
- Time-stamped
- Booking-linked
- Authentic and unedited
Acceptable formats include:
- Photos
- Videos
- Communication between Host & Guest
- Receipts/invoices
- Access logs
4.2 Insufficient Evidence
The following may be deemed insufficient:
- Verbal claims without documentation
- Third-party testimonials
- Screenshots of external communication
- Unverified statements
Burden of proof rests on the party asserting the claim.
5. RESPONSE SLA (SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT)
Upon dispute initiation:
- Both parties must respond within 48 hours
- Failure to respond permits resolution based solely on available information
- Non-cooperation may influence outcome determination
Repeated failure to cooperate may trigger enforcement review.
6. FINANCIAL HOLD MECHANISM
When a dispute is active:
- Host payout may be temporarily paused
- Adjustments may be applied pending outcome
- Partial release may occur if undisputed portions are identifiable
Security deposits (where directly collected by Host) remain outside Platform custody.
7. DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
Dispute determinations are based on:
- Policy alignment
- Evidence sufficiency
- Severity assessment
- Pattern-based behavior (if applicable)
- Regulatory considerations
All decisions are:
- Proportionate
- Case-specific
The Platform retains final operational authority.
8. RESOLUTION OUTCOME MATRIX
Possible outcomes include:
- Full payout release
- Partial payout adjustment
- Full refund authorization
- Partial refund authorization
- Dispute dismissal
- Policy strike application
- Monitoring flag
Compensation shall not exceed booking value.
9. ESCALATION TIERS
Tier 1 – Operational Review - Handled by Resolution Team
Tier 2 – Risk & Compliance Escalation
Triggered when:
- Fraud indicators exist
- Repeat misconduct is identified
- Regulatory exposure arises
Tier 3 – Legal Escalation
Triggered when:
- Law enforcement involvement required
- Government inquiry arises
- Material legal exposure exists
10. ENFORCEMENT LINKAGE
Dispute findings may result in:
- Strike allocation
- Listing restriction
- Temporary suspension
- Financial recovery
- Permanent termination
Dispute resolution and enforcement are structurally linked but procedurally independent.
11. APPEALS PROCESS
11.1 Appeal Eligibility
A party may request reconsideration where:
- New material evidence exists
- Procedural error occurred
- Misclassification is demonstrable
11.2 Appeal Window
Appeals must be submitted within 24 hours of decision notification.
11.3 Appeal Scope
- Do not guarantee reversal
- Must include new evidence
- Are reviewed once only
Decisions following appeal are final within Platform remit.
12. SYSTEMIC PATTERN ANALYSIS
Bayut may:
- Track repeated dispute trends
- Identify abnormal complaint ratios
- Monitor refund frequency
- Analyze deposit claim behavior
Pattern-based risk exposure may trigger account review independent of single-case outcome.
13. FRAUD SAFEGUARD OVERRIDE
Where fraud indicators exist:
- Standard timelines may be paused
- Financial release may be extended
- Account-level restrictions may apply
This safeguard protects ecosystem integrity.
14. CONFIDENTIALITY & DATA HANDLING
Dispute information:
- Is treated as confidential
- May be shared internally for risk evaluation
- May be shared with regulators where legally required
Personal data is processed in accordance with Data Privacy Policy.
15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The Platform:
- Does not act as arbitrator
- Does not assume contractual liability
- Does not perform physical verification
- Does not provide insurance or guarantees
Dispute facilitation does not create agency, partnership, or fiduciary obligations.
16. RECORD RETENTION
Dispute records may be retained for:
- Risk analysis
- Regulatory audit
- Pattern detection
- Enforcement tracking
Retention duration is determined by regulatory and operational requirements.
17. FRAMEWORK AMENDMENTS
Bayut reserves the right to:
- Modify procedural steps
- Adjust SLA timelines
- Refine escalation protocols
Continued use of the Platform constitutes acceptance of the revised Framework.