MSM quiz

1. SA would like to apply EAT on G’s account after COF was completed due to G strongly denying making payment in email and appeal. SA noticed G has been noted for Property damage previously. What is the suitable Burden of Proof in this mapping? 

• Allegation alone

• Documented Proof of Accused Responsibility

• Additional facts suggest Accused is Responsible

1. G has admitted the chair broke when they were sitting on it in the email and stated there must be something wrong with the chair as they weren’t doing anything risky. What is the suitable Burden of Proof in this case? 

• 1. Documented Proof of Accused

• Allegation Alone

• 1. Accused is not Responsible

The claim was about an additional cleaning fee. SA attempts to collect from G, G has made the payment during the COF process. What is the correct Context Assessment in EAT mapping? 

• Aggravating factors

• Mitigating factors

• N/A

H filed a claim through RC. G has responded and denied the claim in RC. SA has followed workflow to send first contact to G, however G was unresponsive from the beginning to the end of the communication in Aircare. What is the appropriate Context Assessment in EAT mapping? 

• 1. Aggravating factors

• 1. No aggravating or Mitigating factors

• 1. Mitigating factors

H claimed a damaged parasol which was placed in the garden. H mentioned the parasol was damaged by the strong wind and rain because G did not close the parasol when a thunderstorm was coming. What is the section should SA submit for claim denial? 

• Section I

• 1. Section II

• 1. Section III

H created HDP RC for an extra guest fee. What are the next actions that should be done by SA?

• Deny claim under Section III and close claim

• Deny claim under Section II and close claim

• 1. Deny claim under Section I and escalate issue to Resolutions team

• 1. Deny claim under Section II and escalate issue to Resolutions team

H requested reimbursement for the damaged bed frame. G denied causing the damage in RC and has full access to their account. Claim was approved by lead to be denied due to MSD. What are the next actions that should be done by SA?

• 1. Apply EAT and close claim

• 1. Apply EAT, inform H of case outcome and close claim

• 1. Apply EAT, inform G of case outcome and close claim

• 1. Apply EAT, inform H and G of case outcome and close claim

SA just received a claim. SA reviewed claim for missing towels with the following details:

Checkout date: 18 Aug, 2023 at 10:00 AM CEST

Host created draft request: 18 Aug, 2023 at 02:24 PM CEST

Host sent request for 80 € EUR to guest:18 Aug, 2023 at 02:26 PM CEST

Guest did not respond within 72 hours

Host sent request to Airbnb for review:24 Sept, 2023 at 04:23 PM CEST

What are the applicable next actions?

• 1. Request for denial under Section I 

• 1. Request for denial under Section IV

• 1. Request for more documentation from H and G

• 1. Request for H to sign HDPPRF

H requested reimbursement for the missing hairdryer. G admitted to accidentally taking the hairdryer in MT. When mapping for EAT, SA noticed that G has a previous admin flag for Property damage and additional cleaning. What is the most accurate Burden of Proof for the claim?

• Allegation alone

• Additional facts suggest Accused is Responsible

• 1. Documented Proof of Accused Responsibility

H filed a claim. G was unresponsive to the 1st contact email after 72 hours. During the mediation, H has provided the sufficient documentation which has suffice for SA to process payout. SA has not proceeded to the next action but notified H that the case was under review and processed payout to H after 3 days. Is the SA mediate the case correctly?

• Yes

• No