Loch Kinord Hotel took money weeks after we did not stay due to substandard room

spikeage02

My husband booked us two nights at the Loch Kinord Hotel on 1st and 2nd January 2009. When we arrived the owner was rude (left us waiting in reception while he attended to regulars in the bar and said he would see what was left in the back of the fridge when I asked if an there was an alternative vegetarian option on the evening menu) and offered us a substandard room as we had our dog with us (advertised as pet friendly). We told him we were unhappy with the room and he told us we did not have to stay, so we left.

We drove back home and left a review on Trip Advisor which was honest. We kept an eye on our account and no money was taken initially, however on checking our January statement £60 (price for one night) was taken on 29 January. The owner responded to our trip advisor post on 25th January.

Is the owner entitled to take our money 27 days after he told us we did not have to stay? Also should the owner be keeping our card details for that period of time?

Thanks for any advice
Spikeage02

Halloway

I suppose that taking payment for one night is not unreasonable. The hotel would not have been able to resell the room at such short notice and the room would have been prepared. Had the hotel taken payment for two days then that would have been less justifiable, if not actually illegal.

The owner is indeed correct in that you did not have to stay. Unfortunately he didn't tell you that you did not have to pay either.

As for keeping card details, AFAIK there is no limit on how long someone can keep card details - if there were how could (e.g.) Amazon keep my credit card details for years at a time?

It sounds like a lovely hotel. Not.

Justicia

Halloway wrote: »

As for keeping card details, AFAIK there is no limit on how long someone can keep card details - if there were how could (e.g.) Amazon keep my credit card details for years at a time?

Halloway has covered much of what i was going to post in reply, but in regards to the card details, I understood that the highlight was more on the secure holding of the card details rather than the length of time...?

Was also going to prompt you towards TripAdvisor, but you've already done that (have read the review also).

Freddie_Snowbits

spikeage02 wrote: »

he would see what was left in the back of the fridge when I asked if an there was an alternative vegetarian option on the evening menu)

Did you specify a veggie option. If you stay at my place you'd get beans on toast. I do not offer fried bread because I use Lard.

spikeage02 wrote: »

offered us a substandard room as we had our dog with us (advertised as pet friendly).

Quite right, I would not want a customer to ruin one of my best rooms if they had a !!!!! as well.

penrhyn

Could be worse, OP might have stayed here

Yeeeeees!

spikeage02

Quite right, I would not want a customer to ruin one of my best rooms if they had a !!!!! as well.

If you advertise as pet friendly then I expect to be given a reasonable standard of accommodation. Most decent hotels that are pet friendly (eg Rick Steins and Malmaison where I have stayed without problem with my dog) offer standard rooms not substandard rooms. I have no problem if hotels do not want to accept pets but they should not advertise falsely.

The hotel did claim to offer veggie options.

pinkshoes

I've read the trip advisor review, and although I agree with the hotel for wanting to keep some rooms pet free due to guests with allergies, it seems ludicrous to advertise as a pet friendly hotel, then state that pets cannot be left unattended in the room!! I'm not sure what else you're supposed to do with them, as I can't imagine the hotel being happy about everyone's dogs being in the restaurant!?!

Spikeage, when you booked the room, were you given the option of stating that you had a pet? If not, then the problem is between the hotel, and their booking system, and they should refund your £60. If you forgot to say you had a dog, then you should forfeit the £60.

lolarentt

spikeage02 wrote: »

The hotel did claim to offer veggie options.

Surely and decent hotel these days would have at least one veggie main course, without having to advertise it, even if it was only the dreaded lasagne!

poppycracker

Thank Goodness I saw this thread..... I was going to book our honeymoon here!

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

spikeage02 wrote: »

My husband booked us two nights at the Loch Kinord Hotel on 1st and 2nd January 2009. When we arrived the owner was rude (left us waiting in reception while he attended to regulars in the bar and said he would see what was left in the back of the fridge when I asked if an there was an alternative vegetarian option on the evening menu) and offered us a substandard room as we had our dog with us (advertised as pet friendly). We told him we were unhappy with the room and he told us we did not have to stay, so we left.

We drove back home and left a review on Trip Advisor which was honest. We kept an eye on our account and no money was taken initially, however on checking our January statement £60 (price for one night) was taken on 29 January. The owner responded to our trip advisor post on 25th January.

Is the owner entitled to take our money 27 days after he told us we did not have to stay? Also should the owner be keeping our card details for that period of time?

Thanks for any advice
Spikeage02

Personally think you should be liable for both nights.

You booked a service which was provided and could have been used.

1) you got the room you paid for, you did not get to choose a specific room but given you didnt pay for this you have no right too.

2) They had a vegetarian option and offered to look for something else, seems fair to me

3) so he didnt give you preferential treatment over others

4) Pet friendly or not why should other guests be subjected to animals left in rooms because the owner is too tight to pay for a kennel.

5) Its perfectly legitimate to sanitise certain rooms for allergies

Ultimately you purchased something that you would have received in full and due to your own choice didnt use and thus should pay up.

You frankly seem like a bit of a muppet of a customer.

OlliesDad

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

4) Pet friendly or not why should other guests be subjected to animals left in rooms because the owner is too tight to pay for a kennel.

Don't know why i am responding to such a blatant troll, but for other peoples benefit who may have agreed with the above statement, many people actually enjoy taking animals with them on holiday.