Hilton "Our Best Rates Guaranteed"

bkqiusbg

Well, it looks like the consensus is against me. Unfortunately the Hilton people spend all of their time going through the Terms and Conditions looking at how to exclude claims. Newbies like me get one shot (its in ther T&Cs that I can only submit a single claim).

eBookers lists room only for £55.20.
third party lists room+breakfast for £79
Hilton room only for £102.35

Question: If I offer you one Big Mac for £2 or one Big Mac and fries for £1.90 (and you only want the Big Mac)... which would you say is the better price?

dmg24

bkqiusbg wrote: »

Well, it looks like the consensus is against me. Unfortunately the Hilton people spend all of their time going through the Terms and Conditions looking at how to exclude claims. Newbies like me get one shot (its in ther T&Cs that I can only submit a single claim).

eBookers lists room only for £55.20.
third party lists room+breakfast for £79
Hilton room only for £102.35

Question: If I offer you one Big Mac for £2 or one Big Mac and fries for £1.90 (and you only want the Big Mac)... which would you say is the better price?

Your Big Mac comparison is irrelevant, you are not comparing like for like. The correct comparison would be a BM for £2 or a BM for £1.90.

No one is 'against' you, just giving the benefit of experience with this type of offer. Equally I doubt the Hilton team spent more than a few seconds looking at your claim, as the product was clearly different.

Next time you find a deal like this, feel free to ask here before booking, there will always be someone about to make sure you get it right first time.

bkqiusbg

dmg24 wrote: »

Your Big Mac comparison is irrelevant, you are not comparing like for like. The correct comparison would be a BM for £2 or a BM for £1.90.

Treat the Big Mac case for what it is in isolation for a moment. If offered
(a) a Big Mac for £2, or
(b) a Big Mac plus fries for £1.90
and you want the Big Mac, which would you prefer? As an economist, assuming that more is preferred to less and assuming costless disposal, the second should be preferred by any rational individual. The second option is strictly better than the first. If you really do not want the fries they can be discarded at no cost and you are still 10p better off. If you eat them then you are 10p better off and got some free fries thrown in. Which of the options would you prefer?

Now taking this to the room rate guarantee. Is it possible that the deals offered on the Hilton website are virtually always slightly different than the deals on third-party websites by construction. What if the two bookings were nearly identical except that...
- Hilton's small print adds a free morning newspaper
- a direct Hilton booking allows you to enter their rewards program
- a direct Hilton booking allows you the choice during the booking process of additional paid options such as cancellation or parking
- the third party website adds you to a mailing list
- the third party website gives you free website points
- the third party website charges a credit card but not debit card fee

Would any of those examples invalidate the like-for-like of the guarantee? Is it possible that Hilton's offers will nearly always have at least some small difference to the third-party site such that Hilton can try to invalidate any claim?

I am just having difficulty understanding how given options
(a) room+vat for £102
(b) room+vat+breakfast for £79
how option (b) is not "better" than option (a) for everyone.

At the end of the day I feel that Hilton has played a confidence game with me. I found a better rate in a "spirit of the law" way but they disallowed the claim based on a "letter of the law" way. Since it seems like the posts so far all agree with Hilton I will not push this issue further.

Thanks for all the responses/feedback.

apt

If you feel strongly about it try writing to one of the newspaper consumer columns. They might think it's worth exposing Hilton's weasal words. Hilton would then back down because of the bad publicity. It is not reasonable to disallow a claim if the cheeper rate had the same conditions and apart from having a free breakfast as well.

ekeir

bkqiusbg may have fallen foul of t&c, but this t&c is a particularly bad one if Hilton are going to say that it doesn't apply because the lower price was for a better room grade. I would be seriously miffed if this happened to me as well.

inflationbusting

It's pretty obvious to me. Hilton don't want to pay out on this because they will lose money.

Making an exception for you in this case will set a precedent and loads of people would be able to claim.

I think stuff like loyalty points, mailing list would be immaterial for the claim. A breakfast though, makes the product different. Of course, common sense dictates that the underlying room rate should be less, but this is to minimise potential liability.

Dirty trick? Borderline. I remember londontown did this promotion and it was also difficult to make things stick.

As an economist, the Big Mac case is interesting. Money paid doesn't equate to value derived. So, the Big Mac and fries may not be your best bet even if it costs less. Let's say if you have a small stomach, and can only eat the Big Mac. You force yourself to eat the chips and make yourself uncomfortably full. The fries have a negative value in this case.

Of course, not many people would be in this situation. But it's enough for the hotel to wiggle out of it. Trying to push for this is futile as I think most of the guarantee schemes stipulate the same conditions.

bkqiusbg

inflationbusting wrote: »

As an economist, the Big Mac case is interesting. Money paid doesn't equate to value derived. So, the Big Mac and fries may not be your best bet even if it costs less. Let's say if you have a small stomach, and can only eat the Big Mac. You force yourself to eat the chips and make yourself uncomfortably full. The fries have a negative value in this case.

Thanks for your reply. Of course I agree that option (b) is worse if there is negative utility attached to the consumption of the fries. But my (standard utility theory) assumption was that more is preferred to less and costless disposal. Even if the fries did make you worse off then you could give them away or bin them. No rational individual, even those with small stomachs, would prefer option (a).

GlennTheBaker

I've never used the Hilton guarantee (although I have had many successes with Marriott's version) but I have read on a Hilton forum plenty of grumbles about them not approving claims.

I would only ever attempt to use any of these guarantees with a cancellable reservation - never a pre-paid, non-refundable one.

In your case, I agree that maybe the 'spirit' the guarantee has not been used but these things have very strict Terms and Conditions which must be met. In your case, they haven't.

elephant-astic

bkqiusbg wrote: »

Which is why I am so disappointed by the guarantee. They say "We promise that if you find a lower rate through any other booking channel, we'll match that rate". At the end of the day I booked a room+VAT through Hilton and found the same thing (plus breakfast) for less money. Isn't that a lower rate for the same room+VAT?

I don't care what room grade Hilton puts it on their computer system--all I want is the room at the best rate. I found the room at a better rate.

Sadly, it looks like I am the only one that thinks Hilton are being unfair.

I agree with you totally that they seem to be playing the letter of "the law" over it's spirit, but, sadly, these days it seems to be pretty common corporate behaviour, and most of the time they're pretty good at covering themselves.
FWIW I think the following is where they get you; While it might defy common sense to say that your cheaper room with breakfast isn't a better deal than a more expensive room without food, their T&Cs clearly exclude bookings involving food. Best you can hope for is to try and create a stink and hope they'll want to avoid the bad publicity, but at the end of the day is it worth that much of your time over £20?

• Our Best Rates. Guaranteed. OFFER DOES NOT APPLY to the following:

• Hotel packages (e.g., Romance, Park & Fly, Theatre Breaks) or travel packages which may include hotel, airfare, car rental, food and beverage offers or other similar packages or amenities.

bkqiusbg

elephant-astic wrote: »

at the end of the day is it worth that much of your time over £20?

I agree the time is not worth £20 but it is the principle of the matter. I would rather loose £100 fairly than be tricked out of £20.

elephant-astic wrote: »

their T&Cs clearly exclude bookings involving food

As for the issue with food, my Hilton room+VAT booking cost £102. I could have added breakfast with my Hilton booking for another £15 (i.e paid £117) at the time. If I had booked that breakfast would you then say that I had then met the terms of the offer or do you understand that any and all bookings with food/beverage are automatically disqualified from the guarantee?