radisson Blu

gingercheapskate

zenmaster wrote: »

The room accommodated all those booked, without a surcharge.

It was not in the small print, but in the room description. Required reading for anyone booking a room, I would have thought.

I used the term "small print" as others had. My point is that it is not transparent and should be. I'm not bothered about whether I get a white fluffy bathrobe included in the price or the brand of complimentary toiletries, which is what is included in the room description generally. I just expect that when making a booking for 2 adults and 1 child, that the quote is for that. Surcharges are generally for things like laundry, films and internet and I think that the OP is right to be aggrieved. I don't see why you don't understand her point!

Zedicus

sukaber wrote: »

so now we get the sexist remarks.... this site just gets better and better

I'm afraid you've fallen foul of the group of self righteous plonkers who make it their business to ridicule and belittle anyone who is caught out by small print and less than clear terms. You can see them at work on many of the threads here.

What this boils down to is that you went to a hotel site, gave them the information for which they asked, received a price, and then discovered that the price did not cover what you could reasonably be expected to need.

The majority of those who qualify as children are old enough to require a bed separate from their parents so it is patently absurd that the hotel did not either provide that bed by default or at the very least, ask you if one was required so that it could be reserved and included in the price you were quoted. Apart from anything else, their incompetent and lackadaisical approach could easily result in their accepting bookings and then not having enough beds available which would completely ruin someone's stay if there were, for example, teenage children involved.

You have received shoddy service from this hotel and have every right to be annoyed.

sukaber

Zedicus wrote: »

I'm afraid you've fallen foul of the group of self righteous plonkers who make it their business to ridicule and belittle anyone who is caught out by small print and less than clear terms. You can see them at work on many of the threads here.

What this boils down to is that you went to a hotel site, gave them the information for which they asked, received a price, and then discovered that the price did not cover what you could reasonably be expected to need.

The majority of those who qualify as children are old enough to require a bed separate from their parents so it is patently absurd that the hotel did not either provide that bed by default or at the very least, ask you if one was required so that it could be reserved and included in the price you were quoted. Apart from anything else, their incompetent and lackadaisical approach could easily result in their accepting bookings and then not having enough beds available which would completely ruin someone's stay if there were, for example, teenage children involved.

You have received shoddy service from this hotel and have every right to be annoyed.

Zedicus, I wish I could 'speak' as eloquently and succinctly as you do. Thank you very much for explaining far more clearly what I was trying to say.

Azari

Zedicus wrote: »

Apart from anything else, their incompetent and lackadaisical approach could easily result in their accepting bookings and then not having enough beds available which would completely ruin someone's stay if there were, for example, teenage children involved.

And then we would be treated to the spectacle of the "self-righteous plonkers" (love it! ) taking a great delight in pointing out that it said in the small print that beds were available "subject to availability".