Mis-sold Wedding Venue Capacity?

schneckster

Hi,

What do you think of this?

Went to see a wedding venue for the reception. Told them the size of our guest list and they showed us two rooms with a partition in between. We told them we wanted everyone in one room and that we discounted other venues that couldn't do it. They said we would need a different table layout to do it. We agreed. We subsequently paid our deposit and confirmed our booking.

On a visit after paying the deposit, we asked for details of how it would be laid out... where the top table was, etc. They said they would open the partition and put the top table in between. We challenged them on this and repeated our criteria that everyone was in one room. They're now saying we had never mentioned it before, though they are working on the layout they said we needed to get everyone in one room.

So, different story between before and after paying the deposit. Had they said this before we paid, we wouldn't have booked. To us it's mis-selling, but we need an objective opinion due to our shear anger and upset at all this.

Is it mis-selling? And if so, since our requirement for one room was never written down, what do we do about it?

Cheers,

Schneckster

londonsurrey

It does sound like they tried to palm off something that common sense would indicate is unsatisfactory.

Try calling Trading Standards or CAB.

fluffnutter

A couple of things first. When they said you will need a different table layout (to which you agreed) what was this layout? Did you see it? Did it have the top table in the middle?

Does the partition completely open forming one large room, or is it a gap in the wall? If the latter, then I assume you'd have never been able to have all your guests in the one room, simply because there would always have been two (connected rooms).

schneckster

The partition was simply a gap in the wall. There would always have been a section of one room out of view of the other. It was a big gap, but a gap nonetheless. Had it been the whole wall that opened out, we wouldn't have had a problem with it.

They described the alternative layout to us where the straight top table had straight tables running perpendicular to it. Think of a garden fork with the top table along the top and the other tables the prongs. Clearly that would not go through a partial wall partition.

Thanks,

Schneckster

fluffnutter

OK, this fork-like arrangement then... was it the one you agreed on or the one they sprung on you at the second visit?

Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand what was agreed to and when things changed.

I'm guessing too that the table layout is the key to all this and what you're not happy with. As you already understood that you'd never be able to get a single room out of the two because the gap's not wide enough (and you've seen the gap).

schneckster

The normal layout they use is round tables. On our first visit before we paid any deposit, they told us what the room capacities were with round tables and that our guest list size would need this partition between rooms opened up. We said that we didn't want our party across two rooms. They replied that to get everyone in one room, a fork layout would be needed as it can seat more. We said that's fine, not a problem. The table layout was not important; getting everyone in one room is.If it needs a fork layout, so be it.

We reiterated all this on a second meeting before paying the deposit, and once again as I gave them my credit card to pay the deposit.

It was only on a subsequent visit after paying the deposit that any problems were first mentioned.

fluffnutter

OK. So you were just going with one room, a fork layout and a shut partition. Now, to accommodate all your guests, they're saying the partition needs to be open and instead of the fork layout, you're getting a top table in the gap in the middle and two rooms instead of the one.

Yes?

lowlitmemory

I don't understand. You saw the room before you booked so I don't see how you can get annoyed with them despite having previously seen what was available. Did you not see the solid wall between the two rooms? Genuinely not trying to be snarky, I just don't get it.

We had to have a large wedding (200 people) and made sure to book a place with a huge room and saw photographic examples of other weddings/functions there with 200-250 people. I simply would not have booked somewhere if I'd needed two rooms.

FatVonD

Did they mean that the top table would go sideways through the gap and that there would be 2 prongs on either side (ie so your guests would see one half of the top table each?)

*confused*

FatVonD

schneckster wrote: »

We reiterated all this on a second meeting before paying the deposit, and once again as I gave them my credit card to pay the deposit.

Could this be your answer to getting your money back if you feel it's been missold?

fluffnutter

lowlitmemory wrote: »

I don't understand. You saw the room before you booked so I don't see how you can get annoyed with them despite having previously seen what was available. Did you not see the solid wall between the two rooms? Genuinely not trying to be snarky, I just don't get it.

We had to have a large wedding (200 people) and made sure to book a place with a huge room and saw photographic examples of other weddings/functions there with 200-250 people. I simply would not have booked somewhere if I'd needed two rooms.

This is why I banged on about the detail. I couldn't understand either. What I think has happened is that the OP was given assurances that one of the rooms alone would have been big enough provided they changed from a round table layout to a fork layout.

They then proceeded on this basis. Now they're being told, actually one room won't be big enough - we need to open the partition. This is what they don't want because some of the tables will have obscured views (which I assume they will).