Mis-sold Wedding Venue Capacity?

fluffnutter

FatVonD wrote: »

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*

No, I think the fork layout had nothing to do with the gap and would happen all in the one room with the partition shut (and probably with a 16 old birthday party booked in the next room, playing really loud 'grime' or whatever the kids are into these days )

schneckster

Fluffnutter:
Basically, yes. They told us before booking, if we had the fork layout, we would only need one room. They are now saying differently.

The layout, to us, is not the important bit. It's whether or not we can get everyone in one room. Before paying a deposit, yes they could. After paying, not sure they can and probably not.

Hence our anger because we would not have booked otherwise.

lowlitmemory:
Yes we saw the room, but not configured for weddings. We went on what they told us. No photos supplied except with the partition opened up. When they say (and we have now found an email saying it!) that the fork layout would get everyone in one room, surely they are saying they can meet what we wanted and not seeing the room in that configuration is a moot point? It becomes a point of contract, doesn't it?
And no, I don't think you're being sarky )

Fatvond:
Yes, that's what they were trying to say - back to round tables through the two rooms with the top table in the middle of the partition. Not what we wanted or even discussed. As I said, the layout is not the point. Getting everyone in one room is.

Thanks for the replies.

Horace

Did you have any confirmation in writing with regards to the room layout before you booked? Did you query the room layout in writing with them before you paid a deposit.

When you viewed the room did you see it as two rooms with the partition closed, if not did you ask for it to be open?

Unfortunately a venue has to adhere to fire regulations and cannot increase capacity to suit every possible client. I don't see the venue as mis-selling the room to you either - you were made aware of the layouts that they could do as well as the room capacity before you made the booking.

When you view rooms in venues they are not necessarily displayed showing a wedding layout because if the venue is used for other events besides weddings they are not going to keep the room laid out for weddings instead they will show a generalisation or the room will be shown without furniture.

Why not ask to see the room laid out as it would be for your wedding that way you would be able to see if they could accommodate your requirements - remember that the tables will need to spaced to a certain extent to accommodate the waiting staff so that they have access to your guests.

How big is the room with the partition open? How many guests are you expecting?

tooldle

How many guests are you trying to accommodate, and what is the capacity of each room? This info is key. If each room can accommodate 50 people and you are trying to cram 100 into one room, it is clearly unrealistic and would be not so much a case of misselling but misunderstanding. However if you are looking to accommodate 55, I can see why you though that the guests would fit into one room.

sassyblue

Agree with toddles... did they know how many were coming, has that number been upped?

I do think if you have an email clearly saying everyone should get in one room then you have grounds for cancelling and getting your money back without quibble.

londonsurrey

Just to get a feel of plain basic common sense and normality here, does anyone know of a context(other than this-is-all-we-have-so-we're-just-lumping-it) in which it is normal and acceptable to have a split room with the head table straddling both sides, as is being proposed by the organisers?

daska

schneckster wrote: »

Fluffnutter:
Basically, yes. They told us before booking, if we had the fork layout, we would only need one room. They are now saying differently.

The layout, to us, is not the important bit. It's whether or not we can get everyone in one room. Before paying a deposit, yes they could. After paying, not sure they can and probably not.

Hence our anger because we would not have booked otherwise.

lowlitmemory:
Yes we saw the room, but not configured for weddings. We went on what they told us. No photos supplied except with the partition opened up. When they say (and we have now found an email saying it!) that the fork layout would get everyone in one room, surely they are saying they can meet what we wanted and not seeing the room in that configuration is a moot point? It becomes a point of contract, doesn't it?
And no, I don't think you're being sarky )

Fatvond:
Yes, that's what they were trying to say - back to round tables through the two rooms with the top table in the middle of the partition. Not what we wanted or even discussed. As I said, the layout is not the point. Getting everyone in one room is.

Thanks for the replies.

OK, if you've got an e-mail where they've stated that a fork layout will accommodate all your guests in one room that's a very good start. Was this before or after you paid the deposit. If before then that's brilliant as you can say you based your decision on that statement. If after then that's still pretty good as it backs up your claim that you were discussing that requirement with them.

I'm with londonsurrey though, it's not normally considered acceptable to be spread across rooms, even if there is a gap - though I did get made redundant once at a venue arranged like that...

fluffnutter

schneckster wrote: »

Fluffnutter:
Basically, yes. They told us before booking, if we had the fork layout, we would only need one room. They are now saying differently.

The layout, to us, is not the important bit. It's whether or not we can get everyone in one room. Before paying a deposit, yes they could. After paying, not sure they can and probably not.

Hence our anger because we would not have booked otherwise.

lowlitmemory:
Yes we saw the room, but not configured for weddings. We went on what they told us. No photos supplied except with the partition opened up. When they say (and we have now found an email saying it!) that the fork layout would get everyone in one room, surely they are saying they can meet what we wanted and not seeing the room in that configuration is a moot point? It becomes a point of contract, doesn't it?
And no, I don't think you're being sarky )

Fatvond:
Yes, that's what they were trying to say - back to round tables through the two rooms with the top table in the middle of the partition. Not what we wanted or even discussed. As I said, the layout is not the point. Getting everyone in one room is.

Thanks for the replies.

Seems quite straightforward to me, and great news that you have an email stating that all guests can be accommodated in the one room.

They agreed to X. They're now saying you can't have X. X is not an incidental; it's one of the main reasons why you chose this venue. It doesn't matter why you can't have X any more. The fact is they said you could and you proceeded on this basis.

They are in breach of contract and you have the right to cancel without penalty. They can't insist you go ahead with the booking, nor can they retain your deposit.

Write to them stating that it was agreed that all guests could be accommodated in one room and that they have reneged on this agreement. As such you're cancelling the booking and look forward to the return of your deposit. Include a copy of the email.

If they don't capitulate, then you may need to either pursue them through the small claims court, or enlist your CC company's support via a S75 claim.

Who needs all that when you're planning a wedding? Good luck.

meritaten

I think what the venue meant by fork layout would be using rectangular tables instead of round - and now they have backtracked (perhaps the cost of hiring the tables is too much?)
I think you need to contact your credit card company and explain the situation to them. also CAB to see if you have a hope of getting out of this contract - if they didnt mention in writing the alternative layout - then the contract is a standard one and you signed it.
'A verbal contract isnt worth the paper its written on' is a cliche for a very good reason.

just a thought - check the venues maximum capacity figures - every venue has one for elf and safety reasons. and most places with rooms configured this way often hire out both rooms to different parties at the same times - are you paying for ONE room or TWO?

schneckster

Horace, Tooldle, Sassy:
The numbers aren't the issue and the increase is only about 10%, but yes, they knew the numbers and there have been no changes in that number in all our discussions with them. The fact is, they told us they could do it before we paid, now they're changing their minds. Additionally, they're denying saying it until after we booked, despite an email from them from before. I know there'll be a max number for elf & safety, but if they say they can do it, clearly they know what that number is.

It was a straight question - can you take this many in one room? They said yes if we use layout Y. After getting a deposit, they're now saying no.