Advice please, villa isn't a villa

silverwhistle

It sounds similar to here in Italy where you can get a villa bi-familiare: bit like a semi-detached if you like, although the division may be upstairs and down like you describe here, or side by side. Still one building with its own grounds.

It perhaps should have been clearer in the advertisement, but other people have enjoyed the place and not thought to comment, so perhaps put it down to experience and make a review that points it out. If the owners are reasonable I don't think they'd retain any deposit just for having a quiet word about your disappointment, but if depends how you approach them. At the moment I'd suggest you relax and enjoy the holiday and keep the noise from your rampant sex-orgies toned down!:-)

ferf1223

I can't think what mentioning it mid-stay would accomplish...but perhaps mention as you are leaving (after you receive your deposit back, assuming you will receive it then) that based on the details provided you had understood you would have use of the full villa - that it was not made clear that some of the photos were not included in the portion that you apparently had rented, etc. and that it was quite disappointing for you...while the part of the villa you did have access to was very nice, you would not have rented this particular villa had you known that you did not have sole access to the whole thing.

And post a review when you get back...could it not be that the owners used to rent the full villa and now live upstairs, that might explain why reviews don't mention it? I don't know how these things work.

as the op is new they won't be able to post a link but maybe could post the property reference.

photome

as someone else said there is no defining definition of a "villa".

can you post a link to the site.

Like you I wouldn't be happy but not much you can do about it, enjoy the holiday and complain at the end and leave an honest review

headpin

If you go to law in England the definition will be that in the Oxford English Dictionary. Not got a copy so cannot check what it says. Perhaps someone can look and post what the OED definition says?

Dunroamin

headpin wrote: »

If you go to law in England the definition will be that in the Oxford English Dictionary. Not got a copy so cannot check what it says. Perhaps someone can look and post what the OED definition says?

"noun
1(especially in continental Europe) a large and luxurious country house in its own grounds.
British a detached or semi-detached house in a residential district, typically one that is Victorian or Edwardian in style:
[in place names]:
Madison Villas
British a rented holiday home abroad.
2a large country house of Roman times, having an estate and consisting of farm and residential buildings arranged around a courtyard."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/villa

Gloomendoom

headpin wrote: »

If you go to law in England the definition will be that in the Oxford English Dictionary. Not got a copy so cannot check what it says. Perhaps someone can look and post what the OED definition says?

The online version is vague...

Definition of villa
noun
1(especially in continental Europe) a large and luxurious country house in its own grounds.

British a detached or semi-detached house in a residential district, typically one that is Victorian or Edwardian in style:
[in place names]:
Madison Villas

British a rented holiday home abroad.

Too late!

headpin

Dunroamin wrote: »

"noun
1(especially in continental Europe) a large and luxurious country house in its own grounds.
British a detached or semi-detached house in a residential district, typically one that is Victorian or Edwardian in style:
[in place names]:
Madison Villas
British a rented holiday home abroad.
2a large country house of Roman times, having an estate and consisting of farm and residential buildings arranged around a courtyard."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/villa

"House in own grounds". Not part of house. Looks pretty clear cut to me as being a case of misrepresentation and/or misleading advertising.

On return I would contact the owners to express disappointment and ask for an adjustment on the price to reflect. If no response go to SCC. Need to gather evidence of what likely difference in price and also claim for any disappointment you believe you have suffered as a consequence.

If the owners do not want to deceive (and not seen advert so based on comments above), why not make clear it is only the ground floor of a larger property?

ferf1223

headpin wrote: »

If the owners do not want to deceive (and not seen advert so based on comments above), why not make clear it is only the ground floor of a larger property?

agree - even if the OP has the use of the number of bedrooms, etc. advertised...if the photos were of the house itself and if it wasn't stated that they were only getting the ground floor I can't imagine many people would have thought they would have access to anything other than the entire property.

Coosh

Thank you so much for your advice everyone. I will speak to them when we leave next Tuesday and express our disappointment,see what they say..then deciide from there..and will update this too.
Natalie x

jacques_chirac

headpin wrote: »

"House in own grounds". Not part of house. Looks pretty clear cut to me as being a case of misrepresentation and/or misleading advertising.

If you take that definition as a whole, you will see it does not apply to the OP's situation at all. You can't just pick and choose the bits that suit your viewpoint!

OP, were you told you would have exclusive use of the property and grounds?