Advice please, villa isn't a villa

martinthebandit

jacques_chirac wrote: »

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?

'British a rented holiday home abroad'

Looks like its a villa to me.

But I would go with the rest of the advice given on here, enjioy your holiday and then leave a honest review.

gregg1

Coosh wrote: »

Hi thanks for the replies. There are a few reviews but just saying lovely villa, nice location etc..no one mentions it which I find very odd..we can't be the only ones who were expecting a Villa when we paid for a villa.
What we aren't getting is privacy. When you book a villa on a hillside that's what you want. The owners are keeping out the way but they are still there and there is a certain amount of noise with someone living above you on tiled floors. Also the lovely balcony overlooking the lake and pool that I had looked forward to chilling on isn't ours. One of the photos on the site shows a nice pagoda area with a dining table..not ours either.
I don't want to rock the boat while we are here as it could be very unpleasant as.they are living above us. I don't mind giving the property number once I'm home if you want to have a look..if I'm allowed to.i don't think there's anything I can do about it for us but would like to stop other people.being misled and disappointed in the future x

If the photos they used included things like the balcony and the pagoda area but they are not in fact part of the package I think that is misleading at the very least. I think you have every right to be angry and I would certainly say something when you leave (better still, put it in writing and keep a copy, hand it to them as you go) detailing how you believe they misled you.

Dunroamin

If the accommodation included a bedroom with a balcony then I'm sure it would say - the adverts on Owners abroad are very detailed. In my experience, people want to believe certain things are there when they aren't and this could be the case here.

I'm surprised that the OP hasn't posted a link to the ad as it would make it much easier for others to offer an opinion.

photome

Coosh wrote: »

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

would be good if you could post a link to the advert

ferf1223

bearing in mind that the OP is there right now he/she may not be comfortable posting a specific details at this point.

mandragora_2

They're also a new poster, so won't be able to, though one of us could when they were ready to, with enough info to find it ourselves.

stoneman

Oh for goodness sake, stop splitting hairs. Most people (if not everyone) knows what is meant by a villa. (and the owner is British so no ambiguity should exist) If it was advertised as a villa with pictures of a pagoda/balcony etc and you do not have the use of them then it is misleading advertising at the least.
I would be spitting blood and would have mentioned it as soon as I arrived. You might have wanted privacy because you like wandering around in the buff, or like having sex in the pool, and specifically looked for a private location, ie "a villa" not an apartment.
The problem is that you left it, had you mentioned it when you arrived I am sure you would have been able to negotiate a reduction in the rental cost, but you have just accepted it and done nothing. I know it wouldn't have been ideal because you were expecting the sole use of a property but haho. I would contact Owners Direct as well as leaving him a note when you leave stating that you will be taking this further because of the deception, and you will be posting reviews on various forums.

mgdavid

whose splitting hairs? it is clear to me, and therefore I expect also to you, that there is no precise definition of 'villa'. It's been mentioned that photos showed the whole building which might lead to an expectation of what was being rented. However cost is important too - if the pic is of a complete detached building and the rent is less than equivalent properties then surely the OP would have had cause to ask questions. Maybe they thought they had sniffed out a bargain which turned out not to be the case? A look at the ad would be informative i think....

stoneman

mgdavid wrote: »

whose splitting hairs? it is clear to me, and therefore I expect also to you, that there is no precise definition of 'villa'. .

:wall::wall:

poet123

Whilst there may be no precise definition of a villa, if photos show parts of the property that are not included in the rental that is definitely misleading. Why show them if they are not included?