Advice please, villa isn't a villa

Dunroamin

poet123 wrote: »

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?

TBF, if you show a photo of a block of flats, you don't expect to get the whole block! If, on the other hand, you showed a specific photo of the balcony or a room which wasn't yours, that would obviously be totally different.

I think the OP's misread it and I doubt we'll ever see the ad. (And I'll grovel unconditionally if I'm wrong.)

photome

stoneman wrote: »

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.

I would agree with that if we could see the Ad, and the ad is worderd incorrectly or is misleading, I realise the OP cant post a link but could post enough info, they are leaving tomorrow so no harm could be done now

poet123

Dunroamin wrote: »

TBF, if you show a photo of a block of flats, you don't expect to get the whole block! If, on the other hand, you showed a specific photo of the balcony or a room which wasn't yours, that would obviously be totally different.

I think the OP's misread it and I doubt we'll ever see the ad. (And I'll grovel unconditionally if I'm wrong.)

Yes, I agree with your first sentence, but the OP mentioned a Pagoda which it now appears is not for the use of whoever is renting but for sole use of the owner, and also she did mention a balcony which seems to be the same. Perhaps the Op has misread it or perhaps it wasn't very well explained in the ad how the property was set up.

It is very common for villas to be split in Italy (and elsewhere I expect but my experience is with Italy) and for a floor to be kept for the family. I have actually rented one which was like that.

In that case we were told the family didn't use the apartment when guests were there, but they did turn up for a couple of days whilst we were there, and our "private pool" was used by family friends on a couple of afternoons. We didn't want to appear unfriendly so we didn't say anything, but it was not absolutely what we had been lead to believe we were getting, which was a private villa.

maman

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, I agree with your first sentence, but the OP mentioned a Pagoda which it now appears is not for the use of whoever is renting but for sole use of the owner, and also she did mention a balcony which seems to be the same. Perhaps the Op has misread it or perhaps it wasn't very well explained in the ad how the property was set up.

It is very common for villas to be split in Italy (and elsewhere I expect but my experience is with Italy) and for a floor to be kept for the family. I have actually rented one which was like that.

In that case we were told the family didn't use the apartment when guests were there, but they did turn up for a couple of days whilst we were there, and our "private pool" was used by family friends on a couple of afternoons. We didn't want to appear unfriendly so we didn't say anything, but it was not absolutely what we had been lead to believe we were getting, which was a private villa.

I don't have much to add although I've stayed in holiday lets in France with owners on the premises. The difference was we knew in advance from the advert so definitely not misled as OP seems to have been.

I agree that 'when's a villa not a villa?' is rather missing the point.

What I just had to post was that surely it's a pergola not a pagoda in the offending photos? Maybe someone will kindly look up OED and confirm?;)

poet123

maman wrote: »

I don't have much to add although I've stayed in holiday lets in France with owners on the premises. The difference was we knew in advance from the advert so definitely not misled as OP seems to have been.

I agree that 'when's a villa not a villa?' is rather missing the point.

What I just had to post was that surely it's a pergola not a pagoda in the offending photos? Maybe someone will kindly look up OED and confirm?;)

I haven't seen the photos, are there any linked to on here? It could well be a Pergola, or it could be a type of summer house in the style of a Pagoda.

slinga

For the first time this year we went to a gites ( British owned ) where the owners stayed next door in adjoining property. We new about this and though we haven't had owners so close before thopught we'd give it a try as the property looked nice.
The property was nice, the owners were great, we were out most of the day and the owners never intruded.
We won't do it again though.
It just wasn't for us although we thoroughly enjoyed our holiday.

Raksha

Some years ago I sent OH off to book a villa in Florida..... Expecting a detached two storey building with own pool. He came back having booked a two up two down terrace with communal pool..... It was still described as a villa

andygb

slinga wrote: »

For the first time this year we went to a gites ( British owned ) where the owners stayed next door in adjoining property. We new about this and though we haven't had owners so close before thopught we'd give it a try as the property looked nice.
The property was nice, the owners were great, we were out most of the day and the owners never intruded.
We won't do it again though.
It just wasn't for us although we thoroughly enjoyed our holiday.

Exactly what you get with a gite.
However a villa is different - self contained properrty, not to be confused with an apartment or flat or room.
I am with the OP on this one.

stoneman

OP has gone very quiet all of the sudden. Maybe she decided to read the description of the place they were renting in more detail.

Coosh

No I just said in my last post that I'm here until next Tuesday and will discuss with owner as we leave and update after that..pls scroll up x the description hasn't changed any since, I did read it properly