Advice please, villa isn't a villa

mcc100

photome wrote: »

Wonder what happened here.

Did the OP leave a negative review, etc, guess we may never know

I'm still hoping that we will find out as Coosh has been visiting the site since arriving back from holiday (last visit yesterday at 7-09pm)

I'm not sure why he/she has chosen not to post again.

Voyager2002

Coosh wrote: »

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

If I were the owner, I would be seriously unhappy with someone who waits until the end of the holiday to mention a problem. The general rule is that if something is wrong, you give the provider the opportunity to put things right, and it is only if they cannot or will not do so that you even begin to think about negotiating a price reduction.

You certainly had a right to expect the balcony and pagoda to be available during your stay: that is something that you could mention politely while there, and a responsible owner could sort something out on the spot. As for the issue of privacy: for all you know the owners might be able to stay with relatives if they have a guest who particularly wants privacy, but don't realise that you mind.

Dunroamin

Voyager2002 wrote: »

If I were the owner, I would be seriously unhappy with someone who waits until the end of the holiday to mention a problem. The general rule is that if something is wrong, you give the provider the opportunity to put things right, and it is only if they cannot or will not do so that you even begin to think about negotiating a price reduction.

You certainly had a right to expect the balcony and pagoda to be available during your stay: that is something that you could mention politely while there, and a responsible owner could sort something out on the spot. As for the issue of privacy: for all you know the owners might be able to stay with relatives if they have a guest who particularly wants privacy, but don't realise that you mind.

Having been sent the details of the villa (and no, I'm not going to post them) I have to say that I still feel that, with the exception of the pergola outdoor dining area, that the OP has basically misread the accommodation details. It seems to me obvious that nobody could have expected to be renting the whole building and the description of what he's renting makes this reasonably clear.

However, until the OP makes this public, it's obviously not able to be discussed properly here but I have to say that it looks lovely, is very reasonably priced and I would expect (and hope) that he has had a fantastic holiday.

littlereddevil

I also find it strange the OP never came back on

mcc100

Coosh wrote: »

I don't mind giving the property number once I'm home if you want to have a look..if I'm allowed to

Yes, you are allowed to Coosh

budgetflyer

Dunroamin wrote: »

Having been sent the details of the villa (and no, I'm not going to post them) I have to say that I still feel that, with the exception of the pergola outdoor dining area, that the OP has basically misread the accommodation details. It seems to me obvious that nobody could have expected to be renting the whole building and the description of what he's renting makes this reasonably clear.

However, until the OP makes this public, it's obviously not able to be discussed properly here but I have to say that it looks lovely, is very reasonably priced and I would expect (and hope) that he has had a fantastic holiday.

So in your opinion, they mis read the advert and got pretty much what was offered and what they paid for?

Dunroamin

budgetflyer wrote: »

So in your opinion, they mis read the advert and got pretty much what was offered and what they paid for?

Perhaps not quite misread but certainly not carefully enough and without thinking it through.

As an example, the house was two storeys but all the rooms (except the kitchen) were described as leading onto the terrace, so it was obvious that they were all on the ground floor. It was also an enormous house but the OP's accommodation was only 2 beds, living room, kitchen and bathroom (IIRC).

ferf1223

having also seen the listing - I think with hindsight or knowing what the accomodation actually was it's easy to say that it was misread, but without knowing the background, I would absolutely have expected that we had sole use of the property. I admit that looking at the photos knowing the OP didn't have full access, I can see how the property is larger than what was described as being provided but I think that lack of a specific reference to part of the property pictured it could be (and obviously has been) misunderstood.

'Terrace' to me doesn't mean "ground floor"..I've had flats and hotel rooms described as having a 'terrace' that wasn't on the ground floor.

Dunroamin

ferf1223 wrote: »

having also seen the listing - I think with hindsight or knowing what the accomodation actually was it's easy to say that it was misread, but without knowing the background, I would absolutely have expected that we had sole use of the property. I admit that looking at the photos knowing the OP didn't have full access, I can see how the property is larger than what was described as being provided but I think that lack of a specific reference to part of the property pictured it could be (and obviously has been) misunderstood.

'Terrace' to me doesn't mean "ground floor"..I've had flats and hotel rooms described as having a 'terrace' that wasn't on the ground floor.

But it's absolutely enormous (I was wrong, it's 3 storeys) - nobody could possibly think that a house that size contained only 2 beds, kitchen and bathroom!

Dunroamin

ferf1223 wrote: »

having also seen the listing - I think with hindsight or knowing what the accomodation actually was it's easy to say that it was misread, but without knowing the background, I would absolutely have expected that we had sole use of the property. I admit that looking at the photos knowing the OP didn't have full access, I can see how the property is larger than what was described as being provided but I think that lack of a specific reference to part of the property pictured it could be (and obviously has been) misunderstood.

'Terrace' to me doesn't mean "ground floor"..I've had flats and hotel rooms described as having a 'terrace' that wasn't on the ground floor.

But it's absolutely enormous (I was wrong, it's 3 storeys) - nobody could possibly think that a house that size contained only 3 beds, kitchen, living room and bathroom! It's not as if they're particlarly large rooms.