Thomas Cook lied during sale, then messed up booking.

lincroft1710

phil2580 wrote: »

I'm happy for you that you think £3,000 is cheap. This was the most expensive holiday I have ever booked, and probably the worst service I've ever received.

£3K for a holiday for 2 on a longhaul flight isn't expensive these days.

aaroncaz

ThumbRemote wrote: »

That really is a ridiculous point. By this logic it would be quite acceptable for any salesperson to say anything they want, because the customer could have found out information from somewhere else.

I don't think it is a ridiculous point, I agree with you that £3000 is a lot of money to spend, and that's why I would do my research before I went into the Travel agents! I would tell THEM where I want to go not them tell me.

SevenOfNine

You'll have to cross out number 5 "lied about number of a-la-carte restaurants". Grand Bahia Principe is a 4 part resort, it is GBP Coba, GBP Akumal, GBP Tulum and GBP Sian Kaan.

The Sian Kaan is adults only and its guests can use it's own and all other a-la-carte restaurants (& buffets) across the other 3 GBP's.

The Coba, Akumal and Tulum guests can all use each others a-la-cartes and buffets (but cannot use Sian Kaan's).

Though it is a massive complex, there are little tram/train/noddy train type things tootling about between all 4 areas during the course of the day so if you want to eat elsewhere you don't even have to walk.

There are at least 9 a-la-cartes to choose from if not more. You should have made it your business to find out what the resort had to offer, have you never heard of Trip Advisor?

Paying extra for 'seats together', then finding they weren't - you don't mean they were across the aisle from each other do you? Because this IS classed as 'together' and in the T&C's.

PS For future reference, when you have a special occasion, don't bother with the travel agent or rep, email the hotel and tell them.

ThumbRemote

LilElvis wrote: »

Not ridiculuous at all in my opinion. Yes, I would expect a salesman selling, say, electrical goods to have a pretty good knowledge of the products he stocks. A travel agent is selling something which they have never physically seen and has only the limited information they themselves are given to pass on to the potential customer. For example, how would the agent have known that the road from the resort was particularly slow? They might only have seen the distance from the other resort and, fairly reasonably, assumed that it would be a journey time within the parameters given to them by the OP. So yes, I would have left the agents and had a look at guide books, Trip Advisor etc before making a final decision on the particular hotel.

In which case it is incumbent on the travel agent to say 'I don't know', not to make something up.


You seem to be justifying the travel agent giving false information. Why on earth would you think that is acceptable?

LilElvis

ThumbRemote wrote: »

In which case it is incumbent on the travel agent to say 'I don't know', not to make something up.


You seem to be justifying the travel agent giving false information. Why on earth would you think that is acceptable?

I would not, and have not, justified the agent giving 'false information'. I have simply pointed out how he could have made what he believed to be a reasonable assumption concerning the travelling time between the resorts.

The phrase 'false information' implies a level of deception in the agent's actions whereas it is, given the fact that the OP was going to book a holiday with him in any case, more likely that he made an honest mistake.

Yes, we all know the old phrase about 'assumptions', but can you honestly say that in your professional life you have never made one based on the information to hand - or do you always just say 'I don't know'?

SevenOfNine

I'd normally try to be a bit sympathetic here, but I smell COMPENSATION as being the driving force behind the list of complaints, hence they have been 'beefed up'.

IMO the OP has 2 seemingly solid complaints (if taken at face value), the paid for "premium seats together" weren't forthcoming (as I said before, assuming the weren't across the aisle which IS classed as 'together').

Also, the distance from GBP (Riviera Maya) to Playa DC was further than stated.

The rest were minor issues or initial disappointments some of which were ironed out. I'd expect 'honeymoon extras' to be the upgraded room which should have had slippers, bathrobe, basic stocking of mini-bar, beach towels in the room and an additional a-la-carte evening for each week of stay.

The a-la-carte was an expectation issue on the part of OP, a bit like our expectation of a star rating to be exactly the same as UK standard - not necessarily. I presume OP got to choose the 'mains' from a menu and the waiter brought it to the table. Good grief, get a life!

redpete

phil2580 wrote: »

It's listed in the brochure as a bottle of tequila and a bowl of fruit. Nothing major, but if it's advertised as a 'honeymoon extra', it should only be in rooms occupied by honeymooning couples. Instead it was in every room (as far as we could tell).

So you are not unhappy that you missed out on something, you are not unhappy that what you got wasn't satisfactory but just that other people got the same - kind of selfish don't you think?

phil2580

SevenOfNine wrote: »

You'll have to cross out number 5 "lied about number of a-la-carte restaurants". Grand Bahia Principe is a 4 part resort, it is GBP Coba, GBP Akumal, GBP Tulum and GBP Sian Kaan.

The Sian Kaan is adults only and its guests can use it's own and all other a-la-carte restaurants (& buffets) across the other 3 GBP's.

The Coba, Akumal and Tulum guests can all use each others a-la-cartes and buffets (but cannot use Sian Kaan's).

Though it is a massive complex, there are little tram/train/noddy train type things tootling about between all 4 areas during the course of the day so if you want to eat elsewhere you don't even have to walk.

There are at least 9 a-la-cartes to choose from if not more. You should have made it your business to find out what the resort had to offer, have you never heard of Trip Advisor?

Paying extra for 'seats together', then finding they weren't - you don't mean they were across the aisle from each other do you? Because this IS classed as 'together' and in the T&C's.

PS For future reference, when you have a special occasion, don't bother with the travel agent or rep, email the hotel and tell them.

The brochure categorically states 9 a la carte restaurants spread across the 3 resorts (Sian Ka'an wasn't accessible to us), in addition to the snack bars and buffet restaurants.

Of those 9, only 4 are a la carte. The remaining 5 all require you to self-serve your starter and dessert from the same generic buffet. This is not a la carte.

As for being sat together, the seats allocated were on different rows on opposite sides of the plane.

phil2580

Actually sevenofnine, I couldn't give a monkeys about compensation. I don't believe in the compensation culture.

What I do want is a refund for the seats that Thomas Cook failed to provide, and an actual apology and recognition of the false information they have given.

As for them hoping I'll travel with them again in the future...there's more chance of me winning the lottery.

WTFH

The restaurants where you could choose your own starter and dessert - was the main course off a menu, or not?

Also, what were the seat positions which you were offered that you then rejected?