Hotel pre-authorisation legalities?

JReacher1

zagfles wrote: »

It's cute how some people don't seem to understand that we're talking whether they can charge your card, not whether you have a contractual liability to pay. Who should I believe, Barclays Merchant Services or some random person on the internet? Hmm....let me think...

It’s cute how someone takes one paragraph from a Barclays PDF and believes that covers every card charging scenario (yet bizarrely seems to accept the fact the card can be charged if the room needs to be cleaned)

zagfles

hasaposse wrote: »

Oh good lord. You can't write something into a contract that usurps the law.

Well, technically you can, but the law will override the contract. As clearly stated in this example from the FOS: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

But JReacher1 probably knows better than the financial ombudsman as well as Barclays

JReacher1

zagfles wrote: »

Well, technically you can, but the law will override the contract. As clearly stated in this example from the FOS: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

But JReacher1 probably knows better than the financial ombudsman as well as Barclays

It’s cute how someone can take a 2005 article about a different scenario and then use that as evidence to attempt to prove they are right....

zagfles

JReacher1 wrote: »

It’s cute how someone can take a 2005 article about a different scenario and then use that as evidence to attempt to prove they are right....

Still digging :rotfl: Have you reached Australia yet?

hollydays

hasaposse wrote: »

Thanks, I've not actually had any weird charges as of yet. It's just that I stay in hotels very regularly, and always have a pre-authorisation which is obviously normal, but never really looked into the legalities of it.

The reason I was posting was because the hotel I've booked next month had a couple of charges listed in their T&Cs that didn't state how much they were, so it got me thinking and my curiosity got the best of me, then I was surprised that I couldn't really find any clear information online.

What charges were they?

photome

hasaposse wrote: »

Thanks, yeah sort of, I mean it's nice to have a real world example. I definitely agree they put idiots in call centres as the first line of defence! From what I've been reading (links in this thread, Google etc), it sounds like the pre-authorisation allows them to take up to 115% of that amount if it's a VISA card, and 100% if it's a MC, without any further authorisation when you check out. Consumer rights laws etc do still apply obviously, but the staff in the hotel may not be familiar with them or may just ignore them and charge you for things they're not allowed to, so the best option is not to sign anything if there are any disputed charges and take it up with the CC company afterwards.

You will have signed something though, when you check in, agreeing to the t and c and agreeing for those charges to be taken

hasaposse

photome wrote: »

You will have signed something though, when you check in, agreeing to the t and c and agreeing for those charges to be taken

That's not necessarily true though, which is the point of my question. If something isn't listed in the T&Cs or is ambiguously "priced" ie listed as "you will be charged a fee for x" rather than "you will be charged £4.87 for x" then you're not agreeing to any specifics.

If my question was simply asking if they can charge my card for things clearly listed and priced in the T&Cs then I wouldn't be asking the question because the answer would be obvious.

reason2

im baffled at how many people havent understood the question.

from what i read, it seems quite simple.

IE, "Can a hotel pre authorise £400, have a clause that states there is a charge for corkage but not specify the charge and then legitimately say we have taken the full £400 you pre authorised as per our terms this is to cover a corkage fee.

peachyprice

reason2 wrote: »

im baffled at how many people havent understood the question.

from what i read, it seems quite simple.

IE, "Can a hotel pre authorise £400, have a clause that states there is a charge for corkage but not specify the charge and then legitimately say we have taken the full £400 you pre authorised as per our terms this is to cover a corkage fee.

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

At every hotel I've ever stayed in firstly to charge something to your room you have to tell them your room number, secondly you sign a receipt to accept how much your room will be charged. Why would anyone sign a) accept a service without knowing how much it is or b) sign receipt for £400 corkage?

Without your signature they cannot charge anything to your room, other than post-checkout costs for things like stolen bathrobes and towels, which you would have agreed to them charging you for at the time of checking in.

zagfles

peachyprice wrote: »

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

At every hotel I've ever stayed in firstly to charge something to your room you have to tell them your room number, secondly you sign a receipt to accept how much your room will be charged.

Indeed. Though they might also have a minibar in the room, with prices clearly displayed

Why would anyone sign a) accept a service without knowing how much it is or b) sign receipt for £400 corkage?

Without your signature they cannot charge anything to your room,

Then that answers the question, doesn't it? The OP was worried about being charged for something without agreeing the specifics. That shouldn't happen, if it does a chargeback should be upheld.

other than post-checkout costs for things like stolen bathrobes and towels, which you would have agreed to them charging you for at the time of checking in.

If you steal something, the hotel should be informing the police not charging your card. If they allow you take something for a charge (sometimes, like the minibar, they allow you to buy robes etc), the charge should be made clear.