Hotel took unauthorised payment from laser

ash8390

I know hotels are able to charge your laser if you dont show up but here is the situation and I think we should be refunded just looking for some advice.

The hotel we booked into has a nightclub as part of it and the door into the hotel is also the door into the nightclub. We had no intention of going to nightclub we just booked into hotel as it was a cheaper rate then any around it.

My boyfriend had been told the previous week at the nightclub "not tonight" and he did have an issue with the bouncers which was purely alcohol related.

Last night neither of us had anything to drink. On booking the room my boyfriend explained we wouldnt be arriving until after 12 - we had something to do early today and literally just wanted somewhere to sleep.

On arriving at the hotel my boyfriend was told he was not allowed on the premises and this included to stay in hotel. It was after 12 and we obviously had nowhere else to stay. I tried to reason with the bouncer explaining we werent attending the nightclub and my boyfriend hadnt been drinking and could we please just have access to the room we prebooked as we had nowhere else to go. He said no.

With this we contacted the hotel asking was there anything they could do and we were told unfortunately there was not. My boyfriend had previously given his laser details and he said well since you are not letting us stay I presume my laser will not be charged. He was assured it would not and so we stayed in a different hotel(at a much higher price).

Today we went down to the original hotel to double check card had not been charged to discover it had been. We were told by the manager the person answering the phone was not a receptionist that they dont have anyone on reception at night. He also said it was our fault as my boyfriend had been too drunk the previous week however nowhere on the hotels website does it say if you are barred from the nightclub you cant stay in the hotel and even apart from this he thought as they said not tonight it was just because he was too drunk that night but didnt realise he was barred.

They have refused to refund the money, is this legal?

P. Breathnach

Of course it's not legal. They refused to provide the service for which they had contracted, so they can not charge for it.

You would even have an arguable case to be compensated for the difference between the rate at that hotel and the rate you had to pay at the hotel you ended up using.

whippet

I might sound harsh but from what I can make out your boyfriend had a drink fueled altercation with the hotel's staff and wasn't allowed on to the premises .. yet for some reason you thought that that wouldn't have anything to do wanting to walk in to the same premises past the same member of staff the following week?

Regardless of your circumstances at the time they were in their rights to refuse entry to the premises as the staff would have a duty of care to other guests and residents and allowing someone in to the premises who has proven that they can become disorderly with drink on to the premises would have brought certain risks to it.

On booking the hotel wouldn't have known of your boyfriend's actions the previous week and therefore took the booking in good faith. As you had a booking the hotel wasn't able to offer the room to anyone else and could possibly lost revenue for it and therefore in my opinion was entitled to take payment.

Take another different but simple senario, your get thrown out of a bar / resturant on a saturday night after a day of drinking and give verbal abuse to the staff etc .. would you expect them to allow you in on the following saturday evening with your family for a dinner?

P. Breathnach

Unless OP's boyfriend was barred from the premises before the booking was made, the hotel is contractually bound by the booking.

Let's be realistic about life: drunken altercations with door staff at discos are (sadly) commonplace. And it's fairly common that people who indulge in them are admitted on other nights when they are in a better state. The "not tonight" quoted by OP is perfectly consistent with that: it is reasonable to infer that he would be allowed in when less drunk or difficult. Sober, accompanied by girlfriend, and seeking to a the hotel bedroom rather than the disco is a wholly different scenario.

whippet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Unless OP's boyfriend was barred from the premises before the booking was made, the hotel is contractually bound by the booking.

the OP hasn't said that the booking was made after the altercation. However, I don't think any one can be contractually bound to provide a service to a customer who has proven to be abusive or disorderly previously.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's be realistic about life: drunken altercations with door staff at discos are (sadly) commonplace.

While commonplace drink is too often used as an excuse in this country for peoples actions.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And it's fairly common that people who indulge in them are admitted on other nights when they are in a better state. The "not tonight" quoted by OP is perfectly consistent with that: it is reasonable to infer that he would be allowed in when less drunk or difficult.

this isn't really relevant, the OP said that her boyfriend acted in a manner after being told 'not tonight' .. which any reasonable person would expect not to be let in again after that. If I was an owner of a public house or other business that sold drink I would be doing my best to keep idiots out of it that become abusive when drunk as it could affect my license renewal when the time comes around..

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sober, accompanied by girlfriend, and seeking to a the hotel bedroom rather than the disco is a wholly different scenario.

different senario, but same people involved and same premises ... people have to understand the consequences of the actions when under the influence of drink are just as real as those when sober.

P. Breathnach

whippet wrote: »

the OP hasn't said that the booking was made after the altercation.

Fair enough, but it looked to me that it was that way.

However, I don't think any one can be contractually bound to provide a service to a customer who has proven to be abusive or disorderly previously.

That's a highly contentious suggestion. If a booking was accepted from somebody who was not already barred from the premises, a contract exists. Even if, as you contend, the hotel should have the right to cancel the contract, it is hardly reasonable that they should still expect OP's boyfriend to be bound by it and pay for the room he was refused.

While commonplace drink is too often used as an excuse in this country for peoples actions.

Neither OP nor I made that suggestion.

this isn't really relevant, the OP said that her boyfriend acted in a manner after being told 'not tonight' .. which any reasonable person would expect not to be let in again after that. If I was an owner of a public house or other business that sold drink I would be doing my best to keep idiots out of it that become abusive when drunk as it could affect my license renewal when the time comes around..

OP's boyfriend didn't get into the nightclub when he was drunk; he wasn't even trying to get into it when he was sober; he wanted a hotel bedroom. How might that affect licence renewal?

different senario, but same people involved and same premises ... people have to understand the consequences of the actions when under the influence of drink are just as real as those when sober.

What's that got to do with it?

There is a simple fundamental point at issue here. A booking was accepted. If OP's boyfriend had not been barred from the premises, then an enforceable contract existed. It cannot be voided when he turns up by the doorman saying "Oh, it's you. Because of your behaviour last week I'm not letting you in." and the management follows up by taking the money under the contract that the doorman had effectively cancelled.

Senna

It sounds like the boyfriend booked the hotel after the altercation, which i have to say was a particularly stupid thing to do. If i had "an issue with the bouncers which was purely alcohol related" i wouldn't want to go back the next week, i'd be embarrassed.

The hotel took the booking in good faith, i doubt the OP mentioned the altercation the previous week and if he did i doubt they would have taken the booking. The hotel made the room available but the OP's actions stopped him from being able to use it.

I wouldn't expect them to refund the money.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

jor el

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not that clear at all. There are many cases where a service can be withdrawn and still a charge is applied. Whether this is one of those cases or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't say it's a clear cut case of a refund being warranted.

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any establishment, such as pub or hotel, can refuse service to anyone they want at any time they want. They are perfectly within their rights to refuse service to anyone, especially someone with a proven record of being abusive to staff.

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem to have missed the part about him having some drunken "issue" with the door staff, and being refused entry.

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While the Small Claims Court is probably going to be the only recourse, if the Hotel refuses to refund the charge, it is by no means a guarantee of refund. Look at the facts, someone that had been barred from the premises proceeded to try and re-gain entry to that same premises without checking if the barring would be an issue, or without informing them of this fact in advance. He made an invalid assumption about what he was entitled to, and what the consequences would be. The hotel took the booking in good faith and should not be held liable for any loss incurred by the customer's deception (whether that was intentional or not).

P. Breathnach

jor el wrote: »

... Look at the facts, someone that had been barred from the premises ....

Where is that established as a fact? Being refused admission on one particular occasion does not amount to being generally barred from a premises.

Yes, of course if OP's boyfriend had been barred from the premises, then he has no case for his being allowed in.

Mr. Presentable

Was the OP refused entry to the room, or just choose not to take it?

BizzyC

Unless the hotel had a caveat in their T&C's about such occasions, by refusing entry to the hotel, the bouncer effectively cancelled the agreement.

The hotel has the right to refuse service, but not to take money without providing any.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

BizzyC

jor el wrote: »

Look at the facts, someone that had been barred from the premises proceeded to try and re-gain entry to that same premises without checking if the barring would be an issue, or without informing them of this fact in advance. He made an invalid assumption about what he was entitled to, and what the consequences would be. The hotel took the booking in good faith and should not be held liable for any loss incurred by the customer's deception (whether that was intentional or not).

Why is onus on the customer to know whether or not their booking will be honored?

If the hotel didn't intend on allowing him to stay, they should have refused the booking in the first place.
On accepting the booking they agreed to provide a service, which they later decided to withhold.

They should not be entitled to payment under these circumstances.

amandstu

If the OP's boyfriend has admitted the initial dispute was caused by him having taken drink and being irrascible to what extent is the rest of his account reliable?

On the other hand does the hotel not have any obligation to show that there were actually at a loss of income and that ,for example, they were fully booked that night?

UrbanSea

Melandez I think your example of using a barman and taking his money and then saying he can't get served is a poor one.


If a football fan is barred from a ground but buys a ticket for a match there and turns up with his ticket he paid for and isn't allowed entry, they wouldn't get a refund. Same can be said for a concert venue, that's more apt than the example you gave

UrbanSea

amandstu wrote: »

If the OP's boyfriend has admitted the initial dispute was caused by him having taken drink and being irrascible to what extent is the rest of his account reliable?

On the other hand does the hotel not have any obligation to show that there were actually at a loss of income and that ,for example, they were fully booked that night?

They would have been at a loss, it was after midnight when they arrived, it'd be extremely unlikely they'd sell that room again that night.

amandstu

UrbanSea wrote: »

They would have been at a loss, it was after midnight when they arrived, it'd be extremely unlikely they'd sell that room again that night.

my reasoning is the opposite.If he arrived after midnight then they would be unlikely to have turned anyone away on account of his booking.

He only causes them a loss if they turn away other custom for the room.
If he "is cancelled" then the only loss the hotel suffers is the loss of his own booking (which they didn't want as it turned out)

Oryx

As a lay person, I cannot understand the hotels justification in charging this guy for a room they did not allow him to use. They denied him the service, then charged him after that fact. It wasnt that he didnt turn up, or that he turned up in a state or causing aggro. It does not seem right or reasonable to me to charge for something they decided to cancel.

Boggles

It's not clear whether or not the OP's boyfriend was just refused on the night or barred. There is a massive difference.

That said he would have to be explicitly told he was barred from staying at the actual hotel for him not to enter the contract in good faith.

I will assume he thought he was barred from the nightclub not the hotel.

Therefore he entered the contract in good faith, the nightclub was not a factor.

By being refused entry into the hotel the contract was broken and no monies should have been paid out, unless it explicitly states in said contract that anyone barred from the nightclub is automatically disqualified from the hotel and failure to disclose this will incur a penalty.

Contact the NCA for advise.

Your entitled to your money back at the very least. IMO.

ardmacha

the OP said that her boyfriend acted in a manner after being told 'not tonight' .. which any reasonable person would expect not to be let in again after that.

This would imply that any person refused entry on one occasion was automatically excluded for subsequent occasions, 'not tonight' is not 'not ever'. This is not usually the case, a person might well be admitted on another night when sober.

It does not follow (in the absence of some information to the contrary) that
- a person refused entry to the nightclub when drunk is automatically barred when sober
- a person refused entry to a nightclub is automatically refused entry to the rest of the premises

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

BrianD

The hotel should refund the OP on the basis that they should have a separate entrance for nightclub and hotel patrons or be in a position to control admission to both areas of the hotel.

The Op paid for a service where there was no grounds to refuse it.

They should take it up with their bank and dispute the payment.

MajorMax

The hotel has the right to apply a charge.

Let me give you a scenario.
If a person tried to book a hotel room and brought a dog (Obviously not a seeing eye dog) with them, they wouldn't be allowed access to the room.

As the hotel has supplied the room in good faith and it is the actions of the potential guest that won't allow them to occupy the room. The hotel is allowed to charge them

Linoge

MajorMax wrote: »

The hotel has the right to apply a charge.

Let me give you a scenario.
If a person tried to book a hotel room and brought a dog (Obviously not a seeing eye dog) with them, they wouldn't be allowed access to the room.

As the hotel has supplied the room in good faith and it is the actions of the potential guest that won't allow them to occupy the room. The hotel is allowed to charge them

You are mixing up T&Cs and the law.

amandstu

MajorMax wrote: »

The hotel has the right to apply a charge.

Let me give you a scenario.
If a person tried to book a hotel room and brought a dog (Obviously not a seeing eye dog whats that?) with them, they wouldn't be allowed access to the room.

As the hotel has supplied the room in good faith and it is the actions of the potential guest that won't allow them to occupy the room. The hotel is allowed to charge them

a bit off topic (and why not?) but is the hotel allowed to rebook the room and still charge for the "cancellation"

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

UrbanSea

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They have the right to refuse admission, which is legal.

Oryx

UrbanSea wrote: »

They have the right to refuse admission, which is legal.

But is charging, then refusing admission without refund legal?

mad m

Just wondering since when did bouncers have the last say as to wether someone is allowed a room or not. Ok to get into night club its different. But the hotel had the same entrance to night club and hotel (mad)...

The manager/someone in charge should of had the last say, not the bouncers.

ardmacha

If a person tried to book a hotel room and brought a dog

only if their T&Cs indicated that dogs were not allowed or if dogs were never allowed in hotels.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Boggles

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even if they are contractually obliged to deal with them, they can still refuse entry. It would be stated in most hotels terms & conditions.

As long as they don't refuse on the grounds of discrimination they can refuse anyone they want when they want.

ardmacha

As long as they don't refuse on the grounds of discrimination they can refuse anyone they want when they want.

That's not the point. The point is can they charge you if they don't let you in.
People here contend that they can't charge you unless it was crystal clear that that someone would not be allowed in and this is not the case here.

number10a

OP, if you booked this reservation through on online booking website, I would suggest reporting the hotel to them before you go to the Small Claims Court as that course of action would cost you nothing. These websites can be very persuasive by threatening action against hotels that are tarnishing the website's reputation. That or seek a chargeback with your bank.

Boggles

ardmacha wrote: »

That's not the point. The point is can they charge you if they don't let you in.
People here contend that they can't charge you unless it was crystal clear that that someone would not be allowed in and this is not the case here.

Never said it was the point.

I merely stated in reply to a post that the hotel are well within their rights to refuse entry contract or not.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Boggles

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You misunderstood, I never said they could refuse entry without consequence.

But they can refuse entry, contract or not.

Kolido

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont think this example is anyhwere near the same. For one, the bottle of beer can still be sold, barman hasnt suffered any lose, whereas the hotel room may no be occupied that night.

BizzyC wrote: »

Why is onus on the customer to know whether or not their booking will be honored?

If the hotel didn't intend on allowing him to stay, they should have refused the booking in the first place.
On accepting the booking they agreed to provide a service, which they later decided to withhold.

They should not be entitled to payment under these circumstances.

If you have ever booked an hotel either via telephone or online, its highly unlikely they will ask you if any of your party has been barred or refused entry recently.


In my opinion I would definately persue a refund. It's cheeky of the hotel to charge them when it was the hotel who essentailly canceled the booking.
Saying that, do we know when the booking was made, if it was after the altercation with the bouncers, they should have known better to choose somewhere else.
On another note, of no relavence, an hotel with their nightclub having the same entrance, sounds very sleezey to me.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Newaglish

MajorMax wrote: »

The hotel has the right to apply a charge.

Let me give you a scenario.
If a person tried to book a hotel room and brought a dog (Obviously not a seeing eye dog) with them, they wouldn't be allowed access to the room.

As the hotel has supplied the room in good faith and it is the actions of the potential guest that won't allow them to occupy the room. The hotel is allowed to charge them

I don't think you've considered the technicalities with your scenario. In reality, the hotel would be refusing the person the entitlement to bring their dog into the room - they wouldn't prevent the person themselves from accessing the room sans dog. In this case, they would still be entitled to charge for the room.

The OP's case would be decided around the following:
1) If there is a clause in the booking agreement that people who are barred from the adjoining nightclub will not be permitted to stay in the hotel and will be charged usual cancellation fees, the hotel is entitled to charge the fee.
2) If there is no such clause (I'm certain there won't be) the hotel would probably need to prove that they suffered a loss from the cancellation of the contract, namely that they were at full capacity and that there would have been alternative demand for the OP's hotel room.

I think the hotel would have a hard time proving that the OP should have been aware that a barring from the nightclub would extend to the hotel also, unless they were expressly told at the time.

Boggles

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hang on there. That is completely on how the judge sees it.

If one breaks a consumer contract without due notice there can be penalties.

It would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the judge not only award the OPs boyfriend a refund on monies owed, but makes the hotel pay the alternative accommodation and any expenses incurred from going to court, e.g day of work, etc.

amandstu

Newaglish wrote: »

I don't think you've considered the technicalities with your scenario. In reality, the hotel would be refusing the person the entitlement to bring their dog into the room - they wouldn't prevent the person themselves from accessing the room sans dog. In this case, they would still be entitled to charge for the room.

again off the topic of the thread.If a customer turned up with a dog without mentioning it would the hotel be within its rights to ask the customer to find a room elsewhere even if he was agreeable to not to have the dog in the room.

whippet

What I'd like to know is who's name was it booked under? The OP or her boyfriend?

I'd say the room would have been available for the OP to use but she may have refused to use it as her boyfriend wasn't allowed in .. In that case the hotel provided the service and the OP would have chosen not to use it

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

ash8390

whippet wrote: »

I might sound harsh but from what I can make out your boyfriend had a drink fueled altercation with the hotel's staff and wasn't allowed on to the premises .. yet for some reason you thought that that wouldn't have anything to do wanting to walk in to the same premises past the same member of staff the following week?

Regardless of your circumstances at the time they were in their rights to refuse entry to the premises as the staff would have a duty of care to other guests and residents and allowing someone in to the premises who has proven that they can become disorderly with drink on to the premises would have brought certain risks to it.

On booking the hotel wouldn't have known of your boyfriend's actions the previous week and therefore took the booking in good faith. As you had a booking the hotel wasn't able to offer the room to anyone else and could possibly lost revenue for it and therefore in my opinion was entitled to take payment.

Take another different but simple senario, your get thrown out of a bar / resturant on a saturday night after a day of drinking and give verbal abuse to the staff etc .. would you expect them to allow you in on the following saturday evening with your family for a dinner?

I understand that but he hadnt been drinking and neither had I we just wanted to go up nd get some sleep as we were up early it was very obvious there wasnt going to be any hassle

And to be fair he honestly thought it was just that one night as he had been in there plenty of times before and he wasnt a problem

We werent trying to get into the nightclub and we werent drinking and even so say that is 100% he didnt know he was barred and we rang the hotel and told them the issue so the room was available for someone else to take and we were assured by a staff member the card was not charged over the phone yet when we went into the hotel we were told theres no receptionist at night

ash8390

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Was the OP refused entry to the room, or just choose not to take it?

we were refused entry to room by doorman, we rang hotel and they said there was nothing they could do but we wouldnt be charged, then we were charged and told that whoever we were speaking to wasnt a receptionist and they didnt know what they were talking about

ash8390

amandstu wrote: »

If the OP's boyfriend has admitted the initial dispute was caused by him having taken drink and being irrascible to what extent is the rest of his account reliable?

On the other hand does the hotel not have any obligation to show that there were actually at a loss of income and that ,for example, they were fully booked that night?

He admitted he had an issue last week as he is an honest hardworking guy who went out one night and had one too many drinks cuz he was on a lads night out.

And we rang the hotel as soon as there was an issue and they knew on our arrival we couldnt take room and so could have given it to someone else

ash8390

UrbanSea wrote: »

They would have been at a loss, it was after midnight when they arrived, it'd be extremely unlikely they'd sell that room again that night.

But its a nightclub I work in a hotel which has a nightclub and EVERY night people decide they dont want the hassle of getting home and they want a residents bar and they book into hotel instead of going home after the disco

ash8390

UrbanSea wrote: »

They would have been at a loss, it was after midnight when they arrived, it'd be extremely unlikely they'd sell that room again that night.

Also the room wasnt booked until approx 8.30pm that evening so somehow I doubt the hotel filled up and they were turning people away in the space of 4 hours