Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

ballsymchugh · 08-04-2016 06:12PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

I had a look at trip advisor to see if they had had any poor reviews etc previously.

A guy complained last year that the food was not great. Her reply was that he knew it would be home cooked food and they didn't have a professional chef. You were offered outside caterers, but you could not afford this.

She is like something off Ramsey's Hotel Nightmares.

she looks remarkably like vikki pollard also

wokingvoter · 08-04-2016 11:07PM

It just reinforces the fact that "social media " just isn't for everyone
Some people really need to be kept away from the keyboard for ever for the sake of everyone

MistyCheese · 08-04-2016 11:58PM

Is it just me or does the castle not look a bit shït? It looks more like ruins than a 'picturesque' wedding venue where the cost covers a beautiful backdrop for your photos.

John Mason · 09-04-2016 07:35AM

i missed the statement on their website but i see this is up now

We do not have a wedding coordinator therefore we recommend you hire one if required.In the future the Castle will not be providing our cooked meals. You may hire one of our preferred outstide caterers.

.

anewme · 09-04-2016 08:14AM

Think the "wedding co-ordinator" is not able for the pressure and having a meltdown. She's clearly in the wrong job. She should not have put personal financial details up about the couple.

That said, the Bride is now asking questions 9 months AFTER she signed a contract. What's the point? What did she hope to achieve by putting that up on a Wedding Board. She signed a contract and it's now time to pay.

There is probably a lot going on behind the scenes on this one. The wedding co ordinater mentioned weeks of correspondence. Sounds to me like the bride can't or won't pay despite signing the contract. Remember the (in)famous Rathsallagh House thread on here that everyone got great mileage out of.

Also in the mix is the person who set out with the intent of sharing the posts etc with the objective of ruining the Castle's business. Lots of nasty poison comments.

“The whole bridal community has come together to rebel against an injustice and I would never feel bad about that.”

"The whole Bridal Community". - what egotistical rubbish. Next they will be running for the elections. Or campaigning against water charges in the bridal community.

And as for setting up a crowd funding page to help the bride have her dream wedding, more horse manure.

In fairness, the couple in question have said they don't want anything for free.

Keane2baMused · 09-04-2016 08:15AM

There will be special offers galore coming up for the castle when the madness dies down I bet.

anewme · 09-04-2016 08:24AM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

There will be special offers galore coming up for the castle when the madness dies down I bet.

I'm not sure. It seems like a family renting out their 'home" to keep their bills paid. They probably resent having to do that and it's coming across in their communication. They are also not qualified to do it and it's all a bit hap hazard.

They should either hire a professional company to manage the wedding business( which seems like they can't afford to do) or stay away from weddings altogether and find an alternative source of funds.

Keane2baMused · 09-04-2016 08:38AM

anewme wrote: »

I'm not sure. It seems like a family renting out their 'home" to keep their bills paid. They probably resent having to do that and it's coming across in their communication. They are also not qualified to do it and it's all a bit hap hazard.

They should either hire a professional company to manage the wedding business( which seems like they can't afford to do) or stay away from weddings altogether and find an alternative source of funds.

Absolutely agree but I would imagine this will have a knock in effect to their entire business,not just weddings. They will need to come up with something to salvage the business and generate revenue for the estate I imagine!

Especially given the backtracking on the website now. She said no more weddings and now it's, organise it yourself if you want one here! By the looks that is definitely a better option anyway.

salmocab · 09-04-2016 09:07AM

anewme wrote: »

They should either hire a professional company to manage the wedding business( which seems like they can't afford to do) or stay away from weddings altogether and find an alternative source of funds.

I would think they can't afford to not hire a professional company at this stage

Gatica · 09-04-2016 09:16AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

She is like something off Ramsey's Hotel Nightmares.

Oh, yes! I'm thinking Amy's baking company which went viral.

https://youtu.be/vYoyXtAwqdA

Gatica · 09-04-2016 09:31AM

anewme wrote: »

That said, the Bride is now asking questions 9 months AFTER she signed a contract. What's the point? What did she hope to achieve by putting that up on a Wedding Board. She signed a contract and it's now time to pay

As mentioned, I think there were a few things that came up in the previous few weeks and emails between them.

Just cos someone may have a change of circumstances doesn't immediately imply they're looking to not pay their bill. Nothing the bride posted that I saw said that, she enquired bout the payment in advance and child's meals. According to Kelly there was no mention of kids meals in the contract.
Supposing for example someone lost their job maybe before their wedding, maybe they'll try to see where they could make it easier - child's meals, spreading the cost over longer period so they can pay it.. not to say the hotel should subsidise it, but maybe might be something they could work out between them so hotel still gets paid and couple has a wedding they can pay for. Just one example...
It's hardly this bride's fault they'd difficult guests at the castle before. I'm also amazed at the support for this woman on her profile after she verbally abused a bride and others on the group, rather unprovoked and revealed personal details about her. It's also speculation to say the bride may have posted name of the hotel on her profile..

desertcircus · 09-04-2016 09:37AM

Based on the information available, the bride in question probably has a pretty strong case for suing the hotel for a breach of data protection. They told the whole world that the couple are financially stretched - that's a pretty substantive breach, and it's documented for all to see. They may have contacted their solicitors, but I imagine the solicitor's contribution to the conversation consisted more or less entirely of the words "You did WHAT?"

meeeeh · 09-04-2016 10:31AM

anewme wrote: »

Also in the mix is the person who set out with the intent of sharing the posts etc with the objective of ruining the Castle's business. Lots of nasty poison comments.

“The whole bridal community has come together to rebel against an injustice and I would never feel bad about that.”

"The whole Bridal Community". - what egotistical rubbish. Next they will be running for the elections. Or campaigning against water charges in the bridal community.

This. We deal with people when they want to upgrade have to invest huge amounts of money. The pressure for things to work and I've seen a lot worse than that outburst. It's funny how quickly some people are intent on destroying a business because of one person and without knowing all the facts.

wokingvoter · 09-04-2016 10:46AM

anewme wrote: »

I'm not sure. It seems like a family renting out their 'home" to keep their bills paid. They probably resent having to do that and it's coming across in their communication. They are also not qualified to do it and it's all a bit hap hazard.

They should either hire a professional company to manage the wedding business( which seems like they can't afford to do) or stay away from weddings altogether and find an alternative source of funds.

This is my feeling entirely. You end up having contempt for every single customer and then you just can't disguise it any longer

Dubl07 · 09-04-2016 11:04AM

anewme wrote: »

I'm not sure. It seems like a family renting out their 'home" to keep their bills paid. They probably resent having to do that and it's coming across in their communication. They are also not qualified to do it and it's all a bit hap hazard.

They should either hire a professional company to manage the wedding business( which seems like they can't afford to do) or stay away from weddings altogether and find an alternative source of funds.

wokingvoter wrote: »

This is my feeling entirely. You end up having contempt for every single customer and then you just can't disguise it any longer

The 80+ Laird seems to have done a good job before TwinkleToes came along with some airy-fairy ideas about how things should be for a lady of the manor. Those old places are money-pits. Bloody cold, creaky, head-wrecking in terms of regulations. Then there's a standard of behaviour and interaction with locals to which the incumbents are expected to adhere. Poor Stuart Morris didn't have a clue when he married her. Of all the weddings that should have been called off, theirs is top of the list. She appears to have been Godzilla during the fiancée phase and it seems to have only gotten worse.

anewme · 09-04-2016 11:38AM

Gatica wrote: »

As mentioned, I think there were a few things that came up in the previous few weeks and emails between them.

Just cos someone may have a change of circumstances doesn't immediately imply they're looking to not pay their bill. Nothing the bride posted that I saw said that, she enquired bout the payment in advance and child's meals. According to Kelly there was no mention of kids meals in the contract.
Supposing for example someone lost their job maybe before their wedding, maybe they'll try to see where they could make it easier - child's meals, spreading the cost over longer period so they can pay it.. not to say the hotel should subsidise it, but maybe might be something they could work out between them so hotel still gets paid and couple has a wedding they can pay for. Just one example...
It's hardly this bride's fault they'd difficult guests at the castle beforey. I'm also amazed at the support for this woman on her profile after she verbally abused a bride and others on the group, rather unprovoked and revealed personal details about her. It's also speculation to say the bride may have posted name of the hotel on her profile..

The point is though, she knew the payment was due three months in advance before she signed the contract and still went ahead and signed the contract.

The Bride also said she "presumed" children's means would be less. Can see why she might come to that conclusion, but unless it's in the contract, then she's no recourse.

I don't get what the point was of asking other people what they were paying after the event.

anewme · 09-04-2016 11:59AM

Dubl07 wrote: »

The 80+ Laird seems to have done a good job before TwinkleToes came along with some airy-fairy ideas about how things should be for a lady of the manor. Those old places are money-pits. Bloody cold, creaky, head-wrecking in terms of regulations. Then there's a standard of behaviour and interaction with locals to which the incumbents are expected to adhere. Poor Stuart Morris didn't have a clue when he married her. Of all the weddings that should have been called off, theirs is top of the list. She appears to have been Godzilla during the fiancée phase and it seems to have only gotten worse.

From some of the reviews on trip advisor, Stuart can be a bit of a nark as well!

The old Laird seems to be a character and very welcoming but maybe not much business sense, hence the other two(also not with much business sense) running the show.

Its not this Brides fault at all that Kelly blew up at her over something trivial.

But when you are dealing with people, it's always the case.

I remember a huge row in work over a coffee machine. Everyone laughs now, Jaysus, do you remember the big row over the coffee machine? But it was not over the coffee machine, it was something festering for a long time which manifested itself in a row over coffee.

The Castle were initially in the right, the contract had been signed, the Castle were not trying to change the terms of it, but Kelly's complete over reaction and unprifessional attitude was way out of order.

As some else else said here, Kelly should not have even bothered to respond to that comment, the venue was not even mentioned, and even if people knew what the venue was, so what?

After a couple of posts, that's terrible Hun, mine is cheaper etc, it would have died.

esforum · 09-04-2016 12:02PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Based on the information available, the bride in question probably has a pretty strong case for suing the hotel for a breach of data protection. They told the whole world that the couple are financially stretched - that's a pretty substantive breach, and it's documented for all to see. They may have contacted their solicitors, but I imagine the solicitor's contribution to the conversation consisted more or less entirely of the words "You did WHAT?"

I dont think a personally held view that someone is 'poor' is personal data. Personal data is information that can identify someone, saying a subjective word like 'poor' does not do that at all.

posting the costs and bills is a grey area but again, as the costs are based on set scales they apply to all their customers.

Other stuff put up is definately a breach not too mention terrible unprofessional.

The woman claimign they dont have a professional wedding planner, sorry but thats what you are. You run the castle as a wedding venue for financial reward, thats a professional. You just arent a very good one.

anyone in the wedding business knows you will encounter bridezillas and unreasonable requests / demands. Its why so many planners make such handsome profits

anewme · 09-04-2016 12:24PM

esforum wrote: »

anyone in the wedding business knows you will encounter bridezillas and unreasonable requests / demands. Its why so many planners make such handsome profits

Danger money:pac:

AoifeCork · 09-04-2016 12:29PM

This is absolutely mental. But it does bring up the fact that every Tom Dick and Harry thinks they can dive into the wedding business and it'll be for them. It's not, it's such hard work. You have to have the right temperament and amount of patience because some couples can be hard work. Most are wonderful and I can't see how this bride would have been any different. So she queried her contract amongst a group of piers... So what? She never attached or named anyone. There is absolutely no excuse for how the wedding co-ordinator reacted. It's literally a one way ticket to bankruptcy and at the very least, a failed business.

Also-Kelly must have a serious sense of paranoia and a lot of unhappy clients in the past to bring about such an over the top response. It is literally the epitome of that Anchorman meme..."Well, that escalated quickly"...

desertcircus · 09-04-2016 12:31PM

esforum wrote: »

I dont think a personally held view that someone is 'poor' is personal data. Personal data is information that can identify someone, saying a subjective word like 'poor' does not do that at all.

posting the costs and bills is a grey area but again, as the costs are based on set scales they apply to all their customers.

Other stuff put up is definately a breach not too mention terrible unprofessional.

The woman claimign they dont have a professional wedding planner, sorry but thats what you are. You run the castle as a wedding venue for financial reward, thats a professional. You just arent a very good one.

anyone in the wedding business knows you will encounter bridezillas and unreasonable requests / demands. Its why so many planners make such handsome profits

Saying you think someone might be poor isn't a data protection breach. Saying you altered the terms of business for a customer to enable them to afford to enter into a contract with you is a data protection breach.

esforum · 09-04-2016 12:32PM

anewme wrote: »

Danger money:pac:

indeed

I remember a few years ago doing one of those paid opinion things, anyway the whole new ad campaign was a certain bank promising they would "Talk mortgages anytime you want and have a personal mortgage manager always at hand"

I pointed out that this person could go on holidays, be sick, etc and not answering the phone at 3am.

The staff thought I was mad as if no sane person would call you at 3am or on Christmas day or drag you from a holiday / family event. They lived in such a bubble bless em.

I see the ad still went ahead. They should have spent a month with a planner!

esforum · 09-04-2016 12:33PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Saying you think someone might be poor isn't a data protection breach. Saying you altered the terms of business for a customer to enable them to afford to enter into a contract with you is a data protection breach.

how so? What personal information has been disclosed? How could you possible identify the person unless they themselves were telling people?

“personal data” means data relating to a living individual who can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information in the possession of the data controller; (Data protection Act 1988, Ireland)

"The Act's definition of "personal data" covers any data that can be used to identify a living individual. " (Date protection act 1998, uk)

In the uk anonymous information that cannot be reversed is specifically excluded. As its in the UK I think their act is the one to pay attention to here.

or another way, Say I say "Despite Boards.ie rules I sent a PM to someone in this thread offering them a business meeting". Can you identify the user? (I didnt mods, just an example )

desertcircus · 09-04-2016 01:05PM

esforum wrote: »

how so? What personal information has been disclosed? How could you possible identify the person unless they themselves were telling people?

“personal data” means data relating to a living individual who can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information in the possession of the data controller; (Data protection Act 1988, Ireland)

"The Act's definition of "personal data" covers any data that can be used to identify a living individual. " (Date protection act 1998, uk)

In the uk anonymous information that cannot be reversed is specifically excluded. As its in the UK I think their act is the one to pay attention to here.

or another way, Say I say "Despite Boards.ie rules I sent a PM to someone in this thread offering them a business meeting". Can you identify the user? (I didnt mods, just an example )

Have you read the thread? The hotel in question responded to a thread started by a particular person by specifying the details of their contract with that specific person, including the detail that they amended the terms of the deposit to allow the customer to be able to afford to go ahead with the booking. The hypotheticals you're describing are completely different to the facts of the situation.

The exact quote from the Balgonie Castle's Facebook page:

"This bride signed a contract on the 13th of June 2015. She is having a meal and a wedding here at the castle. Her total price for 52 guests is 2,196. This is a four-hour hire with the use of the Lundie Hall for a drinks reception. The original down payment was 1,096. We waived it to 700 because she could not afford the down payment."

That's an open-and-shut case.

weldoninhio · 09-04-2016 01:07PM

esforum wrote: »

How could you possible identify the person unless they themselves were telling people?

It was quite easy to identify the bride in this case as the company addressed her directly on Facebook and gave details of her financial difficulties.

Frynge · 09-04-2016 01:11PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It was quite easy to identify the bride in this case as the company addressed her directly on Facebook and gave details of her financial difficulties.

She did not give details of the brides financial situation, she made a statement about it. A statement that none of can know to be true.

desertcircus · 09-04-2016 01:13PM

Frynge wrote: »

She did not give details of the brides financial situation, she made a statement about it. A statement that none of can know to be true.

You and I have different ideas of what the word "details" means.

And if the business is making up lies about a customer to get back at them, then it's even worse.

esforum · 09-04-2016 01:17PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It was quite easy to identify the bride in this case as the company addressed her directly on Facebook and gave details of her financial difficulties.

again, saying someone is poor or got a reduction is not a breach of data protection. Read the act

desertcircus wrote: »

Have you read the thread? The hotel in question responded to a thread started by a particular person by specifying the details of their contract with that specific person, including the detail that they amended the terms of the deposit to allow the customer to be able to afford to go ahead with the booking. The hypotheticals you're describing are completely different to the facts of the situation.

The exact quote from the Balgonie Castle's Facebook page:

"This bride signed a contract on the 13th of June 2015. She is having a meal and a wedding here at the castle. Her total price for 52 guests is 2,196. This is a four-hour hire with the use of the Lundie Hall for a drinks reception. The original down payment was 1,096. We waived it to 700 because she could not afford the down payment."

That's an open-and-shut case.

Have I read this thread? Have you read the post you are replying to? I quote myself:

esforum wrote: »

Other stuff put up is definately a breach not too mention terrible unprofessional.

I didnt say there was no breach, I said posting that they are poor or got an amendment is not a breach.

desertcircus · 09-04-2016 01:21PM

esforum wrote: »

again, saying someone is poor or got a reduction is not a breach of data protection. Read the act

Have I read this thread? Have you read the post you are replying to? I quote myself:

I didnt say there was no breach, I said posting that they are poor or got an amendment is not a breach.

Saying a specific person got a reduction because she couldn't afford the full price is a data protection breach. I'm at a loss as to how you think this doesn't fall under data protection legislation.

Frynge · 09-04-2016 01:27PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Saying a specific person got a reduction because she couldn't afford the full price is a data protection breach. I'm at a loss as to how you think this doesn't fall under data protection legislation.

Because it is technically not data for a start. It is at best an opinion and possibly could be considered slander if it was communicated directly to someone else while identifying them, and could be proved to be false.

Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

Comments