Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

anewme · 10-04-2016 09:00PM

esforum wrote: »

in the facebook post its suggested there was some haggling over payment, thats why I asked

Kellys son said that set prices were agreed based on numbers and the Bride was changing this hence the "haggling" that seems to have been going on.

The bride was asking the questions about the contract 10 months after she signed it. What was she hoping to achieve by doing this?

Someone else said here that if the Bride had a change of circumstances, then she should have come to an arrangement with the Hotel to pay it off. Sorry I don't agree with this at all. They are running a business and relying on monies coming in at certain times to pay their own overheads.

I've dealt with debt control through work and sometimes you've got to be quite tough dealing with situations otherwise you go under yourself.

SteM · 10-04-2016 09:43PM

anewme wrote: »

Kellys son said that set prices were agreed based on numbers and the Bride was changing this hence the "haggling" that seems to have been going on.

The bride was asking the questions about the contract 10 months after she signed it. What was she hoping to achieve by doing this?

Someone else said here that if the Bride had a change of circumstances, then she should have come to an arrangement with the Hotel to pay it off. Sorry I don't agree with this at all. They are running a business and relying on monies coming in at certain times to pay their own overheads.

I've dealt with debt control through work and sometimes you've got to be quite tough dealing with situations otherwise you go under yourself.

In your job if you were chasing a debt would you abuse a customer on Facebook for asking a question and who specifically refused to name your company when asking that question? Would you tell anyone that could read the post that this person was struggling to pay, would you tell everyone the specifics of what their bill was?

All the original poster did was ask a very general question. She did nothing to receive the abuse she got.

anewme · 10-04-2016 10:07PM

SteM wrote: »

In your job if you were chasing a debt would you abuse a customer on Facebook for asking a question and who specifically refused to name your company when asking that question? Would you tell anyone that could read the post that this person was struggling to pay, would you tell everyone the specifics of what their bill was?

All the original poster did was ask a very general question. She did nothing to receive the abuse she got.

I've already said Kelly was out of order. She should not have engaged with that customer whatsoever and the whole thing would have died off as the Castle was in the right. She was totally unprofessional to do that.

What I am saying is the Bride signed a contract and has to abide by the terms of that contract. There was nothing to be gained by the Bride asking the question AFTER the contract was signed. Coupled with the fact that there was mention of weeks of haggling indicates that the customer was challenging the terms if the contract which she signed.

Someone else said that if the Bride had a change of circumstances, then maybe she could come to an arrangement with the Castie to pay off Her bill.

All I said is that I don't agree with that and sometimes you have to stick to the terms of the contract. If you sign a contract, you should be aware of what you are signing. The time to ask what was normal was before she signed. I've had to be quite hard collecting money, I've always remained professional, however sometimes I've had to be fairly strict and legal when personally i feel for the client but sometimes the difference between a client paying or not paying to a small business cash flow is MY salary and my mortgage.

I don't believe the Castle are the type of business that would be able to re-negotiate terms without causing themselves cash flow issues.

The reason for the contract is to protect both parties.

SteM · 10-04-2016 10:15PM

Contract our not she has every right to ask questions of her peers. She was causing no harm, she never said in the facebook posting that she was not going to pay.

As human beings we want to reassure ourselves that were not being taken for a ride. You say there was nothing to be gained for her in asking the question. You're not her - maybe she says just asking to put her own mind at ease.

anewme · 10-04-2016 10:48PM

SteM wrote: »

Contract our not she has every right to ask questions of her peers. She was causing no harm, she never said in the facebook posting that she was not going to pay.

As human beings we want to reassure ourselves that were not being taken for a ride. You say there was nothing to be gained for her in asking the question. You're not her - maybe she says just asking to put her own mind at ease.

There was no point in asking the question now. The Castle Have outlined that the Bride did not want to adhere to the terms of her contract and have had weeks of communication.

I don't see what that would be about? It's simply, it's now time to pay, please confirm your numbers and pay your balance and get on with planning the day. I'm not sure what other discussions should take weeks.

If you want to get married in the Castle then the terms of that are you pay 90 days in advance. If you don't like that then book somewhere else and shop around. If you agree to the terms, then you need to pay when the balance is due.

if you enter into a legal binding contract, the onus is on you to ensure you are not being taken for a ride. It's disingenuous to sign a contract and almost a year later question the terms.

Just to be clear, no one was taken for a ride. The terms were outlined and the person opted to sign.

There was no need for Kelly to release the terms of the customers contract in the blog,

saying the customer could not pay the full deposit was unfair and unnecessary, however if it's true, should have been a warning sign for the Castle too and they should have insisted on the full deposit.

esforum · 10-04-2016 10:51PM

SteM wrote: »

In your job if you were chasing a debt would you abuse a customer on Facebook for asking a question and who specifically refused to name your company when asking that question? Would you tell anyone that could read the post that this person was struggling to pay, would you tell everyone the specifics of what their bill was?

All the original poster did was ask a very general question. She did nothing to receive the abuse she got.

thats quiet an aggressive post for no reason imho considering no one is defending Kelly in the first place

SteM wrote: »

Contract our not she has every right to ask questions of her peers. She was causing no harm, she never said in the facebook posting that she was not going to pay.

As human beings we want to reassure ourselves that were not being taken for a ride. You say there was nothing to be gained for her in asking the question. You're not her - maybe she says just asking to put her own mind at ease.

granted and agreed but putting myself in the shoes of others, if I had a customer haggling over costs for a month or more then saw them harping on about it on social media I would be of the opinion that they are planning for round 2.

anewme · 10-04-2016 11:04PM

esforum wrote: »

granted and agreed but putting myself in the shoes of others, if I had a customer haggling over costs for a month or more then saw them harping on about it on social media I would be of the opinion that they are planning for round 2.

This!

Also, if it was the case that the original deposit was not paid in full should also be an indicator that this booking would have its own challenges.

mewe · 10-04-2016 11:12PM

Just read it there. What a header! All she's done is damaged a business that aint even hers. She reminded me of this for some reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7iwSASI8XU

anewme · 10-04-2016 11:21PM

esforum wrote: »

thats quiet an aggressive post for no reason imho considering no one is defending Kelly in the first place

granted and agreed but putting myself in the shoes of others, if I had a customer haggling over costs for a month or more then saw them harping on about it on social media I would be of the opinion that they are planning for round 2.

There would be no Round two though if Kelly had just not reacted.

The customer had signed a contract being fully aware of the terms and conditions.

personally, I don't think it was an innocent question if there were weeks of haggling, however, I believe no response would have shut this down.

Anything else is just noise and would have died off.

customer would have either

A. Paid their balance and had their wedding.

Or

B. Not paid their balance and lost their deposit. Realistically it is a waste of time money and effort suing ppl in this case. however, the Castle should have insisted on a full deposit before taking the booking.

I also think it's ridiculous people starting a funding page. The couple are right to steer clear of it. There are many just causes to donate to, but this isn't one.

BorneTobyWilde · 10-04-2016 11:42PM

She should have negotiated better.

SteM · 10-04-2016 11:52PM

esforum wrote: »

thats quiet an aggressive post for no reason imho considering no one is defending Kelly in the first place

granted and agreed but putting myself in the shoes of others, if I had a customer haggling over costs for a month or more then saw them harping on about it on social media I would be of the opinion that they are planning for round 2.

Asking a simple question is not 'harping on about it on social media'. It's asking a question, anyone is entitled to do it. Good grief, some people don't half exaggerate.

SteM · 10-04-2016 11:55PM

esforum wrote: »

thats quiet an aggressive post for no reason imho considering no one is defending Kelly in the first place

Agressive.

anewme · 11-04-2016 12:03AM

SteM wrote: »

Asking a simple question is not 'harping on about it on social media'. It's asking a question, anyone is entitled to do it. Good grief, some people don't half exaggerate.

It would be a simple question if you asked it before signing contracts.

What do you think the weeks of haggling have entailed before taking to social media?

People are being very naieve if they think whatever answers were given were not going to try to used as a tool against the venue.

When signing a contract, nothing is "normal", always read the small print.

Venue were totally wrong, silence is golden, payment due by x date. Receipt will be forwarded with thanks.

Not sure why anyone would agree to pay 3 months before date, as ppl drop off etc, but it's really their choice at the end of the day.

anewme · 11-04-2016 12:14AM

SteM wrote: »

Agressive.

If you are going to get into semantics on spelling in this case, then unfortunately you've missed the punchline from the outset.

The posts by both the Bride involved and Kelly are littered with poor spelling and
grammatical errors.

Fortunately, most people are able to understand this without being smart asses.

Once people turn into the grammar Nazis 'it's a sure sign their argument is running out of steam.

mewe · 11-04-2016 12:20AM

anewme wrote: »

If you are going to get into semantics on spelling in this case, then unfortunately you've missed the punchline.

The posts by both the Bride involved and Kelly are littered with poor spelling and
grammatical errors.

Fortunately, most people are able to understand this without being smart asses.

I think pedantic is the word you're looking for.

In any case I'm pretty sure SteM was only joking with you. As am I.

anewme · 11-04-2016 12:32AM

mewe wrote: »

I think pedantic is the word you're looking for. In any case I'm pretty sure SteM was only joking with you. As am I.

No, I've said exactly what I wanted to say. I'm really not looking for any words, thanks,.I'm at the stage in life that I don't need others to look for words or communicate on my behalf, I've not had feedback that people are struggling to understand me thankfully.

Let's just agree then that we clearly have very different senses of humour.

Elemonator · 11-04-2016 01:01AM

I'm a law student and I will be becoming a solicitor someday. If its any comfort to any of you, if this came across my desk I would laugh her out the door!

esforum · 11-04-2016 10:07AM

SteM wrote: »

Agressive.

my spelling is correct, the word is aggressive with a double G

I think there would have been a round 2 regardless, it just wouldnt have been public.

I think and of course its only a personal opinion, that the bride would have gotten these answers and started the haggling all over again about normal practice and this and that. I doubt the bride is well informed on the legalities of contracts so being a pointless arguement wouldnt stop it.

Not sure what she hoped to gain though, 3 months before is little time to start finding another venue and if cash was an issue, losing the deposit would hardly have helped.

uck51js9zml2yt · 11-04-2016 10:15AM

esforum wrote: »

my spelling is correct, the word is aggressive with a double G

I think there would have been a round 2 regardless, it just wouldnt have been public.

I think and of course its only a personal opinion, that the bride would have gotten these answers and started the haggling all over again about normal practice and this and that. I doubt the bride is well informed on the legalities of contracts so being a pointless arguement wouldnt stop it.

Not sure what she hoped to gain though, 3 months before is little time to start finding another venue and if cash was an issue, losing the deposit would hardly have helped.

It may be true but its all conjecture.

The only thing we know is that she asked a question without naming the venue.
Kelly then threw a wobbler, outed herself, made a personal attack on the bride, revealed details of her contract breaking Data Protection laws in the process and threatened unfounded legal action.

The end result, she destroyed her families business and opened herself up to legal action. From what I read elsewhere the brides other half is a solicitor

The campaign to make it go viral was another issue and unnecessarily nasty.

esforum · 11-04-2016 10:41AM

Raymond Salty Pavement wrote: »

legal action. From what I read elsewhere the brides other half is a solicitor

you would think they could afford the full deposit then so!

Choc Chip · 11-04-2016 10:49AM

esforum wrote: »

you would think they could afford the full deposit then so!

We only have Kelly's public rant to suggest that they couldn't afford it, don't we?

If they managed to get her to half the deposit by telling her that, it's pretty good negotiating! :pac:

ChampagnePop · 11-04-2016 11:01AM

esforum wrote: »

you would think they could afford the full deposit then so!

Tad Nasty no?

Loughc · 11-04-2016 11:09AM

esforum wrote: »

you would think they could afford the full deposit then so!

Could be fresh out of college, newly qualifies take years before they earn a decent salary.

anewme · 11-04-2016 11:27AM

Loughc wrote: »

Could be fresh out of college, newly qualifies take years before they earn a decent salary.

Ahh, must be very mature students then, the Bride is in her fifties.

Toots · 11-04-2016 11:46AM

Guys, this isn't a spelling contest.

esforum · 11-04-2016 12:07PM

Choc Chip wrote: »

We only have Kelly's public rant to suggest that they couldn't afford it, don't we?

Well, thanks to her questionable release of information we have some proof that a smaller deposit was paid.

Other than that, its all just opinions and statements from either side isnt it? I dont think anyone in this thread has had direct 1st hand involvement

ChampagnePop wrote: »

Tad Nasty no?

Tad too serious, no?

Loughc wrote: »

Could be fresh out of college, newly qualifies take years before they earn a decent salary.

They are in their fifties!!!!

anothernight · 11-04-2016 12:28PM

Am I the only one who feels really uncomfortable speculating about other people's financial situation?

Gatica · 11-04-2016 12:30PM

anewme wrote: »

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.

Just because the bride has no recourse questioning or changing her contract after it's signed doesn't mean she did anything wrong inquiring about the deals other brides got. We get that here on boards all the time, and usually someone promptly reminds them that the T&Cs of the contract is what matters... The hotels don't usually come online on the thread to rant about how dare this bride question the prices, cos she already got a good deal. That would be insane, just like this situation...

Frynge wrote: »

"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."

Nothing in that statement could have been used to identify the bride other than the fact it was said to her on a public forum.

But the original question was posted from the bride's FB page, which I assume already identifies her. AFAIK the bride didn't post the prices, just asked if people were paying full whack for 1-year old kids (which actually, wouldn't be beyond remits of a normal person to assume they'd not have to pay adult price for a 1-year old; yes, it's not in the contract and they should've queried that right away, but I bet many other people wouldn't have thought of that either)
Also, I'd say 42 sterling isn't that fantastic a deal even if it includes food. It would have to depend on venue and quality and quantity of food. For all we know it's home cooked buffet of chicken stroganoff thrown together by some unqualified family chef or some such (and considering other posts from her on Tripadvisor that all food is homecooked and the complaining customer should suck it up, just backs up that point).

ChampagnePop · 11-04-2016 12:32PM

anothernight wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels really uncomfortable speculating about other people's financial situation?

Very uncomfortable

anewme · 11-04-2016 01:02PM

Gatica wrote: »

Just because the bride has no recourse questioning or changing her contract after it's signed doesn't mean she did anything wrong inquiring about the deals other brides got. We get that here on boards all the time, and usually someone promptly reminds them that the T&Cs of the contract is what matters... The hotels don't usually come online on the thread to rant about how dare this bride question the prices, cos she already got a good deal. That would be insane, just like this situation...

The fact that she had been haggling for weeks behind the scenes before posing the question on the Boards is relevant though.

Kellys son said that the Bride was looking to change the terms of the contract.

I just find it very telling that the question is only being posed when the payment is due.

If the Bride and or/her husband are involved in the legal profession, would they not be aware of the implications of signing a contract?

Kelly should not have reacted whatsoever and just let the query die off. She should not have mentioned the couples individual contract and the fact they waived part of the deposit. Thats not anyone elses business.

the Hotel should have insisted on the customer paying the full deposit though.

Whether the price is value or not is subjective, clearly the couple felt they were getting enough value to sign the contract.

I believe there is more to the story than it would appear, why would kelly and the Bride spend weeks communicating and haggling over something thats already agreed? Given Kelly's personality though, she would engage and argue with the customer instead of being professional and saying, the payment is due by X date, now how will you be paying, cash or card?

Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

Comments