How Not To... Run A Hotel

This is the second in my ad-hoc series reporting bad experiences I have encountered.

This relates to a recent stay in an Ibis hotel in London.

Attending a trade exhibition in London ExCel I needed accommodation close to the venue and my usual choice of hotel was fully booked.  I therefore booked a nearby Ibis hotel.  So far so good.

Upon arrival I checked in, and apart from reception being rather chaotic the check in process went well.  I was asked for a swipe of my credit card for a guarantee of the payment of my bill and a figure was quoted which was about eighty percent of the total bill so I was happy with this.  Fairly standard practice and one which had never caused me any problems before.

Whilst my wife and I were checking in to our room, a colleague who was down in reception overheard an argument between a guest trying to check in and the receptionist.  The short story was that although they had made a reservation there was no room available for them and they were sent to another hotel in the chain.  This scenario was repeated more than once so I am intrigued as to what the point of making a reservation is!

The room itself was clean and functional but clearly the focus was on reducing costs as guests were only provided with one towel each, nominally called a bath towel but rather smaller than any bath towel you would buy.  No hand towel was provided.  Toiletries were also limited with just a fixed liquid soap dispenser in the shower and a tiny bar of soap by the washbasin.

Going to the restaurant for dinner was interesting.  They had a rather limited and exceedingly expensive (even for London) menu of average quality food.  There was no draught beer at all and only a few of the bottled beers on the menu were available..  Suffice to say that on subsequent evenings we had a much better, much cheaper, meal in a hotel just a few yards away.

Breakfast was an all you can eat buffet.  The quality of the food was better but the selection was somewhat limited, and if you wanted eggs for breakfast you had better like them scrambled as that was the only choice.  The hash browns had a good flavour but due to the manner of serving they were soggy.

When retuning to the hotel for our third and final night we found that neither my keycard or my wife's would open the door to the room.  This meant a trek back to reception (we were on a high floor) where the reaction of the receptionist suggested this was a common occurrence.  They were reprogrammed and all was well.

With a mind to expediting check out the following day I also took this opportunity to settle my bill.  There was some confusion over the correct amount but finally they got it right and charged my card accordingly.

I thought that was the end of it until two days later when I checked my credit card account on line.  It was showing that I was exceeding my credit limit.  Straight away I rang the card company for clarification as the online account made an allowance for pending transactions which were not yet detailed.  They were able to tell me that in addition to the guarantee amount I had agreed to at check in a further guarantee charge had been applied the same day for the first night's stay - this equated to about thirty seven percent of the total bill so I had now got guarantee charges for almost twenty percent more than the total bill, still on my account, and also the actual payment of the bill which I would expect would have released the guarantee hold.

Calling the hotel they were apologetic but could offer no explanation.  The guarantee charge was released some two working days after I had settled my bill in full.  Clearly not acceptable.

I have now written to the hotel and will update this post if I get anything of note from them.

For now however my advice is clear - if using an Ibis hotel make sure it is very clear how much they are holding in guarantee against your credit card and make sure they release this promptly when you settle your bill.

For the record, Ibis is seen as a budget chain - however given that they were advertising room rates of £219 per night, room only, at one point during my stay you would expect a lot more than you receive!

Update !!

I received no reply to my letter to the hotel so I posted a review on TripAdvisor - it seems they do read that.  The manager posted a comment asking me to email a copy of my letter to him, which I did.  After acknowledging receipt I then heard nothing for a while.

I followed this up with another email direct to the manager asking for an update and received a response.  He promised that changes were being made and also some financial compensation for myself.  Although the compensation did take some time to arrive it did so eventually.

Whilst the manager has promised various changes, I will keep an interested eye on TripAdvisor to see if their feedback gets better or if people continue to raise the sorts of issues I had.

Watch this space!

Annoying Sales Calls

Am I the only one who has noticed an increase in so called 'information' and 'survey' phone calls?

Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.

Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this. 

Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.

The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call.  These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.

In reality however, they are sales calls.  For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security.  Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you.  Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me  their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).

Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it.  If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.

Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted.  Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?

I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better.  Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related

Pressure Selling

I have just received a replacement credit card for one that is expiring.

As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt.  I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.

What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies.  They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.

Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items.  They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.

I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.

What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these.  More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident.  Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party.  Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself.  So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.

It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.

Always Read the Small Print

A cautionary tale - in this case involving the solar energy industry but applicable to all contracts.  It happened to a colleague of my wife recently.

It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free.  Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.

There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:

Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself.  This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.

Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them.  This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill.  To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.

After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate.  My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).

This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000.  The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.

This is where the problems started.  The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill.  They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.

My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs.  They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated.  In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work.  They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.

As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way.  To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!

The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.

A final thought on this type of solar PV installation.  You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income.  This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.

Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware.  Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it.  It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.

Con the Customer

A certain well known supermarket, as part of it's health and environment plan, pledges to reduce salt in their foods.

This is widely advertised in their stores and on their website, as well as in the downloaded documents they provide.  They claim to be reducing salt in their foods, ahead of government guidelines.

So you may think that if you buy their own brand foods you will get a low salt product. Yes?

No actually, in fact in a recent survey of bread they came out in the worst five prepackaged breads for salt content.  A couple of sandwiches (without spread or filling, some sandwich) could use as much as one third of the guideline maximum salt intake for an adult.

I happened to find that we had a pack of this in our larder, and guess what - the report is correct.

Back to reading the label and not believing the advertising!

Caveat Emptor

Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two

Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.

I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points.  Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.

I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)

An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel.  So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!

There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me.  Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.

Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here.  The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel.  This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced.  The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012.  This is very easy to achieve as follows:  All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life.  They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers.  Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation.  Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.

Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:

The objective was to label all airfreighted food.  This objective has been achieved.  They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.

A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars.  They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five.  Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.

More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.

Which company?  If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.

Misleading Advertising

Once again I am drawn to comment on what I would describe as misleading advertising to dupe the unsuspecting public.

In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed.  They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.

All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.

It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what?  Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.

What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.

Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!

Beware - Error With Your PC

I am getting fed up with the persistent calls that claim a company has discovered an error with my PC.

These are all from outside the UK and guessing by the accents they come from India or somewhere close.  Some claim to be from London, but if so why would my caller display say 'International'?  Maybe London has moved since I did geography!

It is clear what they are trying to do, entice you to a web site that does try and cause a problem with your PC and then I have no doubt that they will charge you an exorbitant amount to correct the error they have 'discovered'

You are best to ignore these calls totally but they still keep making them.  I think they are working on mailing lists they have bought where you have provided a phone number and an email address.  From this they work out you may have a PC.

If you do try to find out how they know it is a problem with your PC then they come up with a whole host of technobabble designed to frighten the non computer aware. They told me they had the Windows Licence number of a machine at my address which had reported errors.  Interestingly it didn't look like any Microsoft key I have ever seen and certainly was nothing like any of my machines.

It goes without saying - never tell them anything about your computer set up or go to any websites they may mention, you are just asking for trouble.

You could of course have some sport, tell them you are running Linux, Unix, Macintosh or any more obscure system you like and then invite them to explain why they think you have a Windows error - again they are piggybacking on the fact that many people do have Windows.

The bottom line is that they do NOT have any errors from your PC, could not associate any errors with your phone number and ARE out to get money off you.

Be aware of these scams and AVOID like the plague.  Keep your computer protection up to date and never connect to any websites you are invited to by unknown callers.

Must go and apply the latest security patches to my VAX VMS machine!