"The hotel said its policy was to charge for "bad" reviews."

[Pabmusic]

It seems it's settled now:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30111525

Clearly, this is the result of Beefy's original pot.

[french frank]

It seems it's settled now

Trading Officers said ...

[Flosshilde]

It seems it's settled now:

Not quite; the hotel have said that they'll drop that particular booking condition, but it's not clear if the couple have had their £100 refunded

[Zucchini]

Peraps hotels should review guests? "Mr A of Basingstoke came back to the hotel drunk every night & vomited all over the bathroom floor"; "Mr & Mrs B of Sevenoaks didn't control their children, who ran up and down the corridor screaming"

Managers/proprietors have the opportunity to respond to criticism and quite rightly so.

I recall someone going totally oot re an apartment in Moscow and the owner said the couple were obnoxious, scared to go out and the bathroom was full of anti this and anti pills and lotions, so please ignore this and read other reviews from sensible people.

Some reviews do no credit to their author. A recent entry for a hotal at Stow on the Wold vehemently criticised a waitress and described her in detail. As far as I'm concerned she's a pleasant and good worker. I felt the writer was potentially putting her job at risk and that his/her words could be on the site for years so pushed the complain button, ticked 'unacceptable language' and it was (automated system, I'm sure) removed within hours. I urge anyone to do the same if criticism is directed at an identifiable employee.

[Stanfordian]

You couldn't make it up!

Hiya Beef, It'll be Radio 3 charging next.

[BBMmk2]

This is a bit like censorship though?

[Serial_Apologist]

This is a bit like censorship though?

A bit like???

OT this shows up one of the increasing drawbacks of direct debit reliance

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If she splits it with hosts, I wouldn't necessarily be agin it!

[Dave2002]

It is hilarious and unbelievable, but also confusing. I don't get the chronology.

Presumably the couple were charged, at the latest, when they checked out after their one-night stay. They presumably hadn't posted the review before their stay; so unless they had posted during their stay, actually from the rat-and-lice infested sh*t-hole to which they were consigned (though it doesn't look the sort of establishment to have WiFi to permit such modern activities), how did this happen? Had they stayed there before, posted their review, and then returned for another stay? In which case more fool they.

EDIT - I've read it again and grasped it. The £100 was charged to their credit card after the event, once the hotel had seen their review. Got it, sorry - it's early.

Still hilarious and unbelievable though!

I'm not so sure that it is funny. I hope, assuming that the couple are genuine, that they get their money back, plus compensation. Trading Standards or equivalent bodies should be aware, and presumably could take the hotel to court. Also the couple should have a case against their credit card company.

There are too many companies, not just hotels, which conveniently ignore any adverse criticism and pretend it doesn't exist.

Perhaps this hotel is following the old maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity." Sounds as though they might be going to get a lot, whether deserved or not!

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not so sure that it is funny. i hope, assuming that the couple are genuine, that they get their money back, plus compensation. Trading Standards or equivalent bodies should be aware, and presumably could take the hotel to court. Also the couple should have a case against their credit card company.

There are too many companies, not just hotels, which conveniently ignore any adverse criticism and pretend it doesn't exist.

It's actually worse, since in this case criticism isn't just being ignored. Just think what a precedent this establishes if allowed to be got away with.

[Flosshilde]

Well yes - perhaps booing the producer at the opera isn't such a good idea

[LeMartinPecheur]

I'm not so sure that it is funny. I hope, assuming that the couple are genuine, that they get their money back, plus compensation. Trading Standards or equivalent bodies should be aware, and presumably could take the hotel to court. Also the couple should have a case against their credit card company.

There are too many companies, not just hotels, which conveniently ignore any adverse criticism and pretend it doesn't exist.

Perhaps this hotel is following the old maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity." Sounds as though they might be going to get a lot, whether deserved or not!

What seems to have been key in the change in policy is that the local TS advised the hotel that their practice was illegal. This is because it would inevitably generate misleading (over-favourable) ratings for the hotel, which isn't an honest/fair business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008. The same would be true for a business writing its own favourable reviews.

[Barbirollians]

Mr and Mrs Jenkinson have a cast iron case - the policy if it is actually included in the booking terms is almost certainly unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and in contract law as a penalty clause for no breach of contract . I should have thought that such a term was probably also unlawful on grounds of public policy .

[Stillhomewardbound]

Indeed - the couple were on the BBC Breakfast sofa, broadcasting to the nation the establishment's shortcomings...

Interestingly, the BBC travel correspondent mentioned something that puts it in a little context - apparently "the hotel community" are feeling very vulnerable to numerous individuals (not the couple in this case) who use the threat of adverse reviews to extort reductions etc e.g. they ask for a reduction when booking and if refused, post a bad review even though they never stay at the place in question. It provides some idea as to why hotels might include apparently-punitive terms in their booking contracts.

The hotels or restaurants that might feel unfairly maligned do always have the right of reply. Indeed, If I see a stinker of a review, followed by a response by the establishment eg. 'we're very sorry you didn't enjoy the service - thank you for letting us know etc' or 'in fairness, you booked a table for four but arrived with six guests' I will at least know that there's a business that gives a damn and give them the benefit of the doubt; but the idea of a hotel reserving the right to impose a fine for negative reviews has to be some kind of illegal contract, surely.

(* Edit. Hadn't seen Barbirolian's post, so thanks for that reference.)

[kea]

Peraps hotels should review guests? "Mr A of Basingstoke came back to the hotel drunk every night & vomited all over the bathroom floor"; "Mr & Mrs B of Sevenoaks didn't control their children, who ran up and down the corridor screaming"

Indeed. We could then put every potential hotel guest (i.e. every living person) on TripAdvisor, where their behaviour can be scrutinised by the public, and hotels (restaurants, etc) can choose whether or not to serve clients with low ratings.

You are of course free to have your person removed from TripAdvisor if you can confirm that you are deceased.