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

[Beef Oven!]

You couldn't make it up!

[Don Petter]

You couldn't make it up!

Actually, ff is planning to introduce the same rule on BaL threads.

[Beef Oven!]

Actually, ff is planning to introduce the same rule on BaL threads.

Good idea - I want the same facility for threads I start in the P&CA dungeon

[Richard Tarleton]

Hilarious. A quick check on TripAdvisor reveals that this hotel is ranked no. 858 out of 894 of hotels, b&bs etc. in Blackpool, and out of 256 reviews, 147 rated it "terrible", so clearly they had to do something (another might have been to improve the hotel).

[mercia]

clearly this latest couple hadn't checked TripAdvisor first before booking - so TA isn't fulfilling the role it thinks it is ?

[Nick Armstrong]

You couldn't make it up!

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!

[Nick Armstrong]

Actually, ff is planning to introduce the same rule on BaL threads.

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

[Richard Tarleton]

The £100 was charged to their credit card after the event, once the hotel had seen their review. Got it, sorry - it's early.

Yes I was recently refunded £95 by a hotel, an altogether classier gaff, a week or two after our departure, following some, er, discussion and correspondence - they still had my credit card details. In this case (we were given a noisy room near a wedding disco) I did not post a review on TripAdvisor, which probably helped - they were only too pleased to shut me up.

[ahinton]

Hilarious. A quick check on TripAdvisor reveals that this hotel is ranked no. 858 out of 894 of hotels, b&bs etc. in Blackpool, and out of 256 reviews, 147 rated it "terrible", so clearly they had to do something (another might have been to improve the hotel).

On the strength of that information, one wonders whether the hotel has managed to receive £14,700 in "fines" from those 147 people - or even £17,100 if implementation of the hotel's "policy" would also include those 24 who rated it "Poor" (to say nothing of bad reviews that it might well have received on other websites). That said, if this isn't a case of a hotel shooting itself in both feet and being seen to do so, it would be hard to imagine quite what would be! As M. Leboeuf writes, you couldn't make it up!

[Nick Armstrong]

being seen to do so

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.

[Richard Tarleton]

who use the threat of adverse reviews to extort reductions etc

I hasten to say I didn't threaten my hotel!

[Beef Oven!]

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.

Remember this from July? - "French blogger fined €1,500 for bad restaurant review"

[Richard Tarleton]

There's a chapter about unfavourable reviews in Giles Coren's "How To Eat Out" - there's apparently an important judgement by Lord Lester of Herne Hill in the case of a Belfast Goodfellas vs the Irish Times.

[mercia]

it seems a little unfair to me that a hotel cannot have its listing removed from TripAdvisor unless it closes down

https://www.tripadvisorsupport.com/hc/en-gb/articles/200638048-How-do-I-remove-my-listing-

[Flosshilde]

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"