FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Allen Higginson on September 18, 2008, 04:39:09 PM
-
Just got a call from a friend regarding a friend of his daughters nice extra charge from a hotel on the outskirts of Belfast.
She checked in and requested a smoking room with she was duly allocated.Later,she had some friends back to the room and they were smoking in her smoking room.Needless to say,the smoke detector installed in the room activated by the smoke.
She has since learnt that the hotel has charged her credit card £1600 for the cost of having to offer the other residents some sort of compo for their trouble.
My point is that surely if the rooms are designated smoking then it's up to the hotelier to then ensure that false alarms from said rooms is aleviated (ie - heat detectors worse case) or that an investigation time for residents room is in place.
My own opinion is that she contact her credit card company and pay them the fee to retract payment,pending possible small claims court proceedings by the hotel to recover their "cost" for allocating a room not suitable for purpose.
-
Sounds a bit ridiculous to me. I would be considering going to the press about it, and would certainly take some legal advice. (many household insurance policies include legal cover now, its worth asking the question)
If the hotel decided to compensate their customers then that is surely up to them? I have never heard of any other hotel offering compensation if there is an alarm.
-
Sounds a bit ridiculous to me. I would be considering going to the press about it, and would certainly take some legal advice. (many household insurance policies include legal cover now, its worth asking the question)
If the hotel decided to compensate their customers then that is surely up to them? I have never heard of any other hotel offering compensation if there is an alarm.
Thats what I have thought - if it had been malicious (ie - activating a MCP for a laugh) then fair enough.
I have stayed in hotels where the fire alarm has went off and only one has offered a gesture for inconvenience (by way of a free weekend for 2) - in fact,the fire alarm has gone off in most of the hotels that Ive stayed in!!
-
I agree that she should go to the Press.
In all events, unless the hotel's terms and conditions stated that such a charge could be made. and that these terms and conditions were deemed to be reasonable by the office of fair trading, and it could be proven that she was made aware of such a potential charge at the time of booking, she would wipe the floor with the hotel in a legal action in respect of taking an unauthorised charge from her card. Most laws affecting the general public are totally on the side of the consumer and not the business.
Even if she was made aware of the potential of such a charge, it would be very easy to argue (if the circumstances described are fully correct) that the fire detection system was not 'fit for purpose' or to argue that there was no actual proof that smoking activated the system anyway.
In saying all of the above, I was automatically given a room rate reduction by a hotel in Birmingham because of the operation of the fire alarm system in the early hours of a cold February morning a couple of years ago(subject of an earlier Firenet posting).
-
...... in fact,the fire alarm has gone off in most of the hotels that Ive stayed in!!
Hmmmmm ;)
-
...... in fact,the fire alarm has gone off in most of the hotels that Ive stayed in!!
Hmmmmm ;)
Yeah,I know - fortunately none of them are under maintenance to me so i wasn't involved in generating a call out!
-
So if the detection had kicked off in a non smoking room , and she wasn't a smoker would the same apply , nice little earner if you can get it .
Contact the BBC and see if their consumer programme is interested in this one .
-
Just got a call from a friend regarding a friend of his daughters nice extra charge from a hotel on the outskirts of Belfast.
She checked in and requested a smoking room with she was duly allocated.Later,she had some friends back to the room and they were smoking in her smoking room.Needless to say,the smoke detector installed in the room activated by the smoke.
She has since learnt that the hotel has charged her credit card £1600 for the cost of having to offer the other residents some sort of compo for their trouble.
My point is that surely if the rooms are designated smoking then it's up to the hotelier to then ensure that false alarms from said rooms is aleviated (ie - heat detectors worse case) or that an investigation time for residents room is in place.
My own opinion is that she contact her credit card company and pay them the fee to retract payment,pending possible small claims court proceedings by the hotel to recover their "cost" for allocating a room not suitable for purpose.
I would be more inclined to report the matter to the police as theft.
-
So if the detection had kicked off in a non smoking room , and she wasn't a smoker would the same apply
Exactly, what if she was running a bath with the bathroom door open and the bedroom detector actuates as a result would she be charged a fee for that? accused of being negligent by not having the bathroom door closed while running her bath? Is there a much of a difference between the smoking one and this? unless of course the hotel has a sign or instruction saying dont run baths with bathroom door open or else. The worlds gone mad, good luck name and shame the hotel I say.
-
Cheers for the replies guys - the hotel is part of a large chain but I'll say no more.
-
I'd say they were ou and out taking the mick....
As above... ask to see terms and conditons, and as you say, perhaps point out the fact they have let a room that is not fit for purpose.
Contact trading standards......!!
-
question is...
what excatly were they smoking???
:D
-
Firstly I would tell the cardit card company that it was not authorised. Secondly they can only argue that this formed part of the contract if she was made aware of it before signing the contract (when the booking was made) and if a court agreed that her powers to negotiate out such a term were there (seems unlikely, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1974, I think). Further, under same law, penalty charges in contracts must be fair and reasonable, this doesn't appear to be so.
If anything, I would expect money from them, as no doubt she was kicked out of the room while their non fit for purpose fire alarm system was activating!
Total chancers, don't pay, kick up a fuss, tell credit card company to refund it.
-
I would also ask the Hotel to supply evidence that the fumes from the cigarettes (or whatever was being smoked) was responsible for the actuation. In addition, if this is a large Hotel chain, I'd contact them and ask if it's their policy and if so, post the name of the Hotel Group here.
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
Is it unitended consequences here.
We (hotels) are trying to enforce an army's worth of red tape including Fire regs.
As Joneseys would say "The punters don't like it"
We are a totally non smoking hotel.
I am in the process of installing Optical Smoke Detectors (instead of HD's) as a compromise with my local brigade who originally wanted Fire Door smoke seals.
BUT.. I have to deals with guests who simple will not abide by the rules.
We have our registration contracts. We have our patrols. We change nets every week because they burn them smoking out the window. etc etc etc.
I appreciate that in the case Buzzard was writing about they were allocated a smoking room but what on earth is a hotel supposed to do (its heads you lose tails you lose)
You know something. I really do not blame any hotel for coming down hard on these people. (and as usual it is a small mindless minority. They have brains. They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
-
Then simply make it a non smoking hotel by default , no argument , you will obviously loose the smoking trade , but you can make it up in fines , win win situation .
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)...
....We are a totally non smoking hotel.....
......I appreciate that in the case Buzzard was writing about they were allocated a smoking room ....
David,
You appear to be saying that you are the hotelier in question.
If you are, then how can you allocate a smoking room in a totally non-smoking hotel?
-
Hi Wiz
No...I am not the hotelier in Belfast.
I am just another independant trying to make a penny and keep to the rules
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
Is it unitended consequences here.
We (hotels) are trying to enforce an army's worth of red tape including Fire regs.
As Joneseys would say "The punters don't like it"
We are a totally non smoking hotel.
I am in the process of installing Optical Smoke Detectors (instead of HD's) as a compromise with my local brigade who originally wanted Fire Door smoke seals.
BUT.. I have to deals with guests who simple will not abide by the rules.
We have our registration contracts. We have our patrols. We change nets every week because they burn them smoking out the window. etc etc etc.
I appreciate that in the case Buzzard was writing about they were allocated a smoking room but what on earth is a hotel supposed to do (its heads you lose tails you lose)
You know something. I really do not blame any hotel for coming down hard on these people. (and as usual it is a small mindless minority. They have brains. They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
Davidrh,
I think you have missed a very important point here.
As Buzzard 905 states "She checked in and requested a smoking room with she was duly allocated.Later,she had some friends back to the room and they were smoking in her smoking room.Needless to say,the smoke detector installed in the room activated by the smoke."
Now, is there there a problem with smoking in a room in which smoking is permitted?
-
Hi Wiz
No...I am not the hotelier in Belfast.
I am just another independant trying to make a penny and keep to the rules
Davidrh
Are you saying then that the young lady in question was wrong to be smoking in a dedicated smoking bedroom?
You have mentioned that its the guests who are brainless and the guests who should pay and I agree that if the guests are smoking suripticiously they should get fined, but we are talking a bout someone who had every legal right to smoke in that room.
Its NOT the lady's fault it is the hotel's.
This smells a bit fishy if I'm honest. My advice is not to pay this "fine ", inform local trading standards, contact the hotel and inform them that you are considering legal cation, that you will be going to the press, and that you have informed trading standards. Furthermore ask them to point out where in their terms and conditions it states such penalties can be occurred.
-
I am just another independant trying to make a penny and keep to the rules
So you think that charging someone £1600 for smoking in a smoking room is fair?
You were quick enough to complain about the injustice of it all when the fire service asked you to upgrade your hotel to a reasonable standard of safety. Can you not see this as a huge injustice?
Also, you might find that you do not have the right to 'fine' people. A reasonable charge for cleaning the room after unscrupulous smoking, yes. A fine, no.
-
A £1,600 "fine" is monstrously unfustified for someone who appears to have done nothing wrong. She was smoking in a smoking room, how can anyone suggest she has done anything wrong?!?!?
-
I would like to see a breakdown of this specific charge , same a a department store being evacuated by an engineer Monday morning , we all know their was 700 pensioners in there spending £100 each - yeah right.
-
I agree £1600 seems a bit high. (I have no idea how the hotel came to that charge)...but I bet she will take more care next time a !!
and how much did the hotel have to pay to re-accomodate their guests. (I have no idea but i do know that there would be some pretty unhappy people who would proable not be staying at that hotel again)
Yes, as I said I understand it was a smoking room BUT people need to use common sense. ( a long lost word in Britain today)
Do you people burn your toast at home ?? (and set off the alarms)...of course you don't
We have the laws, You folk are the experts and us poor s***s have to make it all work
Look at it from the other side ...please
-
The young lady bought a service that quite clearly was not fit for use , quite simple better still pay by cash when you check in I always do , so they cant have you over on a credit / debit card.
So she is on her way home goes to use her card in an emergency , etc and its maximized out , without her knowing what sort of stupid , draconian measures some people come up with , when quite clearly they are in the wrong to start with.
I would liken to this as theft , end of story.
-
Davidrh
What could the lady in question have done to avoid the alarms going off? Please define what "common sense" measures the lady should have carried out to prevent this unfortunate turn of events.
I think you find all members on this forum do try to look at things from "the other side" as you put it.
We tend to be open minded folk and in the instance of guests smoking in places they shouldn't be smoking I'm all for them being penalised.
In this instance however it is not the guest's fault that the fire alarm activated despite what you say.
I wonder if the hotel have had this problem before. If they have then they should have employed an engineer to look at why false alarms were occuring.
If it was a one off occurence then it's just bad luck, but hopefully it wil prompt the management of the hotel to investigate the issue further before they become beseiged with false alarms and more unhappy guests. I would suggest that is common sense David!
There are procedures that can be employed to prevent false alarms becoming an inconvenience.
They include things like the a "pre fire" warning which prompts staff to go investigate cause of any possible activations.
Perhaps localised alarms in staff areas prompting them again to investigate before initating a full evacuation, all sorts
David you ask us to see things from your point of view, how about you trying to see it from the "other side " too.
-
.....better still pay by cash when you check in I always do , so they cant have you over on a credit / debit card......
I have heard that there are many hotels now refusing cash payments because of security concerns raised by the government about not being able to identify guests. Maybe this is just an excuse so that hoteliers can take further payments as they see fit! I can see this becoming an important issue if more hotels are going to try this sort of scam.
I wonder if Buzzard can tell us what action the girl in question is taking to resolve the issue and, if everything reported is true, then I think we should all know the name of the hotel chain in question so that we can warn others.
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
I wish to issue a challenge to all non FRS (inc ex colleagues) to describe the visual diffence between a smoke and heat detector (in a designated smoking room). How do they know there are smoke alarms? Surely a smoking room has HD's
-
Wiz
Yep I would agree with the card business . some of these hotels think they are an airline , but when I have I.D and walk away from the desk , they see a £ 70 - 100 going with me , they tend to crumble.
-
Yes, as I said I understand it was a smoking room BUT people need to use common sense.
I really don't think you do understand Davidrh.
The lady asked for a bedroom she could smoke in.
She was given a room she could smoke in.
She and her friend had a smoke in the room she was permitted to smoke in.
The smoke set off the alarm.
She had £1600 stolen from her credit card by the hotel.
Now Davidrh, which part of that are you having trouble with?
I think the lady used a hell of a lot more common sense than the hotel in that she did not chance a crafty puff in the en-suite. She asked for a smoking room and that is what she was given. If it was subsequently not suitable for smoking then that is the hotel's fault not hers.
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
I wish to issue a challenge to all non FRS (inc ex colleagues) to describe the visual diffence between a smoke and heat detector (in a designated smoking room). How do they know there are smoke alarms? Surely a smoking room has HD's
For point detection only:
Smokes tend to have a thin metal mesh protecting the sensing bits. Heats tend to have a wee element thing that doesn't need the mesh. Heats are sometimes a bit deeper, but not always.
Do I win something?
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
I wish to issue a challenge to all non FRS (inc ex colleagues) to describe the visual diffence between a smoke and heat detector (in a designated smoking room). How do they know there are smoke alarms? Surely a smoking room has HD's
For point detection only:
Smokes tend to have a thin metal mesh protecting the sensing bits. Heats tend to have a wee element thing that doesn't need the mesh. Heats are sometimes a bit deeper, but not always.
Do I win something?
As Chris says I thought smoke detectors had vents in them to let smoke in and heat detectors had a solid elements thingy. No?
-
No-one outside the industry could be expected to have any idea at all. Even with detailed technical knowledge it can be hit and miss, some of the old ones made it easy but with some types its difficult to tell the difference. With multisensors its impossible because the active sensor and state is set in the software.
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
I wish to issue a challenge to all non FRS (inc ex colleagues) to describe the visual diffence between a smoke and heat detector (in a designated smoking room). How do they know there are smoke alarms? Surely a smoking room has HD's
that's easy and most people would be able to tell you.
smoke alarms are big and round and go beep beep beep when i burn the toast at home and don't look anything like a heat detector that would be in a hotel
Smoke detectors are smaller and don't go beep :D
-
.... Heats tend to have a wee element thing....
Chris for future reference the wee element thingy is generally a 'thermistor'
-
I prefered my version, but thanks.
-
..... With multisensors its impossible because the active sensor and state is set in the software.
Prof., the point you are making is absolutely spot on. You can't just look at a multisensor detector and determine what it is set up to respond to
However, for future reference, the multisensor is likely to have both/all types of sensing elements in one housing (you can't necessarily see all/any of them) and the device itself and/or the control equipment will take readings of either/both or all and operate as per how the panel software is configured. The point I'm making is that there isn't just one general purpose sensing element which is how I read your description.
-
I prefered my version, but thanks.
There will be much discussion about your wee thingy in the bar tonight ;)
-
I'll make sure the bar closes early.
-
Call me old fashioned, but when planning a smoking room in a Hotel, how difficult would it be to consult with your fire alarm engineer to identify which head is SD and which ones aren't??
With regards to the insistance of credit cards, a trend in many of the bigger Hotels I have dealt with in the last few years is the theft of their televisions from bedrooms. Guests arrive, pay cash and book in with their large suitcase which is just a bit bigger than the flatcreen TV in the room (!). By the morning, the guest has left with the telly from his room, and any other rooms left open by guests who have already booked out.
So while I accept there is opportunity for the system to be abused (as in the Belfast ridiculous £1600 charge case), I can see why Hotels prefer to use this system
-
desperados Messy
i take all the shower gel shampoo etc but leave the towels.
never thought of a tv though....hmmmm
-
Hello (I/m the hotelier)
Is it unitended consequences here.
We (hotels) are trying to enforce an army's worth of red tape including Fire regs.
As Joneseys would say "The punters don't like it"
We are a totally non smoking hotel.
I am in the process of installing Optical Smoke Detectors (instead of HD's) as a compromise with my local brigade who originally wanted Fire Door smoke seals.
BUT.. I have to deals with guests who simple will not abide by the rules.
We have our registration contracts. We have our patrols. We change nets every week because they burn them smoking out the window. etc etc etc.
I appreciate that in the case Buzzard was writing about they were allocated a smoking room but what on earth is a hotel supposed to do (its heads you lose tails you lose)
You know something. I really do not blame any hotel for coming down hard on these people. (and as usual it is a small mindless minority. They have brains. They know they are in a hotel. They know there are smoke alarms... THEY cause they problem THEY need to pay
Why should the rests of the gueSts have to suffer the consequences because they need A FAG
Hi David.I haven't trawled through the rest of the replies here and am responding to your post.I appreciate that in UK mainland many business' are getting pressed to bring systems up to certain fire regulations and it does mean that sometimes you are between a rock and a proverbial hard place.
However,in the loosest terms of the Sale of Goods act (and Sale of Services etc) goods or services provided must fit or suitable for their purpose.In this particular case the room was not fit for purpose (ie - smoking room) and the customer would have a case to seek help from trading standards in relation to their case against this particular hotel.Smoke detector in a designated smoking room?? - what a no brainer!!!
Certainly,as in your case,if the hotel is specifically non-smoking then there may be grounds for the hotelier to to penalise the resident.
This is not a small indepndant hotel here that I am talking about.
-
All...I could spend the rest of night telling why most (decent) hotels don't take cash any more (or if they do they still want i.d)...messy's example is just one of many many.
I expect the hotel in question (who charged the £1600.00) has just got fed up with trying to run an orderley house...one that you would all like to stay in no doubt
-
All...I could spend the rest of night telling why most (decent) hotels don't take cash any more (or if they do they still want i.d)...messy's example is just one of many many.
I expect the hotel in question (who charged the £1600.00) has just got fed up with trying to run an orderley house...one that you would all like to stay in no doubt
If they are fed up with running hotels they should give up running hotels. Fleecing customers who have done no wrong is unacceptable cowboyish behavior.
-
The hotel is not fleecing customers Chris. It is responding to situations in an attempt to control them.
The problem is customers fleecing (or trying to) Hotels.
Look at it this way. Just take the Fire regs situation (and there are many others)
We (all businesses) have been landed with a whole load of regulation we are not qualified to apply.
We all went into business doing what we do best but goal posts change (and not for the better)
So its no surprise when some Hoteliers (and I suspect other businesses) err on the side of extreme caution
Every day and every week businesses are on their guard against scams (official and otherwise)
I think its a scam that I have been made legally responsible for "knowing" all there is to know about fire prevention in my premises
I also think changing that particular law (which was done for financial reasons above all others) will eventually costs lives...but thats just my opinion
The previous system worked..why change it
You folk are obviously delighted by it...because its money in your pockets...I am not being rude people that's the way it is
So don't blame businesses when they make what appears to be unreasonable demands on their customers
Someone has to pay for all this regulation and red tape. (and you only need to read this forum to find out how confused WE ALL ARE by it)
-
The previous system worked. Why change it.
Because businesses together with some fire engineers complained the FPA was over burdensome and was not consistent. The argument claimed that risk assessment was the answer so the EU took up the case and issued a directive. You got risk assessment however the first efforts was not a success then you got the RR(FS)O, time will tell. I think the only regulation that would be acceptable to businesses is NO regulation and go back to the 1800’s.
-
So tell us, what was it that the customer in this situation did wrong then?
Hoteliers, just like everyone else, have a duty to know the relevant legislation, its the same for everyone.
And I do blame businesses when they appear to make unreasonable demands on their customers!
-
..........And I do blame businesses when they appear to make unreasonable demands on their customers!
Yeah, I agree. Especially insurance companies who gladly take your insurance premiums each year, and then look for any and every way of avoiding paying out if you have to make a claim! :)
-
..........And I do blame businesses when they appear to make unreasonable demands on their customers!
Yeah, I agree. Especially insurance companies who gladly take your insurance premiums each year, and then look for any and every way of avoiding paying out if you have to make a claim! :)
Couldn't agree more. Hope you don't think I work for an insurance company, by the way.
Insurance contracts are legally binding and insurers can't avoid paying out if you the peril was covered and you fulfiled your part of the bargain. The main misunderstanding I hear if when people buy a policy and wrongly assume it covers more than it does. For example they think it covers theft, but it only covers theft following forcible entry etc.
-
I've only ever imagined that your full-time job was running this home for the slightly bewildered known as Firenet house.
-
Do you not think I would make an awfully good traffic warden?
-
Why not have the fire net do at Davidrh hotel , whoever changes a detector in the slowest time buys the beer ,seems fair to me.
-
Why not have the fire net do at Davidrh hotel , whoever changes a detector in the slowest time buys the beer ,seems fair to me.
If they are series Apollo 30's at the moment does using the series 300/series 65 adaptor count as cheating or being resourceful??
-
Its been a good week and you've made me laugh
Goodnight all
PS all bookings by pre payment visa please
-
David
Why not throw in a free towel and flatscreen tv with every booking- after all it would cost you about the same.
I stayed in a lodgy type place near Farnham this week no cold water from the bath tap or shower but both washbasin taps were hot and got hotter and hotter the longerr they ran. And the loo flushed with hot water too! The Eastern European guy on the desk seemed totally spaced out when I tried to tell him about it. Got my motor scraped with a key in the pay and display hotel car park and although it said no smoking everywhere the place absolutely stank of weed being smoked. Shall give that place a wide berth in future.
-
David
Why not throw in a free towel and flatscreen tv with every booking- after all it would cost you about the same.
I stayed in a lodgy type place near Farnham this week no cold water from the bath tap or shower but both washbasin taps were hot and got hotter and hotter the longerr they ran. And the loo flushed with hot water too! The Eastern European guy on the desk seemed totally spaced out when I tried to tell him about it. Got my motor scraped with a key in the pay and display hotel car park and although it said no smoking everywhere the place absolutely stank of weed being smoked. Shall give that place a wide berth in future.
Maybe an off topic thread on hotel stories is maybe needed?
-
Apologies I have come to this topic very late. As someone who has dealt with UWFS for sometime now I can see where SOME hotels are coming from by charging extra to customers who generate UWFS from their rooms, by illicitly smoking. Please dont jump down my throat over this one, the girl in question at the start of the thread asked for a smoking room & therefore in this situation i feel she's been robbed.
I dont feel that people are being robbed however if they sneak a crafty fag in there room & set the fire alarm off. On one visit I did to a major chain this situation happened & 60 breakfasts were ruined, by having to evacuate due to a smoker in a normal room setting the alarm off ( the manageress said the room reeked of cigarette smoke) so they charged the cost of the ruined meals to their credit card & evicted them. The residents in question didnt argue as they had been smoking in a non smoking room.
I'm not here to stick up for either side but if someone causes that much grief to other residents & causes the fire service to be called ( due to other circumstances caused by aforementioned room hindering the normal investigation, we were) then i cant argue with the action of the hotel.
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Stevo, not a single person who has posted has disagreed that someone smoking in a non-smoking room should be held to account for their actions.
In the case in question someone was smoking in a 'smoking allowed' room and was 'fined' £1600 (Everyone but davidrh considers this to be daylight robbery!)
The question I would ask is what would happen if there was an unwanted alarm caused by steam, aerosol, dust or excessive flatulence created by the guest. (I've established unwanted alarms have been caused by all of these) Would there be a similar charge? Could the hotel prove it was the guest who caused the problem?
Even if someone was to have smoked in a non-smoking room there is the likely probability that they would deny this. I would imagine that, legally, it would be up to the hotel to prove that they did. This could be very difficult.
If however hotels are allowed to debit someone's payment card on their unilateral desicion it opens up the system for abuse.
How long will it be before someone is fined £1600 for the fire detector operating in their room even though they did nothing to cause it? The hotel says they must have been smoking and takes a charge. how would anyone feel in these circumstances.
I believe the practice of deducting money from someone's card under these circumstances is less legal than the people who wheelclamp and even they are being taken to task these days.
Hotels would be better placed to get all guests to sign a contract where it was understood that no claims could be made by guests against the hotel for any loss of the guests enjoyment due to circumstances beyond the hotel's control i.e due to fire alarms activating etc. They don't cover loss or damage to vehicles on their property so why not fire alarm systems.
The guests would just have to understand that the fire alarm system is installed for their own safety and they would therefore have to accept the consequences of the operation of such systems.
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think anyone would be in dispute had she been smoking against hotel policy but the reasons behind the oginal post are clear.
As an aside - I've lost count of how many times I have requested a non-smoking room and it has been used as a smoking room on more than one occasion.
-
Tell me about it Buzzard
I had one guest who was upgraded to a luxury 4 poster (we have just sept £13K on the room)
The hotel is non smoking, the room doors are plastered with non smoking signs.
The rooms have non smoking signs. AND the guests sign a registry that they understand that the hotel is non smoking.
Guess what. The customer checks out the next morning and the room is found by the cleaning staff FOUL with Cigar smoke
and that was the point we changed from cash sales to credit card only
-
davidrh,
I can sell you a smoking detector that plays a message that would get on any smokers nerves!
-
davidrh,
I can sell you a smoking detector that plays a message that would get on any smokers nerves!
Expensive (in comparison) little items those but ideal for their purpose.
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think anyone would be in dispute had she been smoking against hotel policy but the reasons behind the oginal post are clear.
As an aside - I've lost count of how many times I have requested a non-smoking room and it has been used as a smoking room on more than one occasion.
the classics like the shower cap or condom over the detector.
I stayed in a hotel last month in Glasgow that had scelotape over the detector.
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think anyone would be in dispute had she been smoking against hotel policy but the reasons behind the oginal post are clear.
As an aside - I've lost count of how many times I have requested a non-smoking room and it has been used as a smoking room on more than one occasion.
the classics like the shower cap or condom over the detector.
I stayed in a hotel last month in Glasgow that had scelotape over the detector.
THats one of those old dual-technology detectors.The fire melts through the plastic before the smoke detector activates!
-
Stevo, not a single person who has posted has disagreed that someone smoking in a non-smoking room should be held to account for their actions.
In the case in question someone was smoking in a 'smoking allowed' room and was 'fined' £1600 (Everyone but davidrh considers this to be daylight robbery!)
The question I would ask is what would happen if there was an unwanted alarm caused by steam, aerosol, dust or excessive flatulence created by the guest. (I've established unwanted alarms have been caused by all of these) Would there be a similar charge? Could the hotel prove it was the guest who caused the problem?
Even if someone was to have smoked in a non-smoking room there is the likely probability that they would deny this. I would imagine that, legally, it would be up to the hotel to prove that they did. This could be very difficult.
If however hotels are allowed to debit someone's payment card on their unilateral desicion it opens up the system for abuse.
How long will it be before someone is fined £1600 for the fire detector operating in their room even though they did nothing to cause it? The hotel says they must have been smoking and takes a charge. how would anyone feel in these circumstances.
I believe the practice of deducting money from someone's card under these circumstances is less legal than the people who wheelclamp and even they are being taken to task these days.
Hotels would be better placed to get all guests to sign a contract where it was understood that no claims could be made by guests against the hotel for any loss of the guests enjoyment due to circumstances beyond the hotel's control i.e due to fire alarms activating etc. They don't cover loss or damage to vehicles on their property so why not fire alarm systems.
The guests would just have to understand that the fire alarm system is installed for their own safety and they would therefore have to accept the consequences of the operation of such systems.
Wiz can we discuss some of these point by point
Point 1 I'm glad we all agree that if you book a smoking room you can smoke, very poor show then to have a smoke detector that activates due to smoking, i think we all agree that the original lady in question was all but mugged
Point 2 UWFS caused by steam? in my expeirience its normally where people have skimped on the fitting of the detectors & sited them right by the shower cubicle door, I would suggest the hotel move them, in much the same way that its not overly clever to fit the detection above the mirror as that leads to hairspray/deoderant problems. Dust, maintain the system! Cant comment on the flatulence a lot more difficult to prove than smoking unless perhaps the hotel is nest door to the local curry house! The point being here that these are managment issues for the hotel & are not down to the guest deliberately flouting the rules.
Point 3 I agree its up to the hotel to prove the person had been smoking, if they deny this then fine, the hotel could always refuse their custom in the future
Point 4 if they debited my card for £1600 theys be very disapointed in fact if they tried for £16 sometimes they would get far either! (sorry couldn't resist that.
Point 5 may be a charter to not maintain the system.
The fire service are asking premises to prevent UWFS, sometimes & again on this it was wrong, the only way to do things is to hit people in the pocket-we as the FRS cant do that but I'll support hotels that genuinely try to use these methods.
-
I think it would be very unwise for any FRS to even intimate support of hotels levying a £1600 fine for someone smoking in a smoking room because it caused the fire alarm system to operate.
The police and even council employees are already suffering a backlash against tbeir involvement in the government's ban and financially punish policies. Do we want the fire service to become another organisation that the public despises? The line between hero and villain can be very narrow.
-
Wiz
I offer no suport whatsoever to any hotel that rips people off in the manner previously described. I do not under any circumstances support the action taken not even tacitly. I am trying to argue the point that if a customer flouts the smoking ban in a non-smoking room I believe the hotel has the right(whether they deem it commercially prudent to exercise that right is another matter) to bill a customer for any inconveiniences they cause the hotel.
-
Pray tell
How can flatulence set off a detector?
Its gas
No particles
No heat (well not enough to set off a HD unless you have had the afterburner curry!)
davo
ps don't forget fly spray, we had a chambermaid try to get a pesky fly, guess where it settled?
Yup!
-
Wiz
I offer no suport whatsoever to any hotel that rips people off in the manner previously described. I do not under any circumstances support the action taken not even tacitly. I am trying to argue the point that if a customer flouts the smoking ban in a non-smoking room I believe the hotel has the right(whether they deem it commercially prudent to exercise that right is another matter) to bill a customer for any inconveiniences they cause the hotel.
Can, therefore, the innocent guests, who had to leave their beds in the middle of the night, bill the hotel for any inconveniences caused to them?
-
especially if you had paid for a movie and you had to evacuate halfway through....
-
Perhaps part of the bill given to the customer flouting the ban could be passed onto the other guests as compensation for their inconvenience?
"All guests are cordially invited to enjoy a drink at the bar at the expense of the occupant of room 124 who set off the fire alarm by smoking in a non smoking bedroom!"
-
Perhaps part of the bill given to the customer flouting the ban could be passed onto the other guests as compensation for their inconvenience?
"All guests are cordially invited to enjoy a drink at the bar at the expense of the occupant of room 124 who set off the fire alarm by smoking in a non smoking bedroom!"
Now I do think thats a splendid ideal, make mine a double Mike
that would be damned inconveinient eh Graeme if the film was nearing its climax...
nearlythere perhaps thats where the £1600 came from?
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
At last???
I don't think anyone disagrees that a hotel has the right (and therefore should) penalise guests who smoke where / when they shouldn't - so why did you say that David?
You seem to suggest that most of us are unsymapthtic to the plight of hoteliers and we aren't! You appear to be on the defensive at every turn.
In this instance however the hotel are totally out of order. Their actions are indefensible and actually might even be illegal. No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybes'
I fully sympathise with hoteliers who have to deal with their property being vandalised or removed illegally by guests, I totally understand why credit / debit cards are used to secure bookings, and I think hotleiers should be able to penalise genuine unsociable behaviour / actions of guests.
But this thread is about a lady who was legally entitled to smoke in her room and many people have asked you what she has done wrong - and you haven't actually answered that question.
It seems as though you are defending the hotel by saying "yes but hoteliers have to put up with other issues from unscrupulous guests who do all manner of unsociable things" as if that somehow balances things out; that it gives them carte blanche to get away with charging silly costs.
I can assure you David that here you will receive sympathetic and balanced views / advice from all members so long as you are balanced in your views in return.
PS:- The complimentary drink idea is great! ...However I suspect some dastardly guests might abuse this.
They would sneak around popping "SMOKING PERMITTED" stickers on non smoking rooms, deliberately causing the unwitting resident to smoke in their rooms, get caught by hotel management and made to fork out for complimentary drinks.
Just think, if you went round and did that to 5 or 6 guests in one go you wouldn't have to put your hand in your pocket for a drink all night - there'd be complimentary drinks coming at you left right and centre.
I'm off to get some "smoking permitted" signs printed off forthwith.
-
Thanks for that steve..someone whose sees the others guys point of view at last !!!!!!!!!!!!
At last???
I don't think anyone disagrees that a hotel has the right (and therefore should) penalise guests who smoke where / when they shouldn't - so why did you say that David?
You seem to suggest that most of us are unsymapthtic to the plight of hoteliers and we aren't! You appear to be on the defensive at every turn.
In this instance however the hotel are totally out of order. Their actions are indefensible and actually might even be illegal. No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybes'
I fully sympathise with hoteliers who have to deal with their property being vandalised or removed illegally by guests, I totally understand why credit / debit cards are used to secure bookings, and I think hotleiers should be able to penalise genuine unsociable behaviour / actions of guests.
But this thread is about a lady who was legally entitled to smoke in her room and many people have asked you what she has done wrong - and you haven't actually answered that question.
It seems as though you are defending the hotel by saying "yes but hoteliers have to put up with other issues from unscrupulous guests who do all manner of unsociable things" as if that somehow balances things out; that it gives them carte blanche to get away with charging silly costs.
I can assure you David on here you will recieved sympathetic and balanced views / advice from all members so long as you are balanced in your views in return.
Quite so. Davidrh seems to have no sympathy whatsoever for the plight of the individual who asked for a smoking room, was given a "smoking room", had a smoke which set off the fire alarm, caused an evacuation resulting in the hotel stealing money from her bank account. (They as much as stole that money out of her handbag.)
Davidrh then seems to suggest that it the fault of the lady in question and she should have used some common sense.
I'm afraid that Davidrh no longer receives any sympathy from me. With such a blinkered mindset and an inability to acknowledges any one elses point of view or reasoning I am sending him to Coventry.
I do hope that Buzzard905's friend gets the money back that was stolen from her and if he could advise her that if I can help in any way she can get me through him at any time.
-
especially if you had paid for a movie and you had to evacuate halfway through....
Now THATS a line from a Carry On film if ever I heard one!!!!
-
Think all bases covered now guys - thanks for all the input from all sides.
I'll post any update if and when.
Allen
-
The Austrian Hotel that I have just stayed in stated that it had a detection and warning system that included smoke detectors. As the whole place was full of smoke all the time, I just wonder whether it was or whether the Austrian technology is better than that in the UK?
-
I know in Oz they use their air sampling to pull in the air con , extract as applicable , seen this in a casino.
-
In Oz they have a lot of Multisensors which they can place in unapproved modes and therefore ignore 'false activation' influences.....such as smoke strangely enough!!! I have heard of cases where they can set-up detector above cooking facilities that will ignore the combustion products thrown up......now whether they would actually go off in a fire i will leave to your own imagination!!!