scubaccr

And when IHG inform OP that they have now decided that OPs nights no longer qualify for BRG, but IHG do not then collect monies for those nights, there is no contract as no monies have exchanged hands.

Like any other purchase whether online or in person in a shop, OP is simply tendering to purchase, if seller does not accept purchase and monies, then there is no sale and thus no contract.

FlyingHigh20

IF these were Advanced Purchase rates and the OP's cards were already charged, then yes, monies have been exchanged, and IHG is bound to that contract.

In the eyes of the law; a lot of times a simple confirmation e-mail that the reservation has been accepted is a contract. Whether or not they have chosen to pre-charge the credit card becomes irrelevant. As long as the OP has provided a valid credit card number and the reservation is confirmed, then they must follow through on it.

Wan1dap

Really? That says a lot.

htb

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. He's writing that he has scored some BRGs, which is hardly cheating and tricking. He also used some promo codes. I can only assume that IHG doesn't care. These codes are given out to some customers and usually they are not classified as "secret" by IHG.

HTB.

htb

A contract does not require pre-payment. If I, as a cookie seller, tell you that you can have a free cookie when you tell me where cookies can be bought at a lower price, I wouldn't expect you to first pay for my cookie before giving it to you for free. Furthermore, a contract would still be in place and I have accepted that you have found a cheaper place.

IHG can hardly say there was no contract after verifying the lower rate and agreeing to a free night.

HTB.

htb

That's incorrect. IHG has already agreed to accepting the purchase. "Backing out" of this contract may open the possibility to charge IHG for damages in the amount of what it will cost the OP to book a comparable room in the area of the original hotel. If I were the OP I don't think I'd simply let this go.

HTB.

Wan1dap

OK, your continued dogged and determined defence of the OP is intriguing to say the least. Carry on frothing at the mouth over the "low moral standards"of the big corporate, stamping on the little man. I on the other hand, will enjoy my frothing beer from the legitimately-earned free mini-bar. Cheers!

htb

I don't think these statements support your claim that the OP was "cheating and tricking".

Also, I don't think the way you show off your RA status and belittle "the little man" are appropriate, nor does the good treatment you seem to receive in some way balance out the treatment the OP has received. So I don't think this is even relevant here.

HTB.

controller1

With the double-negative, are you saying . . . ?

Wan1dap

I receive good treatment because I qualify for it. It's not supposed to balance out anything. It just shows how sticking to the rules pays off. I don't care if it's relevant to you, but it matters to me.

Sweet Willie

----------------------------

MXM135

I have just completed reading this entire thread and am surprised that many of the respondents have provided comment without referring back to either the IHG Rewards Membership T&Cs or the Best Price Guarantee (BPR) T&Cs.

IHG has the right to cancel any IHG Rewards membership for any reason (article 4 membership T&Cs). It can also cancel previously approved BRPs in accordance with the BRP T&Cs in article 13.

Any disputes arising from the BRP cancellations must be dealt with in either a federal or state court in the State of Georgia, USA, regardless of where the OP resides (BRP T&Cs article 15).

The OP has acknowledged breaking some rules, not fully disclosed in his postings and IHG has exercised its rights under the T&Cs.

I see no wrong in what IHG has done in this case based on what has been posted.

mxm135

Often1

+1 - A sensible post. And correct. All the bleating about supposed analogies which have nothing to do with the t&c to which OP agreed are just that, "bleating".

travelismylife

Here we go again, which rules has the op acknowledged to breaking?
Every single post the op has written I agree with 100%.

scubaccr

Rather I would say .... in IHG's view Op has circumvented the intent of the BRG program. OP has admitted this, only staying when able to identify a BRG night etc.

You don't need to break any individual BRG rule to fall foul of circumventing the intent of IHG's BRG program. Intent obviously did not include someone pre-searching OTA's to only book BRG single nights with no paid nights.

Personally I don't think it is 24 BRG nights total that caused IHG to react, it is surely the almost 100% percentage of BRG nights in total stays, and whilst not stated so by Op, I would guess the one paid night may well be a failed BRG attempt.