erik123

They should have a record that includes the room you stayed in, check-out time, etc. and a folio with the charges and similar info. Ask them to provide it in writing.

LukeO9

So if you were a lawyer hired by the hotel in question, that is being asked for proof of stay, what advice would you give, given that proof of stay is easily presentable ?

FriscoHeavy

The original poster still hasn't posed any specific question.

The posts are very confusing.

LukeO9

The answer to this specific question is:
The lawyer should suggest the hotel change their claim to "the customer had the booking but didn't show". This then shifts the burden of proof back onto the customer, that has to prove that the hotel did indeed say "there was no booking under that name when called to confirm".
Which is of course is what the hotel has now done.

LukeO9

What makes FT such a good forum, is that you almost always get a focussed and succinct response from someone who recognizes a specific question when they see it and/or understand that most particulars to a case are irrelevant to the issue. Thanks again Doc Savage and erik123, etc..

It is appropriate here to inform potential responders that specifics to a question need not be requested, if those specifics can be addressed within a response. Of course, if the specifics in a proper response far outnumber those missing in the question, asking for more detail is warranted, but usually this is not the case.
For example, "Is a particular train service reliable?"
This is a specific question. If the response is "yes reliable, except between 7:30 and 9am over the whole line and the last 3 stations to X terminus at all times", then the specific answer is responded to with the appropriate specifics for an appropriate answer. Perhaps the answer is that the train service is reliable at all times and at all places along the line (like in Europe), where then the OP has not wasted time adding unnecessary details. Here, asking the OP for more details like "when and where do you plan to get on" just adds unnecessary posts and wastes time and effort.

joshwex90

OP, no need to call other posters out. You posted a vague story. All others were asking is for you to explain the story in further detail.

What happened - did you pay for a hotel and not stay there and you want money back from the hotel? Did you pay for a second hotel that you want want reimbursed from hotels.com?

LukeO9

The "no need" comes not from my posts, but those I am responding to with collected demonstration of incorrectness and/or irrelevancy.
In keeping with my suggestion(s) above, if anything, my original post was too lengthy, in that negligible instances within the occurrence appears to have distracted some readers to the crux of the story, which was made clearly apparent in the original post, in that a hotel claimed a customer had stayed at their hotel when indeed that customer had not. The compensation for which is obvious and extraneous.

Not all others were asking to explain the story in more detail, as some recognized that more details were unnecessary, as demonstrated by the fact that a correct interpretation and an appropriate response has already been made..

My later posts are pleas, not accusations.

LukeO9

Unfortunately, udontknowme, at the end of this campaign, as mentioned above, the hotel appears to have (cleverly) changed its tactic, resulting in the 'rug pulled from underneath'.
I won't mention the hotel because I was acting through a third party, who may have misinterpreted the hotel's communications. Unlikely, but one has to be 100% sure to make a public accusation of fraud.

lo2e

For those (like me) who have been confused with this whole series of posts and what the OP has been asking, I "think" I've finally narrowed down the issue:

-OP reserved a hotel through Hotels.com
-When OP called the hotel to confirm the reservation, there wasn't a reservation in the hotel's system (yet)
-Hearing this, OP opted not to stay at the hotel and made other arrangements
-Hotel (or Hotels.com - not sure which) charged OP for the hotel room that was reserved
-OP wants a refund because s/he was told there was no reservation
-Nobody is providing a refund because the hotel is stating the OP did actually stay there

OP, please let us know if anything above is not correct. I will gladly edit my post if there are any inaccuracies.

paperwastage

that's my understanding as well. OP is being sketchy too..
if OP didn't attempt to check-in or cancel reservation (or nonrefundable room), OP didn't fulfill his side of the contract, even though host hotel initially said there wasn't any reservation (OP, your contract is with hotels.com, not with the host hotel. you did zero work to attempt to ratify any errors/mistake on the hotel's end)

it'll be pointless to get the hotel to admit - "hey, OP didn't actually stay in the hotel"

either way, put the hotel/hotels.com on your blacklist, do chargebacks whatever. have fun!