Originally Posted by
JDiver
Hotels have a propensity not to give the boot to extending guests - and in a number of venues it is due to locally applicable eviction laws.
In this case, it means inconveniencing an existing guest with a move and a non-smoking room vs. inconveniencing a guest on a prepaid reso with a non-smoking room (and there are many variables with that context we aren't privy to that may go into a decision-making process).
Point taken. Ironically, we've been the extending guest before and told exactly that. (that the room was reserved, have to move). No big deal though, as we knew we weren't the ones with the reservation. Having had that experience in the past, husband found it a little more frustrating, maybe? I could better understand it if it were a traditional cancelable reservation, but the whole prepaid issue is a sticking point for me. They had the money, but no follow through on their obligation to provide the exact service paid for, yet if he failed to show he wouldn't have met the agreement and wouldn't have received a refund.
I appreciate you input.