Originally Posted by TinDrum

Erin,

Thank you for posting the above list - much appreciated.

However, my understanding of any Best Rate Guarantee program is that the hotel makes good when another site offers a lower rate for the same room, that can be booked by the general public.

How does it (or should it) matter that the competing site is "authorized" or not to offer the lower rate? So long as a lower rate can be booked elsewhere for the same room, the guarantee should be honored - don't you think so? Otherwise, this guarantee claim is a total farce.

Hilton guests have no means of knowing, in real time, which sites are authorized and which not. So in my opinion, imposing such roadblocks is just another way of evading a genuine claim.

Other comparable chains (e.g SPG, IHG etc) do not fall back on such an "authorized site" excuse to deny claims.

So why can Hilton not be more honest? Of course, there are many guests who do not care about this because someone else (e.g. their employers) are picking up the tab. But I for one, when faced with this kind of deception, have always managed to find some other hotel which does not engage in this chicanery. Ergo, entirely Hilton's loss.

TD

Originally Posted by TinDrum

Appreciate your continuing to look into this - it would be great if you could help turn the needle a little towards 'Fair'

But as the incident narrated by skywalkerLAX above (see post #1270) shows, it appears that the basic modus operandi of Hilton's BRG is to scam clients with dubious excuses. Erin, how would you feel, if YOU had to make a BRG claim at another hotel and this is the kind of response you always received?