Originally Posted by
TravelingNomads
I think this is a valid and fair argument for the higher pet fees, but it also seems unfair that those of us with pets being treated with preventative meds for fleas and that don't leave pet stains should have to take on those extra fees also. Basically, neither the hotel nor the "trained" pets should be taking on more fees than are fair. I would prefer to pay a larger deposit that would be refunded in a couple of days or something like that.
I was reporting on how the hotels in which I worked handled the issue...not necessarily what I personally think should happen.
I do like your "larger deposit but only pay if damage occurs" concept. Although, I would want to have the guest sign something about agreeing not to issue a charge back on any damage fees. I'm not sure if that's legally binding, but from working in hotel accounting, I know that any credit card charges put through after the stay are far more likely to get disputed. They are tougher for the hotel to defend, too.
Originally Posted by
TravelingNomads
I also think that hotels should only be booking rooms with laminate floors to pet owners. It seems silly to rent out rooms with carpet that might require more intense cleaning methods.
I'm not a pet person, but I'm not sure that's as easy as it seems. If a pet urinates on laminate, it's still going to make a mess because it might soak into the underlayment. That might be worse than carpet. If the smell is in the underlayment, the only way to get to it would be removing the laminate and replacing the underlayment. (Although, maybe they make magic underlayment that never soaks up any liquids.)