templar42

I have a pet hate at hotels which is the request to block a fixed sum on my credit card at the start of the stay to cover incidentals. I don't mean when you check in on a flexible rate and they block the amount estimated to be owed for room rate (perfectly reasonable); I mean when you fully pre-pay, and a property still wants $100-$200 a night to cover any spending on property.

Maybe I'm neurotic, but I find this rather insulting, especially as a loyal member. It doesn't sit well with the idea of welcoming a loyal customer who has already pre-paid to demand what is essentially a cash deposit (blocked funds are as unspendable as cash locked in a safe, after all) to cover the possibility of them causing minor damage or stealing things.

Very often if it's a short stay I make a fuss and very often the deposit is waived. I have a large credit limit and fully repay every month, so it's not that it affects how much I can spend. It just feels important to me, if I've shown goodwill by pre-paying, for the hotel to at least meet me half way by not demanding a deposit on top.

Does anyone else do this? And is there a tried and tested strategy to convince front desk not to block funds? Is it reliably possible to instruct them to close the account or otherwise restrict the ability to spend on account during the stay?

lyndonmaxewell

What is the goodwill you are showing with your pre-pay? Isn't this the Advance Purchase or Flash Sales you are trying to lock in with the cheaper rates?

turtlemichael

Why is booking an advance purchase rate a demonstration of a lack of goodwill? Is it only goodwill to pay the highest rate ? Equally, I don't take pre-authorisation as a challenge to my financial manhood.

templar42

The goodwill is in giving them money in advance, trusting that they will deliver the services they promise. If, for example, pre-payment consisted of transferring the money to an escrow account (this would actually be very viable if the world embraced blockchain technology) with the funds only released once the customer had confirmed delivery, or an arbitrator had decided in the property's favour, it would be different and less trust would be involved.

The situation hotels attempt to create is a highly asymmetric distribution of risk and trust, such that the customer is obliged to trust them to perform their obligations whilst depositing money against the possibility of the customer failing to do this. It feels better when risk and trust are more evenly distributed.

gengar

Are you truly concerned that a hotel with which you have a prepaid reservation will fail to honor its obligations? Has this ever actually happened to you?

templar42

Hotels frequently defect from at least some of their obligations. Whether it's walking a guest to a 'comparable' property, assigning a smoking room, turning out not to have useable internet, failing to notify the customer of renovations or facility closures, failing to even vaguely honour loyalty benefits, there are plenty of ways that hotels sometimes deliver less than was paid for. It may not be out and out running off with the money and not giving any room at all, but I think anyone who has stayed in hotels knows that issues are quite common. Given the frequency of complaints on here about properties, I didn't think that would be controversial!

tcm

I don't mind hotels blocking a hold for estimated incidentals (with chip and pin) but hate when they swipe my CC through their computer terminal. Especially since Hilton was hacked before...

gengar

Anyone who reads FT reads plenty of stories, but that doesn't answer my questions. You brought up risk and posed the scenario of equivalent risk on principle, which is why I asked what you personally perceive as the actual risk when you prepay for a reservation. A compilation of FT'ers poor experiences with prepaid reservations over the years, while perhaps highly entertaining and/or horrifying, is not at all indicative of actual risk.

apodo77

Yes I think you are irrational for being insulted by something hotels have done as long as I can remember no matter the chain I frequented.

PayItForward

It is just a deposit. Guest do get drunk. Guest do trash room. Even Elite members. Should they now do profiling at checkin to determine who is high risk, who might smoke pot in the room etc and then get accused of being bias, prejudiced, racists, bigots, ?? haters etc?

templar42

I take your point there. Personally I'd prefer more of an escrow model where both customer and business have funds at stake which could be distributed in case of a dispute by an arbitrator. In a sense this is what a credit card company provides, except that, as we saw recently on this board, Hilton freeze accounts that initiate chargebacks, essentially defeating this form of restitution.

ajeleonard

Why do you care so much over a trivial thing like this....

templar42

Have you considered whether the importance I assign to the issue might be similar to the importance you assign to posting on it? I care enough to start a thread about it during an idle moment when I'm not working; why do you care so much over a trivial issue that you feel that you need to post about its triviality?

templar42

I agree, but my limited personal experience is even less indicative, and your question specifically concerned this.

chrism20

Never gave it much thought tbh so I guess it doesn't bother me that much.

They aren't a credit provider though so I have no object to a pre-auth being done.