SkiAdcock

I stayed at this hotel 2-3 times when attending a conference at the National Theatre nearby. Other than the views I wasn't overly impressed.

And like the OP my 'upgraded room' was incredibly small at the very far corner with a fabulous view of the London Eye people looking in at me What was particularly irksome was one of my colleagues - who never stays at Marriott & rarely travels - got a huge room w/ absolutely to die for views. I realize it's the luck of the draw, but being told I was upgraded to a closet & she w/ no status received what I would have expected as an upgraded room irritated me.

The OP was not basing his negative review just on the alloted room, though. Sounds like there were some maintenance issues, amongst other things, that led to his comment this is not a Cat 7 calibre hotel. That is the hotel's fault, not the OPs.

I actually wrote Bill Marriott after my last stay there. I was having a drink in the bar (the one that overlooks Big Ben - not the other one) around 5pm & the fire alarm went off very loudly. The staff totally ignored it for several minutes & some guests finally said should we be alarmed or leaving? The staff says don't worry about it. A few minutes later they ask us to leave because yes, there actually is a fire (in the complex, not at the Marriott; think one of the restaurants had a small kitchen fire). So the guests are hustled out to the sidewalk near the river. After a long while (about 30 minutes) of waiting, the guests can see through the windows that the staff is moving around. Meanwhile a bit later, the hotel piano player says to me, do you think it's safe to go back? I'm a guest & I'm being asked if it's ok??? Finally we knocked on the door (this was now 45 minutes later) & are told oh sure, come back in. And our drinks were cleaned up/gone Anyway, I wrote Mr. Marriott stating that I didn't think the staff handled the fire alarm in an appropriate manner, from the original ignoring it to leaving the guests out on the street. I don't think the GM was particularly thrilled I wrote BM instead of her, but tough. It was true. Received a nice reply from BM & one from her apologizing.

Cheers.

cyberdad

Allow me to take a stab at the OPs comments about the family checking in. The situation described is reflective of a common problem with London hotels. Most flights from North America arrive in London during the early and mid morning hours. Travellers head straight for their hotels....regularly arriving before the previous night's guests have departed. I doubt that the people trying to get in to their room were either cheap or "playing roulette". At many hotels in London, Americans comprise over 90% of the guests. I suspect this is likely the case at CH.

As for the hotel, it sounds to me like they were doing what they could to help their guests cope...given their limited options. As for the matter of the AC and the fans, this is sort of a "London thing". We were also there during the heat wave this summer. Extremely high temperatures are rarity, and the result is that even some of the most upscale venues in town found themselves struggling to keep up.

(If you're planning a summer trip to London and want heat wave "insurance" try Marriott Grosevenor Square....our ac there worked perfectly. Others in our party were at Kensington and Grosvenor House. Varying degrees of cooling problems at both.)

As posted elsewhere, I frequently suggest County Hall to first time visitors. I stand by that. I've never personally stayed, but I base my comments purely upon the location and the fact that all the feedback I've ever gotten has been universally positive. Just this year, two seperate friends of ours stayed at County Hall and couldn't say enough good things about it. Each is an experienced traveller with at least moderately high expectations.

b1513

I did have a room with this view and I still have to say that this is no Cat. 7. I thought it was a dreary hotel. The service was fine, but I would still not stay there again.

Bobi

jerseyfinn

. . . The staff behind the desk was cold . . . The bellman we tipped a 5er for 3 bags never greeted us again during our 2 day stay. All in all a very basic hotel for a cat 7. . .

I've stayed at County Hall on two occassions. I agree that the staff is polite, but largely indifferent. Likewise, I've had instances where associates seem unaware of a special program or perk. Given what they charge for the rooms and food and drinks, I was largely unimpressed with County Hall.

I know exactly what the OP means when they speak of the remoteness of their room. I too was stuck in the back once and it indeed a long and lonely walk to the lifts from your room.

What's the appeal? It's a place where the first time visitor to London can get a room with a Thames view and be captivated by the peal of Ben's bell while watching the London Eye go round and round. That aside, the truth is the hotel's location feels rather droll/dingy/remote given Mickey Ds,, the Aquarium, and Dalil Museum and the tourist crowds which flow back and forth. And walking across the Westminster Bridge can be an ordeal as vendors take up space and squeeze crowds into tight queues. Compare this to the excitement of mixing with crowds on Oxford St. or or the theater buzz around Holborn/Shaftsbury that other Marriott properties offer.

Marriott has several nicer category 7s which offer a more rounded guest experience. It is however difficult to be assured of an early arrival room at many London hotels when one arrives in the morning from the States. So CH was not unique in this regard.

Barry

cyberdad

Barry...

Interesting post. I don't at all take issue with you or the others who've been less than thrilled with this place. I personally doubt that I'd stay here....and if I did, there's probably a good chance I wouldn't much care for it either.

I emphasise when I suggest it to first time visitors, that the reason for going here is purely if you want to be in the middle of the tourist stuff....especially if your time in London is limited. I also try to differentiate that the "tourist" experience...while it may be worthwhile and enjoyable...won't give you a real feel for the city....at least as experienced by Londoners and/or those of us who regularly visit the place.

As for the indifferent or distant attitude towards visitors, unfortunately, that sometimes goes with the territory in London. (Then again, Americans aren't always the easiest guests to deal with!) But still, to generalize, I find Londoners to basically be polite hosts. That said, there's definitely more warmth and a more welcoming attitude as one gets farther from the city!

DJ_Iceman

Wow! What a lot of negative reviews are coming out of the woodwork!

My sole personal experience here was last summer. As a plat I paid for a Big Ben view room, and didn't get an upgrade (it was a large room with a tiny window through which you could just barely see the corner of the clock). The executive lounge was pleasant but overcrowded. Other than that, I loved the property! I thought it was elegant, the staff couldn't have been more professional and cheerful (contrary to what many others seem to have experienced), and the location is of course ideal for a first-time London visitor.

As for it being a Cat 7, those ratings are based on supply and demand for a particular property in a particular market. London's expensive to begin with, and the CH is more desirable than most Marriott properties in the city. If you'd pay a lot to stay at a place, it will be a high cat reward.

Volvic

The OP (me) never told he should have deserved a suite. That OP (still me) just desired to have a :

• smooth check in with knowledgeable staff
• a room at a normal distance from the elevators not a two minutes walk each time, each way along aisles used a storage places, with holes in the walls
• a fully working health center, not a worned out sauna, a dirty and smelling steaming room and an out of service jacuzzi
• an executive lounge with a view, not the view of a person sleeping there fully flat on a coach and barefoot guests going back and forth and also a better selection of amenities could have been really appreciated
• a place at an half empty restaurant facing something better than a wall (perhaps I deserved it due to my room rate and EOO voucher)
• and so on, no desire to write once again the review

My stay experience was not up to the expectation of a category seven. The cheapest room of a category seven must have anyway something more, something better of the cheapest room of a lower category property.

My error ? It was not my first time in London so I think (just my idea) I made a mistake picking up this location. If I wanted an executive lounge view I should have gone to the Marriott West India Quay, if I wanted a room view I should have gone... [spoilsporting, not telling you. ]

jerseyfinn

. . . I emphasise when I suggest it to first time visitors, that the reason for going here is purely if you want to be in the middle of the tourist stuff....especially if your time in London is limited. I also try to differentiate that the "tourist" experience...while it may be worthwhile and enjoyable...won't give you a real feel for the city . . .

Cyberdad,

I see your point exactly. CH would indeed be a worthwhile consideration for the first-time visitor to London. In fact, I think someone who is utilizing a hotel certificate or MR points would enjoy their stay at CH and get a good deal -- assuming that they pay the daily supplement for the Thames River view room ( that's what I did the first time I was ever in London ).

As you aptly point out, many folks who go to London with some frequency would probably not put CH on the top of their list because of the hotel's location as the real London is best experienced from other neighborhoods/boros. It's not so much a knock against CH as it is speaking to the true London experience in general.

However, having stayed at several of the London Marriott properties, I do feel that CH imparts an impersonal feel to the guest experience, and the relatively high prices there combine with this diffidence to leave an empty feeling in my mind. Chancery Court, Grosvenor Sq., & Park Lane ( all cat. 7s ) and my favorite cat. 6, Marble Arch, all offer a more rounded experience experience and their staffs are more personable in my experience.

So I would not discourage anyone from going to CH, but I would caution them about expectations and suggest that if one is willing to pay the $$, that the other cat. 7s might offer a more memorable stay.

I'm heading to London in a couple of weeks with my 87 year old father ( his first London visit since WWII ) and I decide to stay at the Marble Arch because of the staff there and the cozy, low key feeling in the bar/lounge. It was tough turning down a chance to stay at Chancery Ct. or Grosvenor Sq., but it's great that Marriott offers so many choices.

Barry

b1513

Right. It wasn't easy to look out the window because it was so small and high. The area didn't appeal to me either with the McDonald's and peanut and trinket vendors, etc. within spitting distance of the hotel. We were lucky one night though, there were fireworks over the Thames which were within perfect view of our window. That was nice.

Bobi

NJUPINTHEAIR

However, because of the above, it is one of the most child-friendly of those in London. Not to mention the London Eye, and the "ghastly" London Dungeion on that side of the River. In addition, it is one of the few with an indoor pool for you and the kiddies.

I disagree, however, that the immediate area is nothing but a tourist trap. Walking along the Thames you will encounter the National Theater Complex, The Tate Modern, the new Globe theater, etc.

Finally, without kids in tow, as has been said before, you try to get a "view" room, or better yet, a balcony room, with a view over the Thames towards Big Ben.

In addition, the Chunnel Train to Paris, leaves from the station closest to the hotel -- the name evades me at the moment.

So, it is not terrible for first or long time visitors to London. You just have to do some research before deciding where you will stay, since Marriott and Hilton have an abundance of properties to choose from ... and the list grows longer every six months!!


Volvic --

I am not that impressed with the property, either, but all this has been discussed endlessly in this forum and on Tripadvisor.com. As I have noted above, you should have done your research, I am sorry to say.

As for many of your complaints, it just seems to me that you actually wanted to have a miserable stay at the property.

After all, the Concierge Lounge is what it is, period. There are some hotels that don't even have them, so to have one is a bonus. Is it better than the Chancery Court? Certainly not, but then you would have known this had you taken the time to do the research. With respect to the sleeping guest, well it may not have been a pretty sight, but it seems that you falult Marriott for allowing a high status guest, or one who has paid alot of $$ for a room on the Concierge Floor to cool her heels .. most likely until her room was ready.

I could have cared less if the physical plant was not spic and span. But you found it
You are just being petty, IMHO.

As for the long walk, well again, that is the physical plant of the place. I found it a long walk, but big deal, honestly, there are more things to worry about than a 2 minute walk to your hotel room. I could understand if you are handicapped or infirm, but it does not appear that you are -- it just seems that you like to complain.

Finally, your complaint about your table in the restaurant. Well, if I am less than satisfied with anything, I do something about it ...... I complain!!!

It seems that many of the things that you list you might have obviated if you had only spoken up....

However, many of the things that you do complain of are quite petty, IMHO.

The newer London properties would appear to be more to your liking, such as the West India Quay, the Chancery Court, the Grosevenor House hotel once it has the JW Marriott moniker on it .... and not beforehand!

Volvic

NJUPINTHEAIR
Could I have done my homework in a better way? Definitively. You are right. Point taken.
I agree that many of the things that I complained of are quite petty, but once again my expectations at a Holiday Inn Express* are quite different from the ones at a Marriott cat.7**.
“Well, if I am less than satisfied with anything, I do something about it ... I complain”. It could be my very poor ability with spoken English, my dress code (or the lack of it) or even my haircut… whatever but anyway this approach does not work for me. Obviously my fault… (one of my many ones).

* ** Based on my own personal and limited experience, I saw the HEX at the bottom of the hotel scale and the Marriott cat. 7 at the highest point.

NJUPINTHEAIR

My apologies as I did not know that English is not your main language, as you write very well. Given that fact, I certainly can understand your hesitancy about raising issues with the management. I forget that although I might be in a foreign country, I generally have no problem communicating (one way or another) because the staff is trained to be fairly fluent in English -- point well taken.

By the way, the Travel Inn on the other side of the County Hall seems to consistently get high ratings. In sum, I just wanted to stress that there is a wealth of information here on FT about almost any imaginable characteristic a London hotel may have, as the community often posts their experiences about these properties.

I wish you the best of luck on your next trip!

allset2travel

- Eurostar station is Waterloo
- Concierge lounge: for a cat 7 hotel, guests should expect and get a "top class" lounge in terms of ambience, service, food and beverages. Otherwise, might as well classify it as an over-priced cat 3.

ohmark

Once again, Marriott categories 1-7 have to do with demand for awards at the property. They do not relate to facilities or services at the property.

As to the lounge, we liked it. No view, but excellent attendants, good breakfast, fine snacks and deserts, and (not seen in stateside properties) table settings at breakfast.

hotelfanatic

ohmark, are you 100% sure this is the case? I have heard room rate dictates the Cat level. Can the Marriott Lurker chime in on this?

NJUPINTHEAIR - Who are u kidding

Sure you are. You are trying to kid the OP. Give me a break.