hhoope01

I agree with Joshua. The saying "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.

CaliforniaSun

I've stayed at a few Marriott properties and agree with Joshua's observation. Although, I'm not sure you and Joshua are saying the same thing

The magnitude of the choice is not quite as large as where babies are involved. It's actually a marginal and easy choice: there are more Hilton locations, they're usually more conveniently located, plus service is quite consistent. For a more premium experience there's SPG.

£12.50 for a cup of tea is a bit steep. Communication was not clear. Management had the opportunity to fix the issue and decided not to. Why take a risk with a brand that does not treat its customers fairly?

rylan

I'd have to agree with the OP here... just because they put a small 'notice' doesn't mean its reasonable. What if the notice was only at the entrance to the cafe, would it be ok then?

The waitress should've made it clear it was per person, and with the misunderstanding management could've just charged the 12.50 total instead of x4 out of good will. Instead it shows a money grubbing manager who is more interested in gouging customers for a one time thing than having them come back.

SkiAdcock

Well one take-away from this is for all of us to ask, if we're ever in a situation where they say there's a minimum, to ask if it's per person or per table.

Cheers.

ohmark

I note on tripadvisor that somebody named "Gareth B", identified as the general manager, has replied to some of the reviews. Is he the individual who emailed you denying your refund request?

CaliforniaSun

No, it was the Front Of House Manager who copied the Operations Director.

Just to clarify the refund request: I had written offering to pay for goods consumed matching prices as shown on the menu. I also wrote any excess funds refunded would go to charity.

NJUPINTHEAIR

California Sun best to leave this lie; however, it is a gross overreaction to never patronize Marriott hotels again -- that is just plain childish.

Joshua is spot on, and it does not surprise me -- Why hasn't anyone brought up the point that this is the only London hotel with a lounge that denies Gold members access??

Of course, they don't call it a lounge, but that is what it most assuredly is. Moreover, it is not at all surprising that you had a problem with this specific hotel as they have limited lounge access so that only payees and Platinum members are allowed; consequently, the Manager's refusal to waive this policy in this circumstance is in keeping with their pretentiousness.

It is DYKWIA emanating from a Hotel!!

And, I just don't get it!

They parade around thinking they are so special, while there are many central London Marriott properties that are in good condition, allow lounge access to all Gold members, and to boot, have better locations -- the St. Pancras neighborhood can be charitably called an area in transition -- it is not unsafe, it is just plain ugly and boring right now compared to other London areas.

I would steer clear of this hotel.

PS -- The GM's name is Gareth Banner.

CaliforniaSun

There's always a greater fool.

The minimum charge per person was levied in the cafe in the hotel lobby. Not the executive lounge.

Perhaps it would make sense to start a separate thread on the absolute injustice of only payees and Platinum members being granted lounge access? Happy to do this for you.

clublounger

If the OP's complaint wasn't ridiculous already, well it just became ridiculous.

OP's credibility is now shot IMHO.

NJUPINTHEAIR

Wow!

My point about bringing up the Lounge is that the hotel does not follow Marriott's own rules with respect to lounge access for Gold members so it is hardly surprising that management would deny your request for reimbursement.

I had agreed with your complaint, however, in light of your sarcastic response to my post and your inability to understand its gist, I now feel that you probably displayed a similar attitude to both the server and management and it is hardly surprising that your request was denied.

Now, who is the greater fool.

CaliforniaSun

The part about giving any excess funds returned to charity because it's more interesting to see right than the money itself?

For the avoidance of doubt (how boring), think it would be unfair to conflate NJUPINTHEAIR's experience with the original complaint.

NJUPINTHEAIR

Again you are wrong. I am a Platinum member and would not be affected by their discriminatory rule but I did have occasion to visit the lounge while being given a tour and was not impressed -- it seemed like every other lounge in a major inner city property.

So, I had no negative experience at the St. Pancras, nor was the poster commenting on any alleged experience of mine -- this is all yours, and you have lost yet another member who initially had taken your side in this dispute.

Keep up the good work, no doubt by the end, you will wind up convincing all of us to stay at this particular property.

KenF

I'd suggest a chat to Trading Standards is in order in this case.

IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this practice was legal in the UK in it's stated form, especially if there is not a very prominent notice both in the menus, at the point of entry and on all of the tables. (you might find the Consumer Protection from Unfair trading Practices Regulations 2008 an interesting read), though I'm pretty sure such a practice would have been illegal prior to this (the key issue being that the waitress failed to make the minimum spend requirement clear prior to you agreeing to purchase, GBP 12.50 vs. GBP 12.50 per person is a significant omission!).

Very predatory, and definitely not to be encouraged!

Having said that, if it were me, I would have paid the appropriate charge for the four drinks (made up to 12.50, as you were advised, if necessary) IN CASH and left, should the police be summoned, I very much doubt they would have sided with the Hotel, and I'd doubt that any (criminal) offence would have been committed as long as you paid the displayed menu prices for all that you consumed (I guess they could argue breach of contract, but that's a civil matter).

Oh, and I'd have asked for four glasses of tap water as well

Ken.

Willard the Bear - Next they'll be charging cover charges for bears!

CaliforniaSun

Thanks Ken. The thought of Trading Standards defending the very institution of a fair and reasonably priced cup of tea does bring a smile.

No, there was not a prominent sign nor was the minimum charge mentioned on the menus. The FOHM was rather against the idea of a prominent sign.

We were in the company of clients and had another meeting to get to so it was the right decision at the time.

I decided not to pursue the matter, mentioned in an earlier post, but that's good information.

I disagree with the policy and the particular management decision but I've no view on staying at the hotel itself. As intelligently debated earlier, the choice of whether to stay at a Marriott is marginal when you have the option of staying at a Hilton or SPG hotel. There are more Hilton hotels in convenient locations and SPG hotels are generally nice.

The waitress, while making mistakes, was pleasant and at all times the FOHM and OD were unfailingly polite. A good number of guests rate the hotel highly on TripAdvisor.

I'm sure smart readers will be better informed. I'm indifferent as to whether you, falling into a different category of reader, -- or rather "all of you" as you claim to represent "all of us" -- stay at the hotel.

A glance at your posting history indicates you're a bit of a bruiser and you seem to have a beef with the General Manager at the Saint Pancras Renaissance arising from at one time having been denied lounge access. It seems to have left a deep impression.

NJUPINTHEAIR

Well, not so much of a deep impression as your experience obviously had on you, since I did not feel it necessary, as you did, to cry in T/A and this forum about being charged a measly $20 per person to sit and order something from their lounge service.

By the way, I never stayed there because I knew that when I was a Gold member I would be denied lounge access. Now that I am a Platinum member I have no desire to do so. However, my decision to not patronize the property was due to my making myself aware of their policy, something that you acknowledge you clearly missed despite the terms being spelled out right on your table.

It certainly appears that when the shoe is on the other foot you are blind to its connotations.

By the way, you have violated the F/T TOS.