Refunds from Quickbeds from shocking incident?

ianyelts on 18/04/2014 - 14:27
Last edited 23/04/2014 - 11:14 by 1 other user

Hello.

Has anyone had any luck getting a Refund from Quickbeds.com.au?

We booked a 2 night stay at Pinaroo Leisure Park, Muswellbrook, NSW Hunter Valley and got there at 11am.

The electric room key wouldn't work so we rang the Owner who's husband came out and reprogrammed it. He seemed nice enough and saw we had a small Spoodle dog through the car window, but walked away without saying anything.

At 4am Easter Friday whilst we were sleeping, the Owner's husband woke us up at 4am and told us to leave within 15 minutes, or they would call the Police. Our dog is quiet and housetrained and did not even bark once and it did not say Pets Not Allowed anywhere in the ad.

We paid for two nights via Quickbeds and they refused to give us a refund even for the 2nd night. The Owner conversed with me by phone, and did not even have the guts to face me in person.

The Reviews,which we only read about right now, are just as bad:

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Hotel_Review-g261623-d3836131-…

The issue is obviously going to be with Quickbeds, as we have no direct connection with Pinaroo.

We just want a refund for our $150 for two nights,

Anyone had similar experience, and success in getting a refund from Quickbeds?

Mod: Please see the manager's response to the OP's story.

Travel

Related Stores

Quickbeds
Quickbeds

closed Comments

  • snappy1234 on 18/04/2014 - 14:35
    +36

    So…lets see… did you ask first if pets were allowed ?

  • snappy1234 on 18/04/2014 - 14:37
    +4

    I live with someone who is allergic to many pets…(just so you can see where i am coming from with the line of questions.)

      • p1 ama on 18/04/2014 - 15:44
        +25

        Hold on a second, you're on their property, they can kick you out at whatever time they want, whether that be at 4am on Easter Friday or the middle of a working day.

        Also, it's your own fault you didn't check to see if pets were allowed, that's your responsibility to check and to look in their terms and conditions/rules…etc.

        What you're saying is ridiculous, it's like saying "oh, I missed my flight, so I want a refund for the hotel, all the tickets I bought, all the things I can't do because I missed my flight."

        It's your own fault, make sure you check next time.

        • Diji1 on 21/04/2014 - 18:28
          +2

          Not a lawyer or any kind of expert so could be completely wrong or whatever … but I think the fact that they paid money for the room somewhat negates any private property rights that may be there.

          Fair play on the pets policy though.

      • Moots on 22/04/2014 - 22:31
        +4

        Just saying. Your not normal if you honestly think pets are just allowed to rock up and stay in accommodation.

        The blind leading the blind…

  • fertiliser on 18/04/2014 - 15:48
    +30

    was the pet even the problem? You haven't explained why you got kicked out at all. Something tells me you aren't telling the whole story.

    • gevidian on 18/04/2014 - 15:56
      +6

      Agree there is more to the story. If you have paid for two nights, you are entitled to two nights unless they provide a valid reason. Police are unlikely to step in unless there has been a breach of the law.

      • PcisT on 19/04/2014 - 11:11
        +22

        It doesn't matter how well trained the pet is - you still need to ask for permission first.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 13:55

        My 2 cats don't pee or poo inside, except in their kitty litter, but they DO leave little cat hairs in their favourite sleeping spots.

    • cooldude123 on 18/04/2014 - 19:51
      +11

      I don't think the manager's the idiot in this situation.

      He's fully entitled to run his company as he wishes and you can't blame him for being angry for you having a pet, as you don't seem to have even asked him if pets were allowed.

    • t_c on 18/04/2014 - 20:56
      +21

      I'm really struggling with the timeline here, you say you arrived at 11am, then 4 hours later your awoken at 4am to be evicted?

    • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2014 - 11:39
      +5

      He might have thought you had the sense to not being the dog inside and leave it in the car worth the windows slightly down.

      If you didn't want your dog messing up your car, he didn't want your dog messing up his place.

      I am allergic to cats and dogs. If I started at a place and saw a dog had been in the room, I would cancel and demand an immediate refund. I don't want to stay somewhere where my noise will run, my eyes dry out, and my skin itch.

  • snappy1234 on 18/04/2014 - 16:24
    +16

    Sorry you are calling the manager out for running his business as it should be…you lose sorry.

    Hint- try not to sneak your animal into (paid) accommodation without first checking if pets are OK.

    • gevidian on 18/04/2014 - 18:37
      +6

      I would doubt it. Their disclaimers and limitations of liability are very detailed especially if you breached the "no pets allowed" policy.

      • ianyelts on 18/04/2014 - 19:02

        Where's the limitations and disclaimers?

        Can't find it anywhere on the quickbeds website.

  • imcjb on 18/04/2014 - 17:15
    +16

    A cursory glance on the internet showed that Pinaroo is a "no pets allowed" establishment. That said, there would have to be some serious reason why manager would wake people up at 4am and kick them out because you would think all the commotion would wake other people up around them. Assuming this was the case anyway, have you spoke/contacted quickbeds yet?

    • ianyelts on 18/04/2014 - 19:01
      -3

      I rang Quickbeds at 4am but they were not open.

      I have contacted them by email but no reply yet.

  • sraymond on 18/04/2014 - 19:18
    +6

    You saw the owner looking at the dog and could easily have asked if it was a problem. Once they stated yes it was, you could have cancelled the booking, lost some money and booked elsewhere. You chose not to, so everything after that is on you.

    PS
    I think you should change the title of your post to. "Refunds from Quickbeds from expected incident?"

  • Almost Banned on 18/04/2014 - 19:39
    +31

    Let me see if I understand you correctly…
    you took your dog on holiday with you to rented accomodation without checking to see if the owner was ok with that, and then you feel hard done by when it turns out that the owner does have a problem…???
    Did I just about get that right?
    Can't find much sympathy for your situation. Perhaps next time you might do the obvious and sensible thing of asking about pets BEFORE you turn up at your holiday destination.

  • rambutann on 18/04/2014 - 20:15
    +9

    So brutal people, so brutal.

    There's two sides of the story here.
    Obviously you were in the wrong for not reading the terms and conditions of your stay.
    It was completely wrong of the owner to tell you to get out..
    Going back to the allergy topic, I understand his reasoning behind waking you up at that hour but threatening to get police involved was just stupid. The owner could have handled it a lot better by asking you to remove the dog from the premises and giving you the opportunity to find somewhere to take the dog to for the next night.. or by asking you to simply move your car with the dog in it off the premises.

    As for getting a refund, you could argue that they did not give you the opportunity to rectify the situation for the second night of your stay BUT the likelihood is that they will turn around and say you broke the contract you had. So OP, my suggestion in terms of refunds is give it a shot for the second night.. If they are stupid people that don't know anything about the law you may receive your refund but yeah.

    Good luck!

    • Geewhizz on 20/04/2014 - 07:47
      +16

      Brutal? No. Honest? Yes. We have two small dogs that are well behaved and house trained. There is no way in hell that we'd turn up with them at 'regular' rental accomodation though. That's just plain rude and inconsiderate.

      The reason he was at your door at 4am is probably because he'd been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt in the first place, and had popped around at that time to check whether the dog was actually sleeping in the car or not.

      You're not entitled to a refund. He IS going to have to have the room treated.

      • johnno07 on 20/04/2014 - 08:31
        +8

        Exactly my thoughts. I imagine the cost of one nights accommodation is cheaper than the cost of getting someone out to professionally clean the room. The OP got off lightly.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 13:56
      +1

      Actually rambutann there are 3 sides - ianyelts' side, the hotel owners side, and the truth.

    • Diji1 on 21/04/2014 - 18:32

      "Obviously you were in the wrong for not reading the terms and conditions of your stay."

      OK.

      "It was completely wrong of the owner to tell you to get out.."

      What?

  • tomleonhart on 18/04/2014 - 20:51
    +23

    Shocking incident ? Based on what you wrote, there's nothing shocking about it sorry.

  • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2014 - 22:34
    +3

    Maybe you should just chalk it up to Karma

    You upset the travel gods, so now you pay the price!!

    Tickets please… :)

  • zambuck on 19/04/2014 - 07:50
    +23

    I've noticed that parents and pet owners are sometimes immune to the behaviour of their small loved ones. I live next door to a dog that is capable of barking for hours through the night, with zero action by its owners, but I really think they just don't realise their pet leads a secret life.

    It seems unlikely the owner of the premises spontaneously realised at 4am that a dog was in residence and he should take action.

    You've certainly gotten a harsh reception here, but just chalk it up to experience, and I'd suggest you try an approach of clueless contrition when pursuing a refund. You're not securely on the moral high ground here.

  • zooter on 19/04/2014 - 08:30
    +1

    Did you not ask him for the reason when he asked you to leave at 4 am? Surely you cannot just leave and assume that its because of the pet

    • RockyRaccoon on 19/04/2014 - 10:16
      +8

      The member in penalty box, so I wouldnt expect a reply soon.

    • johnn on 20/04/2014 - 04:45
      +9

      There are a few holes in the story- definitely some crucial info missing.

      Although it's not surprising given this poster has advocated blatant fare evasion by running away from transit officers, and the removal of the police force completely.

      Two and two together really.

      • Diji1 on 21/04/2014 - 18:33

        Hahaha … oh boy.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2014 - 13:28
    +21

    I think you should call today tonight and a current affair immediately. This is just the kind of "shocking" incident that soccer mums and bogans who feel the need to get involved in other people's business love to hear about.

    -Note- this is sarcasm and you do not deserve a refund.

  • arcticmonkey on 19/04/2014 - 18:19
    +7

    I personally would not like to stay in accommodation that could potentially have pet hair, drippings, saliva and god knows what else in there. If I was the owner, I wouldn't want my property exposed to that either or it may upset other guests.

    It is unbelievable that you think you could take a dog onto the premises without asking them first. While the owner obviously didn't have much tact, I don't think you deserve a refund in this instance.

    • NosDan on 19/04/2014 - 18:24
      +9

      that could potentially have pet hair, drippings, saliva and god knows what else in there.

      erm…. you do know what humans often do in hotel rooms, right?

      • infinite on 19/04/2014 - 18:56
        +11

        Vigorously pray…

        • NosDan on 20/04/2014 - 01:10
          +6

          Vigorously pray…

          while there may have been some "missionary" happening… :)

        • bs0 on 20/04/2014 - 13:12

          "Oh God, oh, oh oh, OH GAWD!!"

        • Tal_Shiar on 21/04/2014 - 01:00
          +1

          when I lived in a flat, my bedroom and bed was under a stairwell, you could hear everything, including "oooh, ooooh, ooooh it hurts, but it hurts good!"

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 01:02
          +3

          when I lived in a flat, my bedroom and bed was under a stairwell

          i hate to break it to you… but living under a stairwell does not mean you were living IN a flat…. :)

        • Tal_Shiar on 21/04/2014 - 01:08

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment

          In Australian English, the term flat was traditionally used

  • Quotationz on 19/04/2014 - 23:37
    +3

    LOL!! Sorry but if you're planning to take your dog to a hotel that is the first question you should be asking. And also leave your damn dog at home. Can't stand those annoying pet people that take animals everywhere and feel entitled to everything

      • johnno07 on 20/04/2014 - 08:34
        +16

        Good thing you were never a child,hey? I'm certainly glad my parents never had kids.

        • Tal_Shiar on 21/04/2014 - 01:01

          immaculate conception or the stalk?

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 01:04
          +2

          immaculate conception or the stalk?

          cabbage patch?

        • Diji1 on 21/04/2014 - 18:34

          LOLD

      • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2014 - 11:31

        It all makes sense now.

    • PresidentClinton on 22/04/2014 - 09:00

      You mean like Europeans?

  • joannatan on 20/04/2014 - 00:53

    what is the website of this property, try google this property but found nothing

  • Wallyt99 on 20/04/2014 - 09:11
    +15

    The 'reviews' you refer to are a sum total of ONE bad review.
    Perhaps the owner assumed you would Keep your dog in the car so didn't say anything?
    Seriously - you are frankly an inconsiderate git to think you can just take your dog wherever you please.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2014 - 11:34

      That's what I was going with. Owner probably should have said something at that point… But I don't think he was under any obligation to. Op should definitely not have tried to small his poet in.

      I am guessing it was bothering the owner all night as to whether the visitors were dumb enough to bring their dog inside and so they decided to check on their car at 4am so if the dog was in the car he could just sneak back into bed and stop worrying without the guest being alerted..

      • NosDan on 20/04/2014 - 11:47
        +1

        tried to small his poet in.

        i hate it also when they try and small a poet in :)

        but yea i assume your probably correct. owner was probably doing a walk around to check on the property or something and realised the dog wasnt still in the car and took action. ive taken my dogs on trips with me as well but always made sure i planned pet friendly accommodation. i also get allergies to some type of pet hair so understand why what OP did was so bad/selfish

        • alizzan on 21/04/2014 - 18:35
          -4

          If you're going to make fun of someone's spelling, you might want to make sure your own spelling is correct, first. Especially when some of those mistakes are things I learnt in Grade 2.

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 18:37
          +2

          it wasnt the spelling i was making fun of, just pointing out a funny autocorrect. big difference

  • cloudy on 20/04/2014 - 09:50
    +8

    I see a lot of OP negging, and although I agree fully with most of the comments the OP should have ask or checked if Pete are allowed. Does anyone else find it strange why the owner of the property didn't just tell OP no dogs allowed, I see a dog in ur car, and just friendly and politely front up about the policy.

    Too many people are saying the owner has whatever rights he has since its his property, but some decent customer service goes a long way, and if he cared enough he should have nip the dog problem when he first noticed. Not at some rediculous time in the morning.

    I think OP u will have no luck with a refund, the wrong is solely on you, but you deserve better customer service than you received, so I hope you review will influence people from dealing with poorly managed business. And yes, kicking someone outta the place at 4 am is poor. Especially when there was plenty of other opportunities to do so.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 00:19

      Does anyone else find it strange that the op checked in at midnight? He said he was woken up at 4am, four hours after the owner saw his dog in the car.

      • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 00:54

        four hours after the owner saw his dog in the car.

        maybe your just trolling after claiming you suffer allergies?

        maybe the owner is "ok" with pets as long as they are not inside the rooms? which would stop people like you with allergies (which i also get from some pet hair) from having a problem in the rooms?

        i used to stay regularly (weekly) at a local park that was pet friendly but only in your own accommodation (your own supplied tent/caravan) but you were not aloud to hire there vans/onsite accommodation and have pets inside.

        i mean, my allergies are fairly mild, only hay fever like.. i know of some people who get horrid allergies from any pet hair. id hate to be one of those and be forced to suffer in "no pet" accommodation caus some arse was being selfish

        • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 01:21
          +1

          Nope. I carry eye drops, nasonex and telfast everywhere I go. I have a cat but she can't go in my room and if I pat her, it's sneeze town for an hour.
          I got her before my allergies surfaced and it's not fair to kick her out because of my weakness.
          Holidays are great because I don't have to worry about sneezing.

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 01:27
          +1

          thats a little different. you understand some people can not even breath properly caus of there pet hair allergies? with certain types of pet hair (mostly long hair for me) even the drugs dont help me? and i dont even call my allergies particularly bad.

          either way… im a "pet" sort of person.. i am happy to "suffer" my allergies but i still respect others right not be be inconvenienced by my love of pets.

          edit: more so, why should someone have to carry around $100's worth of anti allergic meds just in case someone else is less considerate?

        • p1 ama on 21/04/2014 - 17:40

          nosdan, please learn to spell.

        • grasstown on 21/04/2014 - 18:10
          +1

          Nosdans spelling is fine. This is an online forum.

        • alizzan on 21/04/2014 - 18:37

          Oh, of course! That excuses it. Wait. What? Why does the forum excuse poor/lazy spelling?

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 18:39
          +1

          for exactly the same reason it would enforce poor/lazy spelling i would assume

        • grasstown on 21/04/2014 - 18:47
          +2

          You write to your audience

        • p1 ama on 21/04/2014 - 21:14
          +2

          When I notice bad grammar and spelling, it's pretty bad.

          "can not even breath properly caus of there pet hair allergies"
          "cannot even breathe properly because of their pet hair allergies"

          "others right not be be inconvenienced by my love of pets"
          "others'", "rights", "to be"

          …etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/04/2014 - 12:43
          +1

          I don't really give a shit, but considering we are talking about a singular right, why would you pluralise it to "rights"?

          E.g. If we are talking about a group of people who share a house, we say the peoples house, not the peoples houses.

        • NosDan on 22/04/2014 - 12:48

          considering we are talking about a singular right, why would you pluralise it to "rights"?

          if you keep the original intended context it becomes clearer to you being correct

          i still respect others right not be be inconvenienced

          aka, i respect their right not to suffer my pets

          I don't really give a s###, but

          i dont really either but i have to question if its not something wrong with them if they cant simply have worked out adequately what ive said regardless of a few spelling, grammar and typo errors?

    • bich.light on 22/04/2014 - 17:21
      -5

      Finally, someone who shares similar sentiments as mine.

      In all honesty, since I've never had a pet I wouldn't really think too much about asking if a pet is allowed or prohibited on certain sites — just lack of experience and allergies. So if I were the OP and only had a pet for a short while, I have a feeling I would've made this mistake.

      Furthermore, I think the assumption that pets are allowed by the OP wasn't as far fetched or as wild as many people here proclaim. If the owner sees a pet and says nothing about it, I too would feel somewhat satisfied that pets are allowed or at least tolerated. But hey, maybe this is simply because I don't have any issues with pets and no experience with them as well.

      The owners should have been more compassionate about the whole situation. I mean really, how would you feel if someone disturbed your sleep, then threatened to call the police on you at 4am in the morning?

      After reading others opinions on the matter of having to specially clean the room, I guess I can see the issue regarding a refund. If OP decides to insist on a refund, the option for the owners would be to bill the cleaning costs to the OP.

      TL;DR:
      - Wrong to kick someone out at 4am with short notice and threats, especially after paying.
      - OP at fault for not properly confirming if pets are allowed (albeit, I have a feeling it was a series of unfortunate misunderstandings and errors of understanding T&C's)
      - Refund should be allowed at expense of bill being charged for 'special' cleaning.

      • NosDan on 22/04/2014 - 17:27
        +2

        thats all well and good, cept your completely wrong.

        This person was told that the dog would have to sleep in their car for the duration of their stay

        just below is the manager from the park giving his side (and much more believable account) of the story. when you stack the 2 stories against each other OP was way out of line in every way possible

        • bich.light on 22/04/2014 - 20:05
          +3

          Interesting, sorry about that. I didn't know the owner actually wrote on here; I had read enough on the way down to this point.

          +1

  • grasstown on 20/04/2014 - 10:17
    +4

    So you selected the 'Pet Friendly' search option on quickbeds site, and picked this establishment from the results, and they kicked you off for having a pet? Strange

  • dd22qq on 20/04/2014 - 12:10
    +6

    Even pets that are extremely well house-trained at home can become unexpectedly nervous/territorial when staying somewhere else, and accidents can and do happen.

    Pet owners simply cannot guarantee that this won't happen, it's always a risk with animals.

  • chaosmaster on 20/04/2014 - 17:12
    +4

    This is a bargain website, not a defraud people website. Follow the rules next time.

  • akula on 20/04/2014 - 17:54
    +4

    Sorry Iamyelts, the TRIBE has spoken…you may now douse your torch and go back to your island.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2014 - 18:09
    +2

    Its not difficult to Google the place and find out whether it allows pets before booking … clearly states on this site "No Pets" .. you took the risk and got busted .. maybe you should of head the accommodation fixed while someone took the dog for a walk !?!?!
    http://turu.com.au/parks/nsw/hunter/pinaroo-leisure-park.asp…

  • Fedora on 20/04/2014 - 22:37
    -4

    Looks like another person got the Up-yours! treatment by the Managers on this Park.

    I personally wouldn't stay there if you killed me!

    "
    Absolutely disgusting treatment! Visitors are treated like second rate citizens! My two little boys & myself visited after 2 hrs of driving and it was 40 degree heat so we went to their pool only to be asked to get out of the pool. We weren't loud the kids were well behaved we only had just walked into the pool area and the Owner comes in and informs us that guests may not use the pool and that myself and my 2 year old and 7 year old had to leave. I actually thought he was making a joke as it was so hot and his request was so bizarre, but he was serious and then started loudly abusing my sister and threatening her and her family of eviction - I was in shock and this man just ranted and raved on and on! I have travelled all over Australia and to other parts of the world and have NEVER been treated like this EVER! Absolutely Appauling!
    "
    http://turu.com.au/parks/nsw/hunter/pinaroo-leisure-park.asp…

    And this one, in German, where the facilities were turned off on these German backpackers and they were forced to make a quick exit! LOL!

    "
    Wij zijn hier 1 nacht gebleven, veel caravans waar werklui overnachten. Wij waren de enige 'echte' kampeer gasten. We kregen een plaats bij een camping keuken. Prima. Helaas kwam de eigenaresse na een half uur melden dat de waterleiding was gesprongen, geen water, douche en toilet dus. Ook geen compensatie. De volgende ochtend heel snel weer vertrokken
    "
    https://plus.google.com/app/basic/117796670629302960849/abou…

    Why do some Accommodation Owners have absolutely no business skills nor customer service abilities???

    • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 00:22
      +5

      Member since April 20, 2014 with 13 comments in a day. I am sure this account is 100% legit.

      • Tal_Shiar on 21/04/2014 - 01:05

        look at thier first deal post too…makes you wonder…

        • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 01:08
          +1

          maybe OP with a new account after getting there original banned. either way ive reported it to the mods who should be able to check the IP history etc

        • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 01:11

          Redacted.

    • joannatan on 21/04/2014 - 14:46
      +5

      Hi Fedora,

      The owner of the park is looking for your sister, can you tell the owner below where is your sister?

    • joannatan on 21/04/2014 - 17:25
      +2

      first of all, you are just the guess and the owner has the right to evict anyone that not the guess to use the property equipment.

      What you have done similar like member of your family stay in the hotel, let said the hotel said free breakfast for 2, then your sister and husband have their breakfast, then you and your kids come and without the permission of the owner of the hotel just have the breakfast as well.

      THE OWNER HAS FULL RIGHT TO EVICT anyone in the property that doesn't comply with the property term and conditions.

      You just remind me with my neighbours that bring their family and friend to our common pools in our complex. If you want have swimming with your kids , please go to public pool, if you feels hot, got inside the cabin or your car and turn on your air conds.

      NO ONE SAID YOU HAVE TO JUMP TO THE POOLS!!!

      Have your parent teach you about manner? Ask the owner if you want to use the item that not belong to you.

      This is my 2 cents for you and your family!!

    • Randxyz123 on 21/04/2014 - 20:51

      That would be Dutch… lol

      Now back to the OP issue. Can you provide more information about what exactly the owner said and how he acted? I think it is really strange that he didn't say anything when he saw the dog in the car. On the other hand I would assume and no offence to the OP but unless it says in the ad "PETS WELCOME!!" then for most hotels/motels pets AREN'T ALLOWED…. I think the owners actions while over the top were well within his/her rights and it will say somewhere in small font that the owners have the right to evict a guest if they believe it is necessary. It would've been NICER for him to wait about 7am and tell you to leave and charge you $60 for cleaning but I don't personally think he did anything unreasonable apart from banging on your door at 4am.

      Anyway OP you don't deserve a refund…

  • AssociatedGlenn2312 @ Quickbeds on 21/04/2014 - 13:36
    +79

    The truth behind this story is that we offer single accom, being that there is only a single bed in each room. We also do not allow pets. This person was told that the dog would have to sleep in their car for the duration of their stay and due to the late hour we would address the second occupant in the morning. He then waited until I left and took the dog into the room….THATS WHY HE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE…

    As for the lady and children being asked to leave the pool… This lady was the sister of one of our tenants. On the day in question we had complaints from other tenants that they could not get near the pool due to the number of people using it..Upon checking I found 17 people in the pool but only 4 were tenants. I then explained to these people that it is park policy that only tenants are permitted to use these facilities.
    I was then subjected to a mouth full of abuse from this lady. The language was disgusting to say the least.
    Some weeks later her sister left the site and the cabin she and family occupied had to be condemned because of the damage they had caused. We are still trying to find them so that we may seek compensation.

    • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 13:39
      +7

      theres always 2 sides to every story :)

      i guess everyone saying there was more to this issue than the OP was coming clean with were all right.

    • joannatan on 21/04/2014 - 14:42
      +12

      hi moderator, could you please release this op from the penalty box, we just want to hear more story from the op :)

    • [Deactivated] on 21/04/2014 - 15:56

      Off topic, but why do you only offer single rooms with single beds… That seems incredibly strange?

      • NosDan on 21/04/2014 - 16:06
        +1

        but why do you only offer single rooms

        .

        is that we offer single accom, being that there is only a single bed in each room.

        i think he meant that the OP rented a single room with a single bed for 2 people? rather than the only accommodation they offer is singles? thats how i read it anyway but its not very clear

      • joannatan on 21/04/2014 - 17:10

        ianyelts was hiring a single room, however he/she didn't disclose the dodgy as the second occupants, that was the owner referring to his previous comment.

    • alizzan on 21/04/2014 - 18:45
      +7

      Interesting to hear the other side. Condolences for the damaged room. It's people like that who are muddying the gene pool and should have tit-for-tat penalties applied back. It also seems calling her a "lady" is a bit of a stretch. Hopefully you find that person's sister and get recompense. Good luck with future tenants, too. Stuff like this must really be the worst part of your job; I don't envy you.

    • tomwood on 22/04/2014 - 04:55
      +1

      Could Gleen2312 be marked as associated please, so it's clear to people scanning through?

    • PresidentClinton on 22/04/2014 - 09:27
      +5

      OP was very sneaky. Fraud and deceit are things we learn not to do as kids but even more important, taking responsibility for it when we do. OP absolutely isn't sorry one bit.

      Calling out OP as self-entitled

    • t_c on 22/04/2014 - 16:09
      -5

      Rather than evicting guests wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to amend your terms and conditions to read that a fumigation fee of say $150 may apply if in violation of the no pets policy?

      • [Deactivated] on 22/04/2014 - 16:52
        +2

        You think the operator should add terms for an infinite amount of circumstances that could arise?

        Alternatively the deceitful (intentional or not) OP could ask a simple question (negating the fact it was single accommodation, not twin).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join