11 ms·

Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

147 points by davepm 12y ago

seanhandley 12y ago
Don't think HN is the place for this.
- coldtea 12y ago
  For the last time, it's a community bookmark site! Whatever the HN community votes up, HN is "the place for it".
  - DanBC 12y ago
    HN has always said that there are two types of interesting i) intense but shallow ii) deep and that intensely shallow topics should be avoided where possible. I'm really bad at this. I comment on too many topics that are intensely interesting when I should just ignore them. (I do however try to upvote all the interesting and technical stuff).
  - mimog 12y ago
    You are thinking of reddit. HN has submission guidelines.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      Which amount to "whatever piques one's intellectual curiocity" and "whatever good hackers like". Apparently this piqued HN users intellectual curiosity and they like it. Besides an intelligent person can have an intelligent discussion about any topic, even Kim Kardassian. And the post is in final analysis about policy, freedom of speech, adapting to the digital age, etc.
      - mimog 12y ago
        >> Which amount to "whatever piques one's intellectual curiocity" and "whatever good hackers like" It only amounts to that if you completely disregard this part: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "
      - dang 12y ago
        While I wish your argument were correct, it's not. The flaw is in the inference voted for → was intellectually interested. A model that appears to fit the data [1] is that multiple kinds of interest drive voting, and intellectual interest is not the most powerful one. This is the weakness of the story-voting mechanism. It is why, on a site that values intellectual interest, the vote signal must pass through other filters, like flagging and moderation. 1. Maybe we can test this someday.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  > Don't think HN is the place for this. Our sentiment analysis algorithm indicated this is a negative comment. You have been charged $100. Thank you for staying at HN. All kidding aside, I'd say that yes, HN should be a place for exposing reprehensible business behaviours such as these. It is even of general "hackerly" interest - like a bad growth hacking technique.
gerry_mander 12y ago
=\ charging for a bad review is not going to increase your good reviews. It's like companies don't think before they pull this type of shit.
- mistakoala 12y ago
  Many of these small hotel and B&B owners run their businesses as a hobby or retirement plan, which often doesn't quite pan out as the passive income scheme they were anticipating. They don't cope with the responsibilities that entail and can't compete with professional hoteliers who understand visitors slightly better, so they end up chasing the bottom end of the market (it's not unusual to see rooms offered for £10/pppn. The lowest I've seen is £7/pppn).
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    Unfortunately this is the truth Most people underestimate the difficulties of a business/customer care, etc
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Basil Fawlty was based on a real hotelier.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      Not only was Basil Fawlty based on a real hotelier, but the hotel is now advertising itself as 'The inspiration for Fawlty Towers.' I discovered this last week when I drove past it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Hotel,_Torquay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Hotel,_Torquay
- nske 12y ago
  I guess when someone has a small business and also happens to be an idiot, chances are slimer that a smarter business partner will point out an idiotic idea, so his idiocity has the chance to shine in all it's glory at every instance.
tonylemesmer 12y ago
How did the proprietors ever think this was going to end well? The "victims" have been given airtime on the national breakfast TV show. Even if it is legal it wont take long for internet justice to ensue. edit: actually, no need for internet justice, already there are 147 x 1 star reviews - the most recent stating "don't go there" and "lacking basic cleanliness"
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Please, won't you tell your friends and loved ones about the Streisand Effect, before it's too late?
DanBC 12y ago
The trip advisor page. http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186332-d554701-Reviews-Broadway_Hotel-Blackpool_Lancashire_England.html http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186332-d554701-Re... There were 147 bad reviews before the story broke and these bad reviews are the majority. I'm curious about the dupe detector not spotting duplicates. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629117 Edit: this link is to the mobile site; one links to .com and the third links to .co.uk
- barking 12y ago
  Clearly the experience has belatedly led to their discovery of trip advisor. Blackpool is a classic example of a seaside resort that's been badly hit by cheap package holidays to the sun. As such you can expect it to be full of hotels hanging on by their fingernails. Also it's known to have lots of social welfare bed and breakfast establishments. You'd need to be living under a rock in England not to know that. If you're just going from A to B and want a stopover you're better off going with one of the chains. I actually like premier Inns. One of the travelodges I stayed in though was as depressing a dump as I've experienced.
  - mistakoala 12y ago
    > Blackpool is a classic example of a seaside resort that's been badly hit by cheap package holidays to the sun. Partly. Other resorts have managed to reinvent themselves, but the perception I have is that our local tourism trade took things for granted, didn't innovate and assumed there'd still be millions of overnight visitors to cash in on. It's a very parochial place and despite all our problems and examples like this popping up periodically, as a town we still seem to maintain a collective belief that it's a great place to live/visit and "everywhere has its problems", with Blackpool just being hard done to.
- andrechile 12y ago
  wow, indeed, very nasty reviews. The Hotel is up for sale: http://www.propertysales.com/Listing/Burlington-Road-West-Blackpool-Lancashire-FY4-1NL http://www.propertysales.com/Listing/Burlington-Road-West-Bl...
mychaelangelo 12y ago
This happened with a New York hotel. They were trying to charge $500 for bad reviews http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/travel/bad-hotel-review-fine-backlash/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/travel/bad-hotel-review-fi... Thank you internet (Yelp, Tripadvisor) for putting them to shame!
- gear54rus 12y ago
  Thought of that case too. Seriously, making a mistake for the first time is one thing, but seeing the shitstorm that ensued after that and repeating it is another.
- adrow 12y ago
  It actually seems to me that they may have copied the idea from that other hotel, the wording is very similar: From the CNN article: "Please know that despite the fact that wedding couples love Hudson and our Inn, your friends and families may not," Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/tripadvisor-couple-bad-hotel-review-charged-blackpool-broadway http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/tripadvisor-c... “Despite the fact that repeat customers and couples love our hotel, your friends and family may not.”
  - insipid 12y ago
    I'm glad someone found this; I was really confused because I recognised the phrasing, and thought "I've read this story... but it was about wedding guests...?"
treerock 12y ago
> The couple have sought a refund via their credit card company. I'm curious how that will play out. It's surprising how well the credit card system seems to work, when it relies so heavily on trust.
aikah 12y ago
I dont understand how this is even legal in Europe.No matter what the contract says.How can this be a legal clause? I dont get it.
- adwf 12y ago
  It probably isn't, but it's in that annoyingly small fee zone where it costs more to take them to court than it does to just accept the fine. I think in this case, they'll probably get the money back from their CC company though.
  - mortov 12y ago
    The hotel made a strategic error so no need for court. Under the UK Consumer Credit Act, when a credit card charge of £100 (or more) is made, the credit card company becomes 'jointly and severally liable'. A charge for a bad review also falls foul of UK Fair Trading legislation which means the couple can pursue the credit card company for the unfair trade breach and reclaim their money that way. Credit card companies don't argue in these cases and refund pretty damn fast (from experience) and just charge-back the business (so they lose the £100 and have additional charge-back fees of around 25% added on top). If the hotel charged £99.99 instead, it would be a very different story and would need the Trading Standards people at the local municipal council to take action. (They already stated they will be regardless of the refund since these are unfair trade practices.) A refund would happen but would take longer and may well need a local county court action.
    - esquivalience 12y ago
      Good observation, thanks
    - pjc50 12y ago
      That breakpoint is a very useful piece of information, thankyou.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    In England they could go through small claims. An online claim for £100 would cost £25 initially and costs can be recovered. https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview They could get free legal advice from Citizen's Advice. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e... But just reclaiming the money via credit card companies is probably easier. I'm curious about why the people leaving one and two star reviews are not also sending reports to trading standards / environmental health. If the public areas are dirty I dread to think what the kitchens are like.
solaris152000 12y ago
I think this is the place I stayed when I went to see Bob Dylan play in Blackpool 2013. It wasn't too bad, Blackpool is a sh*tehole anyway what do you expect. Dylan was great though, best night of my life.
- kornakiewicz 12y ago
  Dylan'play there is no reason for hotel to steal money from your card.
- spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
  It's sad that they did not get that mega Casino - I stayed there a coupel of years ago and 15+ years ago Blockpools decline is shocking. No wonder the political parities no longer hold their conferences (conventions) at the winter gardens.
instakill 12y ago
Some companies go out of their way to beg for negative publicity.
shaurz 12y ago
This just confirms what a terrible, anti-customer attitude they have.
tortos123 12y ago
just absurd... the government should take action on this and the consumer rights. Just close down the hotel and get the managers to the court for scam.
mimog 12y ago
Why is this on hackernews?
- jbrooksuk 12y ago
  Hacker News does contain a lot of general news too, you know? Recently the same thing occurred with a New York Hotel, where they were fining $500 per bad review.
  - mimog 12y ago
    According to the HackerNews guidelines this story would IMHO be in the 'Off-topic' category for submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- coldtea 12y ago
  Because it was posted and the HN community voted it up. Which is pretty much "community bookmarking site 101".
  - mimog 12y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - coldtea 12y ago
      What part of "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." didn't you understand?
      - mimog 12y ago
        This part apparently: "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." But forgive me, I am, unlike you, not the type of person who finds a story about a Hotel manager behaving badly particularly intellectually gratifying.
ivanche 12y ago
How the hotel even knew who left bad review on some site? What stops someone from leaving bad reviews using fake names?
jwm1 12y ago
The BBC is reporting that the hotel has now reversed its policy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525
netcan 12y ago
I think this is an example of contracts being broken, often online but elsewhere too. You can't rent a hotel room without a credit card which helps hotels avoid you running off without paying for minibar peanuts or rock star damage to a room. OTOH, the fact that you can't update your iphone, rent a hotel room or do a lot of other things without agreeing to a "contract" or policy so long that it's impractical to read it, is a clear sign this institution is broken. We need new laws. Not the vague hodgepodge we have now. Policies designed to not be read need to be considered completely invalid. This credit card charge should be treated like any merchant taking a card and then charging £100 more than expected. Fraud, theft, some mild form of racketeering, whatever that falls under. I think the most common abuse of this sort is "out of contract" telecom charges where using 2X the contract number of minutes or data could result in over 10X (often over 100x) the cost of the original contract. I'm not sure how exactly the laws need to work, but there is obvious stretching of the systems well past the point of ridiculous. An iphone privacy policy or a hotel "sign this" agreement is not free actors contracting freely. Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better. If hotels need some sort of escrow, then it should be an escrow.
- binarymax 12y ago
  We live in a culture of liability and a culture of blame. This is a symptom of legal liability running the governments and corporate world. Change the culture and this problem will go away. Not an easy task.
  - netcan 12y ago
    That's definitely a problem too, but I don't think that's the whole reason. I think this is an extrapolation of contracts which are a good thing where appropriate. An agreement between parties, ideally with input from both that everyone understands and agrees to. Now, we make dozens of 10k word (or 100k word) agreements every week that no one understands. It would cost thousands or tens of thousands to understand them. You can't read them all and even if you did, you would find that being the odd one out in this regard left you unable to get a hotel room, phone or read a newspaper. So, we lean on standards, norms, consumer protection laws and to keep us safe from these damned contracts. Common law (or my lay understanding of it) suggests that there is grounds for completely invalidating a "contract" which no one expects any one to read. If either party don't know what they're agreeing to, it's not a contract. I'f you hand me a one page, large font bullet pointed list of things to agree to, that is something you expect me to read. If you hand me a 40 page small print book while I'm standing at a counter with people behind me, it's obvious what is going on.
pearjuice 12y ago
Can a moderator edit the article? The "reveiw" typo is really tickling my OCD when browsing the front page.
- dang 12y ago
  Ouch, I don't know how we missed that. Fixed now.
lmorris84 12y ago
I imagine they could dispute the charge with their credit card provider and put the onus on them to sort it out. Being in a contract doesn't make something legally binding - what if they put "if you leave a bad review we reserve the right to shoot you?"
prof_hobart 12y ago
>John Greenbank, north trading standards area manager, said it was a "novel" way to prevent bad reviews. Or a novel way to get a bad review splashed all over national media. Did the hotel really think this was going to end well?
lordnacho 12y ago
I concur that something needs to be done about these consumer Terms-of-Service type contracts. There's a contract system in place, and it may work fine for people who have the incentive and the resources to look over them (mergers and acquisition deals, house purchases), but a lot of the time the document is very long and written in legalese. How many people are really going to hire a lawyer to read their Apple Store or World of Warcraft terms? Writing a hugely lengthy contract is simply a way to discourage you from reading it, and then pretending that you've agreed to whatever the terms are. I guess there's some help from the legal system - ridiculous clauses are thrown out - but that doesn't address the fact that you are discouraged from reading about relevant information. I think someone must have written a post about how long it would take to just read the everyday ToS type docs that we're presented with. And South Park did an excellent episode about this (The Human CentiPad).
jvc26 12y ago
As an FYI, the fine was scrapped (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525) following an intervention by Trading Standards.
alexbecker 12y ago
This practice is not new, at least not in the US, although it is probably illegal. Ken White at Popehat has written about a number of such cases, for example http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet-nest-into-which-it-could-stick-its-dick-has-sued-marc-randazza/ http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet...
tokenadult 12y ago
On the whole, freedom of contract (a characteristic feature of Anglo-American law since that body of law was located only in England) is a feature rather than a bug. Most of what we do each day in Britain, in the United States, and these days around much of the developed world is regulated by private agreements--that is, contracts--rather than by legislation or administrative regulations. That's a good thing. Parties to contracts can dicker until they reach a mutually agreeable deal, or each party can avoid making the deal at all by doing business with someone else. Contracts have effect in influencing human behavior partly because once in a while a court will enforce a contract against a party trying to weasel out of the contract. But when courts get involved, general constitutional, statutory, and administrative law is brought to bear on the terms of the contract. A court may be very reluctant to enforce a term of a contract that doesn't allow a customer to complain about a company's service. That could be regarded as "against public policy," and public policy can be a judicial ground for NOT enforcing a contract. Moreover, a contract binds its parties, but doesn't bind outsiders who didn't enter into a contract, so a news organization like the BBC can report, "Slimy company attempts to sue its customer for letting consumers know that the company gives bad service," and the contract will not stop that. Parties to form contracts often ask the moon, but the party that drafted the contract language will usually have the terms construed in favor of the OTHER party if the contract is litigated. So I don't worry about this. I look over form contracts as I sign them (as, for example, when I buy an airline ticket or check into a hotel or rent a car) but I also stay aware of actual business practice as experienced by consumers as I buy products and services as a consumer. My most powerful recourse, always, is not to give a slimy company any repeat business, and to tell all my friends through every channel I have that I did (or did not) like a particular company's product or service. Anyone can do the same. AFTER EDIT: By the way, this is an international news story that I heard on the radio while I was just on a morning drive here in Minnesota, and the latest update is that the hotel has agreed to refund the "fine." I'm trying to find a news story on the Web that verifies that. http://www.itv.com/news/border/story/2014-11-19/hotel-fines-guests-to-be-refunded-for-bad-review/ http://www.itv.com/news/border/story/2014-11-19/hotel-fines-...
- gadders 12y ago
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 verifies it.
jbb555 12y ago
By reading this comment, you agree to pay me £100 if you downvote it. :P (worth a try)

147 points by davepm 12y ago

seanhandley 12y ago

Don't think HN is the place for this.

coldtea 12y ago
For the last time, it's a community bookmark site! Whatever the HN community votes up, HN is "the place for it".
- DanBC 12y ago
  HN has always said that there are two types of interesting i) intense but shallow ii) deep and that intensely shallow topics should be avoided where possible. I'm really bad at this. I comment on too many topics that are intensely interesting when I should just ignore them. (I do however try to upvote all the interesting and technical stuff).
- mimog 12y ago
  You are thinking of reddit. HN has submission guidelines.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Which amount to "whatever piques one's intellectual curiocity" and "whatever good hackers like". Apparently this piqued HN users intellectual curiosity and they like it. Besides an intelligent person can have an intelligent discussion about any topic, even Kim Kardassian. And the post is in final analysis about policy, freedom of speech, adapting to the digital age, etc.
    - mimog 12y ago
      >> Which amount to "whatever piques one's intellectual curiocity" and "whatever good hackers like" It only amounts to that if you completely disregard this part: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "
    - dang 12y ago
      While I wish your argument were correct, it's not. The flaw is in the inference voted for → was intellectually interested. A model that appears to fit the data [1] is that multiple kinds of interest drive voting, and intellectual interest is not the most powerful one. This is the weakness of the story-voting mechanism. It is why, on a site that values intellectual interest, the vote signal must pass through other filters, like flagging and moderation. 1. Maybe we can test this someday.
yourad_io 12y ago
> Don't think HN is the place for this. Our sentiment analysis algorithm indicated this is a negative comment. You have been charged $100. Thank you for staying at HN. All kidding aside, I'd say that yes, HN should be a place for exposing reprehensible business behaviours such as these. It is even of general "hackerly" interest - like a bad growth hacking technique.

gerry_mander 12y ago

=\ charging for a bad review is not going to increase your good reviews. It's like companies don't think before they pull this type of shit.

mistakoala 12y ago
Many of these small hotel and B&B owners run their businesses as a hobby or retirement plan, which often doesn't quite pan out as the passive income scheme they were anticipating. They don't cope with the responsibilities that entail and can't compete with professional hoteliers who understand visitors slightly better, so they end up chasing the bottom end of the market (it's not unusual to see rooms offered for £10/pppn. The lowest I've seen is £7/pppn).
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Unfortunately this is the truth Most people underestimate the difficulties of a business/customer care, etc
- pjc50 12y ago
  Basil Fawlty was based on a real hotelier.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    Not only was Basil Fawlty based on a real hotelier, but the hotel is now advertising itself as 'The inspiration for Fawlty Towers.' I discovered this last week when I drove past it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Hotel,_Torquay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Hotel,_Torquay
nske 12y ago
I guess when someone has a small business and also happens to be an idiot, chances are slimer that a smarter business partner will point out an idiotic idea, so his idiocity has the chance to shine in all it's glory at every instance.

tonylemesmer 12y ago

How did the proprietors ever think this was going to end well? The "victims" have been given airtime on the national breakfast TV show. Even if it is legal it wont take long for internet justice to ensue. edit: actually, no need for internet justice, already there are 147 x 1 star reviews - the most recent stating "don't go there" and "lacking basic cleanliness"

spacemanmatt 12y ago
Please, won't you tell your friends and loved ones about the Streisand Effect, before it's too late?

DanBC 12y ago

The trip advisor page. http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186332-d554701-Reviews-Broadway_Hotel-Blackpool_Lancashire_England.html http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186332-d554701-Re... There were 147 bad reviews before the story broke and these bad reviews are the majority. I'm curious about the dupe detector not spotting duplicates. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8629117 Edit: this link is to the mobile site; one links to .com and the third links to .co.uk

barking 12y ago
Clearly the experience has belatedly led to their discovery of trip advisor. Blackpool is a classic example of a seaside resort that's been badly hit by cheap package holidays to the sun. As such you can expect it to be full of hotels hanging on by their fingernails. Also it's known to have lots of social welfare bed and breakfast establishments. You'd need to be living under a rock in England not to know that. If you're just going from A to B and want a stopover you're better off going with one of the chains. I actually like premier Inns. One of the travelodges I stayed in though was as depressing a dump as I've experienced.
- mistakoala 12y ago
  > Blackpool is a classic example of a seaside resort that's been badly hit by cheap package holidays to the sun. Partly. Other resorts have managed to reinvent themselves, but the perception I have is that our local tourism trade took things for granted, didn't innovate and assumed there'd still be millions of overnight visitors to cash in on. It's a very parochial place and despite all our problems and examples like this popping up periodically, as a town we still seem to maintain a collective belief that it's a great place to live/visit and "everywhere has its problems", with Blackpool just being hard done to.
andrechile 12y ago
wow, indeed, very nasty reviews. The Hotel is up for sale: http://www.propertysales.com/Listing/Burlington-Road-West-Blackpool-Lancashire-FY4-1NL http://www.propertysales.com/Listing/Burlington-Road-West-Bl...

mychaelangelo 12y ago

This happened with a New York hotel. They were trying to charge $500 for bad reviews http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/travel/bad-hotel-review-fine-backlash/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/travel/bad-hotel-review-fi... Thank you internet (Yelp, Tripadvisor) for putting them to shame!

gear54rus 12y ago
Thought of that case too. Seriously, making a mistake for the first time is one thing, but seeing the shitstorm that ensued after that and repeating it is another.
adrow 12y ago
It actually seems to me that they may have copied the idea from that other hotel, the wording is very similar: From the CNN article: "Please know that despite the fact that wedding couples love Hudson and our Inn, your friends and families may not," Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/tripadvisor-couple-bad-hotel-review-charged-blackpool-broadway http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/tripadvisor-c... “Despite the fact that repeat customers and couples love our hotel, your friends and family may not.”
- insipid 12y ago
  I'm glad someone found this; I was really confused because I recognised the phrasing, and thought "I've read this story... but it was about wedding guests...?"

treerock 12y ago

> The couple have sought a refund via their credit card company. I'm curious how that will play out. It's surprising how well the credit card system seems to work, when it relies so heavily on trust.

aikah 12y ago

I dont understand how this is even legal in Europe.No matter what the contract says.How can this be a legal clause? I dont get it.

adwf 12y ago
It probably isn't, but it's in that annoyingly small fee zone where it costs more to take them to court than it does to just accept the fine. I think in this case, they'll probably get the money back from their CC company though.
- mortov 12y ago
  The hotel made a strategic error so no need for court. Under the UK Consumer Credit Act, when a credit card charge of £100 (or more) is made, the credit card company becomes 'jointly and severally liable'. A charge for a bad review also falls foul of UK Fair Trading legislation which means the couple can pursue the credit card company for the unfair trade breach and reclaim their money that way. Credit card companies don't argue in these cases and refund pretty damn fast (from experience) and just charge-back the business (so they lose the £100 and have additional charge-back fees of around 25% added on top). If the hotel charged £99.99 instead, it would be a very different story and would need the Trading Standards people at the local municipal council to take action. (They already stated they will be regardless of the refund since these are unfair trade practices.) A refund would happen but would take longer and may well need a local county court action.
  - esquivalience 12y ago
    Good observation, thanks
  - pjc50 12y ago
    That breakpoint is a very useful piece of information, thankyou.
- DanBC 12y ago
  In England they could go through small claims. An online claim for £100 would cost £25 initially and costs can be recovered. https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview They could get free legal advice from Citizen's Advice. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e... But just reclaiming the money via credit card companies is probably easier. I'm curious about why the people leaving one and two star reviews are not also sending reports to trading standards / environmental health. If the public areas are dirty I dread to think what the kitchens are like.

solaris152000 12y ago

I think this is the place I stayed when I went to see Bob Dylan play in Blackpool 2013. It wasn't too bad, Blackpool is a sh*tehole anyway what do you expect. Dylan was great though, best night of my life.

kornakiewicz 12y ago
Dylan'play there is no reason for hotel to steal money from your card.
spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
It's sad that they did not get that mega Casino - I stayed there a coupel of years ago and 15+ years ago Blockpools decline is shocking. No wonder the political parities no longer hold their conferences (conventions) at the winter gardens.

instakill 12y ago

Some companies go out of their way to beg for negative publicity.

shaurz 12y ago

This just confirms what a terrible, anti-customer attitude they have.

tortos123 12y ago

just absurd... the government should take action on this and the consumer rights. Just close down the hotel and get the managers to the court for scam.

mimog 12y ago

Why is this on hackernews?

jbrooksuk 12y ago
Hacker News does contain a lot of general news too, you know? Recently the same thing occurred with a New York Hotel, where they were fining $500 per bad review.
- mimog 12y ago
  According to the HackerNews guidelines this story would IMHO be in the 'Off-topic' category for submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
coldtea 12y ago
Because it was posted and the HN community voted it up. Which is pretty much "community bookmarking site 101".
- mimog 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - coldtea 12y ago
    What part of "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." didn't you understand?
    - mimog 12y ago
      This part apparently: "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." But forgive me, I am, unlike you, not the type of person who finds a story about a Hotel manager behaving badly particularly intellectually gratifying.

ivanche 12y ago

How the hotel even knew who left bad review on some site? What stops someone from leaving bad reviews using fake names?

jwm1 12y ago

The BBC is reporting that the hotel has now reversed its policy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525

netcan 12y ago

I think this is an example of contracts being broken, often online but elsewhere too. You can't rent a hotel room without a credit card which helps hotels avoid you running off without paying for minibar peanuts or rock star damage to a room. OTOH, the fact that you can't update your iphone, rent a hotel room or do a lot of other things without agreeing to a "contract" or policy so long that it's impractical to read it, is a clear sign this institution is broken. We need new laws. Not the vague hodgepodge we have now. Policies designed to not be read need to be considered completely invalid. This credit card charge should be treated like any merchant taking a card and then charging £100 more than expected. Fraud, theft, some mild form of racketeering, whatever that falls under. I think the most common abuse of this sort is "out of contract" telecom charges where using 2X the contract number of minutes or data could result in over 10X (often over 100x) the cost of the original contract. I'm not sure how exactly the laws need to work, but there is obvious stretching of the systems well past the point of ridiculous. An iphone privacy policy or a hotel "sign this" agreement is not free actors contracting freely. Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better. If hotels need some sort of escrow, then it should be an escrow.

binarymax 12y ago
We live in a culture of liability and a culture of blame. This is a symptom of legal liability running the governments and corporate world. Change the culture and this problem will go away. Not an easy task.
- netcan 12y ago
  That's definitely a problem too, but I don't think that's the whole reason. I think this is an extrapolation of contracts which are a good thing where appropriate. An agreement between parties, ideally with input from both that everyone understands and agrees to. Now, we make dozens of 10k word (or 100k word) agreements every week that no one understands. It would cost thousands or tens of thousands to understand them. You can't read them all and even if you did, you would find that being the odd one out in this regard left you unable to get a hotel room, phone or read a newspaper. So, we lean on standards, norms, consumer protection laws and to keep us safe from these damned contracts. Common law (or my lay understanding of it) suggests that there is grounds for completely invalidating a "contract" which no one expects any one to read. If either party don't know what they're agreeing to, it's not a contract. I'f you hand me a one page, large font bullet pointed list of things to agree to, that is something you expect me to read. If you hand me a 40 page small print book while I'm standing at a counter with people behind me, it's obvious what is going on.

pearjuice 12y ago

Can a moderator edit the article? The "reveiw" typo is really tickling my OCD when browsing the front page.

dang 12y ago
Ouch, I don't know how we missed that. Fixed now.

lmorris84 12y ago

I imagine they could dispute the charge with their credit card provider and put the onus on them to sort it out. Being in a contract doesn't make something legally binding - what if they put "if you leave a bad review we reserve the right to shoot you?"

prof_hobart 12y ago

>John Greenbank, north trading standards area manager, said it was a "novel" way to prevent bad reviews. Or a novel way to get a bad review splashed all over national media. Did the hotel really think this was going to end well?

lordnacho 12y ago

I concur that something needs to be done about these consumer Terms-of-Service type contracts. There's a contract system in place, and it may work fine for people who have the incentive and the resources to look over them (mergers and acquisition deals, house purchases), but a lot of the time the document is very long and written in legalese. How many people are really going to hire a lawyer to read their Apple Store or World of Warcraft terms? Writing a hugely lengthy contract is simply a way to discourage you from reading it, and then pretending that you've agreed to whatever the terms are. I guess there's some help from the legal system - ridiculous clauses are thrown out - but that doesn't address the fact that you are discouraged from reading about relevant information. I think someone must have written a post about how long it would take to just read the everyday ToS type docs that we're presented with. And South Park did an excellent episode about this (The Human CentiPad).

jvc26 12y ago

As an FYI, the fine was scrapped (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525) following an intervention by Trading Standards.

alexbecker 12y ago

This practice is not new, at least not in the US, although it is probably illegal. Ken White at Popehat has written about a number of such cases, for example http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet-nest-into-which-it-could-stick-its-dick-has-sued-marc-randazza/ http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet...

tokenadult 12y ago

On the whole, freedom of contract (a characteristic feature of Anglo-American law since that body of law was located only in England) is a feature rather than a bug. Most of what we do each day in Britain, in the United States, and these days around much of the developed world is regulated by private agreements--that is, contracts--rather than by legislation or administrative regulations. That's a good thing. Parties to contracts can dicker until they reach a mutually agreeable deal, or each party can avoid making the deal at all by doing business with someone else. Contracts have effect in influencing human behavior partly because once in a while a court will enforce a contract against a party trying to weasel out of the contract. But when courts get involved, general constitutional, statutory, and administrative law is brought to bear on the terms of the contract. A court may be very reluctant to enforce a term of a contract that doesn't allow a customer to complain about a company's service. That could be regarded as "against public policy," and public policy can be a judicial ground for NOT enforcing a contract. Moreover, a contract binds its parties, but doesn't bind outsiders who didn't enter into a contract, so a news organization like the BBC can report, "Slimy company attempts to sue its customer for letting consumers know that the company gives bad service," and the contract will not stop that. Parties to form contracts often ask the moon, but the party that drafted the contract language will usually have the terms construed in favor of the OTHER party if the contract is litigated. So I don't worry about this. I look over form contracts as I sign them (as, for example, when I buy an airline ticket or check into a hotel or rent a car) but I also stay aware of actual business practice as experienced by consumers as I buy products and services as a consumer. My most powerful recourse, always, is not to give a slimy company any repeat business, and to tell all my friends through every channel I have that I did (or did not) like a particular company's product or service. Anyone can do the same. AFTER EDIT: By the way, this is an international news story that I heard on the radio while I was just on a morning drive here in Minnesota, and the latest update is that the hotel has agreed to refund the "fine." I'm trying to find a news story on the Web that verifies that. http://www.itv.com/news/border/story/2014-11-19/hotel-fines-guests-to-be-refunded-for-bad-review/ http://www.itv.com/news/border/story/2014-11-19/hotel-fines-...

gadders 12y ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30111525 verifies it.

jbb555 12y ago

By reading this comment, you agree to pay me £100 if you downvote it. :P (worth a try)