Your reservation was made through *** on August *, for arrival on August *, On *** website it does state that we do not accept pets but only service dog allowed*** is a third party website in which we have a partnership with, please feel free to contact *** to also
verifyWe also have taken additional measure by including this policy on our registration card and post a sign at the front desk as the agent had informed youThe hotel stays true to the policy as we have to maintain our guest rooms as hypo-allergenic as possibleWe are sorry to hear that you had not read the fine print, however had we known upon chethat you had a pet we would have assist you and finding accommodations nearby that could accommodate you and your pet or perhaps offer other options
Once again I will speak with my superiors and if any refund will be issued I will contact you
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
The business is not understanding the core issue here: there is a distinction between (1) booking directly through [redacted] and (2) first conducting a [redacted] search for pet-friendly hotels. I conducted a [redacted] search for pet friendly hotels on Long Island, which still, to this day, results in the [redacted] listing of the hotel as pet-friendly. The hotel is responsible for all avenues of its marketing and advertising. To this day, it is still possible, as it happened to me, to book a room online being fully assured that the hotel is pet friendly. The hotel must take responsibility for that fact. If a customer goes directly through [redacted], the hotel is not listed as pet friendly. But, if a customer first does a [redacted] search for pet-friendly hotels on Long Island, as I did, the hotel is in fact included in a list of pet-friendly hotels in [redacted]. It is the hotel's responsibility to correct that marketing issue, and the customer should never be unreasonably penalized for following a legitimate online search and booking process. Moreover, the fee is unreasonable. It does not take $300 to clean a room after a pet has visited. The hotel did not spend $300 to clean the room after we left. This fee is inordinately punitive and unjust. I am still requesting a full refund of this unreasonable fee.
[redacted]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
The response from the business is not correct nor is it accurate. When I booked the room on August *, [redacted] listed the hotel as pet friendly. Even today, Aug **, 2014, the hotel still comes up as pet friendly. My search string:
1. In [redacted], I searched for "pet friendly hotels Long Island NY."
2. A link for pet-friendly hotels in [redacted] comes up.
3. I clicked the link and a list of hotels in [redacted]'s pet-friendly list of hotels comes up.
4. [redacted] at [redacted] is listed.
5. I clicked the link for [redacted] at [redacted] and the hotel information and room offerings comes up.
6. The page does not state the hotel is not pet friendly, and it does not mention an outrageous fee of over $300.
These are the steps I followed Aug *, and these are the steps I just followed today, Aug **. The same result comes up. The hotel is included in [redacted]'s list of pet-friendly hotels and there is no statement about its no-pet policy nor any information about its fee. Please see attached files documenting my search results.
As such, I reject the business's response and I want the fee reimbursed in full.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Firstly, we apologize for your frustration. When you checked in you did sign a registration form (attached) that clearly states our pet policy and applicable fee when the policy is violated. We, as a gesture of good faith, did refund half of the fee in the amount of $190.09 and feel that that is more than fair considering the extensive cleaning we have to do to the carpeting and room in order to protect the health of the next occupant.
In regards to [redacted], we are not trying to use them as an excuse. Rather to address your advertising concerns and the fact is that [redacted] clearly states that we only except service dogs.
Again, we apologize if you feel "victimized" or "unfairly targeted" , but we as a bushiness have to make ensure that clean standard are meet to the industry and guest expectations.
Your reservation was made through *** on August *, for arrival on August *, On *** website it does state that we do not accept pets but only service dog allowed*** is a third party website in which we have a partnership with, please feel free to contact *** to also
verifyWe also have taken additional measure by including this policy on our registration card and post a sign at the front desk as the agent had informed youThe hotel stays true to the policy as we have to maintain our guest rooms as hypo-allergenic as possibleWe are sorry to hear that you had not read the fine print, however had we known upon chethat you had a pet we would have assist you and finding accommodations nearby that could accommodate you and your pet or perhaps offer other options
Once again I will speak with my superiors and if any refund will be issued I will contact you
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
The business is not understanding the core issue here: there is a distinction between (1) booking directly through [redacted] and (2) first conducting a [redacted] search for pet-friendly hotels. I conducted a [redacted] search for pet friendly hotels on Long Island, which still, to this day, results in the [redacted] listing of the hotel as pet-friendly. The hotel is responsible for all avenues of its marketing and advertising. To this day, it is still possible, as it happened to me, to book a room online being fully assured that the hotel is pet friendly. The hotel must take responsibility for that fact. If a customer goes directly through [redacted], the hotel is not listed as pet friendly. But, if a customer first does a [redacted] search for pet-friendly hotels on Long Island, as I did, the hotel is in fact included in a list of pet-friendly hotels in [redacted]. It is the hotel's responsibility to correct that marketing issue, and the customer should never be unreasonably penalized for following a legitimate online search and booking process. Moreover, the fee is unreasonable. It does not take $300 to clean a room after a pet has visited. The hotel did not spend $300 to clean the room after we left. This fee is inordinately punitive and unjust. I am still requesting a full refund of this unreasonable fee.
[redacted]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
The response from the business is not correct nor is it accurate. When I booked the room on August *, [redacted] listed the hotel as pet friendly. Even today, Aug **, 2014, the hotel still comes up as pet friendly. My search string:
1. In [redacted], I searched for "pet friendly hotels Long Island NY."
2. A link for pet-friendly hotels in [redacted] comes up.
3. I clicked the link and a list of hotels in [redacted]'s pet-friendly list of hotels comes up.
4. [redacted] at [redacted] is listed.
5. I clicked the link for [redacted] at [redacted] and the hotel information and room offerings comes up.
6. The page does not state the hotel is not pet friendly, and it does not mention an outrageous fee of over $300.
These are the steps I followed Aug *, and these are the steps I just followed today, Aug **. The same result comes up. The hotel is included in [redacted]'s list of pet-friendly hotels and there is no statement about its no-pet policy nor any information about its fee. Please see attached files documenting my search results.
As such, I reject the business's response and I want the fee reimbursed in full.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Firstly, we apologize for your frustration. When you checked in you did sign a registration form (attached) that clearly states our pet policy and applicable fee when the policy is violated. We, as a gesture of good faith, did refund half of the fee in the amount of $190.09 and feel that that is more than fair considering the extensive cleaning we have to do to the carpeting and room in order to protect the health of the next occupant.
In regards to [redacted], we are not trying to use them as an excuse. Rather to address your advertising concerns and the fact is that [redacted] clearly states that we only except service dogs.
Again, we apologize if you feel "victimized" or "unfairly targeted" , but we as a bushiness have to make ensure that clean standard are meet to the industry and guest expectations.