Hilton Birmingham Metropole charging for pool

[shanghaiguizi]

Back in the UK for a couple of weeks and happened to be booked in here for a week next week.

Read about the pool charge so reached out to them to see what could be done. I was on 99 nights so far, and explained I didn’t even intend on using the pool, but disagreed on principle. If I wanted pay as you go I’d stay at an Easy Hotel. If you can’t afford to operate a swimming pool either rebrand to a cheaper brand where there’s no expectation of a swimming pool, or increase your room rates to cover the operating expenses. Seems to me this is an effort to offer less whilst charging more.

Hotel drone responded basically saying tough luck. Gave a sob story about trying to ensure the pool is available in future. I complained to guest services who said they weren’t aware and opened a case. They escalated to hotel management who responded…..by copy pasting the original drone’s email verbatim. I know it was copied because there was a paragraph about working at X, Y, Z hotels filling in their pools and converting to gyms.

Guest services said there’s nothing they can do because it’s a franchise. They did offer me a voucher for a free night at any Hilton branded property as a gesture of goodwill. The lady I talked to said it would take up to 40 days to arrive by post. I’ll wait to see if it does show up.

In the end I cancelled and rebooked at a Delta by Marriott a little further south.

The hotel had also inadvertently responded to me by forwarding another guest’s email chain involving a bag that had been stolen from his room. I’d say based on the email chain I probably dodged a bullet by cancelling the stay. The hotel also mentioned their sister property is the London Hilton Metropole, so will be avoiding that property too in future.

[shanghaiguizi]

From a business traveler perspective I don’t care how much the room rate is. I do care about not potentially having £100 of pool charges itemised on my expense report. I don’t care if the hotel adds £50 a night to cover the pool costs. As long as it’s all built into the room rate. To start nickel and diming indicates to me the hotel fundamentally misunderstand the average business traveler demographic.

JDB wrote:

This cuts both ways as the majority of guests probably don’t use the pool and shouldn’t really be asked to subsidise what is a very specific and hugely costly amenity to provide. Also, by effectively rationing the use of the pool by price and limiting time, the hotel is probably creating a far better experience for those who are serious about using the pool.

[Peter K]

Did you contact the hotel about the data breach in the email they sent you?

[shanghaiguizi]

Did indeed. Got the “we apologise and have talked to the relevant employees. Please delete the email” response.

What could have been a friendly 30 second interaction if they’d simply said whilst we need to charge for the pool to ensure its survival, as you’re diamond member with an expense card and as you already said you have no intention of using the pool, we’ll let you use the pool for free once during the week if you wish – turned into them losing the week long reservation, 3 other colleagues not making a reservation, losing a team dinner for >10 people, and potentially breached GDPR. But hey, at least they can still charge for the pool 😂

Peter K wrote:

Did you contact the hotel about the data breach in the email they sent you?

[Grant]

Whilst I agree with the wider point, I’m puzzled as to why you thought that an appropriate attempt at service recovery would have been to offer a guest free use of the hotel pool when that guest has already said that they have no itention of using the pool.

[Aston100]

I think you should report the hotel data breach to the ICO.
https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

[JDB]

Aston100 wrote:

I think you should report the hotel data breach to the ICO.
https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

Does what was reported by the OP actually constitute a data breach under the terms of DPA 2018? Even if it were, what would be the point of reporting it other than to be vexatious? The hotel almost certainly wouldn’t even be contacted by the ICO in response to such a trivial complaint.

[shanghaiguizi]

I leave at 7 am and regularly get back to the hotel after 8pm. I have no intention of using the pool because I don’t expect to have time to use the pool. However, if I do happen to finish work early one day I’d like the freedom to relax by the pool if I so choose without getting bent over for the privilege.

As others have said in this thread, a better solution would have been to simply restrict guests to an hour for free, or offered it as an optional member benefit at check in.

It has already been pointed out in this thread but it’s a slippery slope and, like the resort fees, imo one that needs to be firmly stamped out. Probably need to say that of course I mean at brands where there is an expectation of a swimming pool. If there’s a HIX or garden inn that happens to be next to a third party gym with a pool I’d have no problem paying to use the pool, because there’s no expectation from me that a pool would be available at that price point/brand.

To the person above that said it goes both ways and why should a non pool user have to subsidise the pool users, that’s why we stay at certain hotel brands and not at others. The hotel should set the room rates at a point where all the hotel’s facilities are covered. If you can’t compete at that price point fill the pool in and rebrand as a garden inn.

Hilton, IHG, Marriott etc should be cracking down on the franchisees that are trying to offer less but charge more, since it’s their brand image that’s ultimately damaged.

Grant wrote:

Whilst I agree with the wider point, I’m puzzled as to why you thought that an appropriate attempt at service recovery would have been to offer a guest free use of the hotel pool when that guest has already said that they have no intention of using the pool.

[JDB]

@shanghaiguizi – the other purpose of the hotel charging for the pool facility is to ration use; you will find they get more complaints re overcrowding when it’s free vs complaints about the imposition of charges. The user pays model for select services used by a very small % of guests seems very fair.

On your more general note about the big brands, cracking down on franchisees, that’s just not going to happen – yet. There is a massive growth/land grab phase at the moment and they are all prioritising hotel acquisition and often watering down requirements to persuade owners to join them/stay with them. There are lots of good owners who play the game, look after loyalty card guests and adopt/maintain brand standards but plenty who really don’t care, knowing there is no sanction or enforcement. This will get much worse until growth slows when they will need properly to manage the existing estate. In the meantime, many guests will have increasingly poor experiences in many branded hotels as the buildings and service deteriorate.

[brian]

The Brighton Metropole system is a lot better if the primary aim of the charge is to limit usage and avoid overcrowding. There you need to prebook a slot to guarantee entry.

[shanghaiguizi]

brian wrote:

The Brighton Metropole system is a lot better if the primary aim of the charge is to limit usage and avoid overcrowding. There you need to prebook a slot to guarantee entry.

Just book a slot, or pay and book a slot?

If the former then fair enough. If the latter it’s one more to move into the ‘never visit’ bucket.

Two weeks in the U.K. after being gone for 3 years and it’s the first time I’m experiencing this. In Asia I’ve never heard of a mid-tier hotel charging for the pool. Closest I’ve come is doubletree Seoul where you need to book in advance to get in the pool on the roof. No charge though so it’s totally fine.

Before I moved to Asia I’d only ever experienced a charge for the pool at one hotel in all of the U.K. and that was at the intercon millennium dome, and I guessed it was because the pool was tiny for the size of hotel.

Crazy to think mid-tier hotels in the U.K. have started to gouge people like this. Reason #10,891 I’m thankful I managed to permanently leave the U.K.

[brian]

shanghaiguizi wrote:

brian wrote:

The Brighton Metropole system is a lot better if the primary aim of the charge is to limit usage and avoid overcrowding. There you need to prebook a slot to guarantee entry.

Just book a slot, or pay and book a slot?

If the former then fair enough. If the latter it’s one more to move into the ‘never visit’ bucket.

Two weeks in the U.K. after being gone for 3 years and it’s the first time I’m experiencing this. In Asia I’ve never heard of a mid-tier hotel charging for the pool. Closest I’ve come is doubletree Seoul where you need to book in advance to get in the pool on the roof. No charge though so it’s totally fine.

Before I moved to Asia I’d only ever experienced a charge for the pool at one hotel in all of the U.K. and that was at the intercon millennium dome, and I guessed it was because the pool was tiny for the size of hotel.

Crazy to think mid-tier hotels in the U.K. have started to gouge people like this. Reason #10,891 I’m thankful I managed to permanently leave the U.K.

Prebook only. No additional fee for hotel guests. The pool/spa facilities are also open to the public for a fee so they are just trying to prevent over crowding. I found it worked well but others seem unhappy that they need to book a slot in advance.

[hugol0ver]

Birmingham Met isn’t franchised, its a managed hotel owned by Henderson Park, just like London Met which is itself also managed.

[mp1]

Quick update on this as I’m currently staying here once again with family.
At check in I was advised during the summer families are allowed to use the pool for free during their stay. Other guests will be charged £10 for 90 minutes.

[The Savage Squirrel]

mp1 wrote:

Quick update on this as I’m currently staying here once again with family.
At check in I was advised during the summer families are allowed to use the pool for free during their stay. Other guests will be charged £10 for 90 minutes.

Even as the owner of a family, so presumably benefitting frm that rule, that seems unfair and the annoyance likely generated would seem to outweigh the benefit.