As citizens cannot travel abroad due to the epidemic, the ‘staycation’ trend has been on the rise, where people vacation at local hotels instead. While a broad range of hotel promotions were found in the market to attract customers, the Consumer Council received more complaints about staycation arrangements. For instance, some consumers discovered that the advertised ‘panoramic sea view’ from their room did not match the promotional images on the hotel website with the sea view blocked by the neighbouring office buildings. Some travel websites displayed 2 different accommodation plans under the same title, which misled consumers into thinking that they would enjoy dining offers by purchasing either plan. Besides, as pet-friendly hotels have become more popular, consumers should be mindful of the differences between traditional hotels and pet-friendly hotels in terms of accommodation arrangements, price, as well as terms and conditions.
As staycation promotions may vary greatly, the Council reminds consumers not to rush into making bookings merely because of low prices or big discounts. Since the information on hotel booking sites may be imprecise or incomplete, consumers should phone the hotel or online booking platforms for enquiries and confirmation of the details whenever they are in doubt or making specific requests. By doing so, consumers can avoid disappointment and misunderstandings which may upset their mood and possibly bring unnecessary losses.
Case 1: Top-Storey Sea View Suite Booked on Official Website Turned Out to Be Blocked by Buildings
The complainant booked the most expensive top-storey sea view suite in Hotel A to celebrate an anniversary. She made a booking on the official website of Hotel A and paid $2,838 after reviewing the images and details of the suite a number of times and was happy with the facilities and the view. The confirmation document she received afterwards also came with identical images of the panoramic sea view. However, after checking-in at the hotel, the complainant discovered that the sea view from the living room was partially blocked by two buildings, while the bedroom window faced the rooftop of a commercial building. The complainant thus made an enquiry with Hotel A’s front desk staff and was told that she was allocated 1 of the 4 top-storey sea view suites in the hotel, and that the promotional images on their website were taken from another suite which was already occupied. Therefore, the staff was unable to move her into her preferred suite, claiming that the views from these suites were not essentially different.
The complainant said that she was unaware of the number of top-storey sea view suites in Hotel A but she had double-checked the information on the hotel’s website when she made the booking. She opined that the view from her suite should be identical to the images on the website and that Hotel A treated consumers unfairly by omitting to remark that the images were for reference only. After the Council’s conciliation, Hotel A replied that they had already offered the complainant a 50% refund. The case was thus settled.
Case 2: Pet-friendly Hotel Accepted Pet Dogs Only; Extra Costs Incurred When Staying with Other Pets
After learning that Hotel B allowed pets to stay with customers, the complainant decided to make a booking with her cat for a $1,299 package. However, upon checking-in at the hotel, the complainant was informed that only dogs were allowed, and her cat might have to return in order to complete the check-in. The complainant was displeased with the suggestion and claimed that she was not aware of Hotel B’s no-cat policy when she made the booking. After repeated negotiations, she eventually completed her check-in. However, when the complainant checked out the following day, she discovered a $500 miscellaneous charge on her bill. The staff explained that the extra charge was for cleaning after her cat stayed at their hotel. The complainant opined that the extra charge was a fine in disguise and that Hotel B imposed it on her without legitimate reasons. She felt disappointed and asked the Council to negotiate for a refund.
According to Hotel B’s written reply, the hotel staff clearly reminded the complainant that only dogs were allowed at the hotel when she attempted to check in with her cat. Despite the staff’s request for the complainant to leave with her cat, she and her cat still carried on their activity inside the hotel. Hotel B also produced the Pet-Acceptance Agreement, which indicated that the hotel could charge guests extra cleaning costs under exceptional circumstances. Hotel B insisted that they had already explained on their website that they accepted dogs only, and that they had charged the complainant an extra $500 for cleaning because of this. The Council delivered Hotel B’s reply to the complainant and suggested that she consider seeking independent legal advice before deciding on further actions.
Case 3: Travel Website Included 2 Different Accommodation Plans within the Same Title; Imprecise Information Mistaken for Inclusive Dining Offers
While the complainant was browsing through the hotel offers on Travel Website C’s mobile app, he was attracted by an offer titled ‘Top-Storey Sea View Package/Leisure Package with $1,400 Dining Offer’. The complainant then made an online payment on the website for a ‘Top-Storey Sea View Package’ for 1 night. When he was checking in at the hotel, the staff informed the complainant that the $1,400 dining offer was only applicable to the ‘Leisure Package’ while the ‘Top-Storey Sea View Package’ was not entitled to the same offer.
The complainant read his reservation confirmation again and discovered that the dining offer was indeed not mentioned in it. According to the information on Travel Website C, ‘Top Storey Sea View Package/Leisure Package with $1,400 Dining Offer’ was featured on both the product titles and the names on the reservation confirmation. The complainant found it confusing to mention 2 different accommodation plans within the same title. Although he had no intent to claim compensation, he requested the Council to relay his complaint to Travel Website C and remind the website to improve.
Travel Website C replied that they had already used the slash symbol (/) to separate the 2 accommodation plans. They had also clearly indicated the contents of each plan on the online payment page after customers had chosen a plan. The Council recommended that Travel Website C improve the way they delivered information to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.
When selecting hotel staycation packages, consumers should refer to the information on the official websites as well as the ratings on different websites. They should also enquire about the terms and conditions and pay heed to the following:
- Before confirming a hotel reservation either on a hotel’s official website or a travel website, make careful considerations and enquire about service details, verify the check-in date, price and room type carefully. When the accommodation plan includes offers, check them carefully to avoid disputes;
- Store reservation records properly and report any discrepancies between the confirmation and the actual arrangements to the hotel;
- Follow the rules and regulations of pet-friendly hotels and note the restrictions on the type, weight and size of pets, the room capacity, as well as the designated area and time for pets to move around inside the hotel. Leash your pets in public areas to avoid disturbing others;
- Carefully check the terms and conditions for pet accommodation, in particular whether cleaning charges are included in the room rate and if extra costs will be incurred when bringing more than one pet;
- Check the cleanliness of the room and the in-room facilities. Report any issues to the hotel immediately to avoid disputes or extra cleaning charges;
- Maintain good personal hygiene and stay alert during the epidemic. Observe the limit on the number of occupants according to social distancing policies. Follow all the corresponding anti-epidemic guidelines.
In view of the increased popularity of staycation, apart from the abovementioned complaint cases reported in this issue of CHOICE magazine, the Council has also conducted a survey to enquire 36 hotels with staycation packages in Hong Kong about their arrangements in the event of a confirmed COVID-19 case at their premises, including the transparency of information to guests, as well as contingency arrangements for their dining and entertainment facilities and services.
As of the cut-off date, the Council only received responses from 7 hotels, while the remaining 29 declined to respond or provide information. To this, the Council expressed disappointment and opined that there is much room for improvement in terms of the hotels’ anti-epidemic response and information dissemination. The Council then selected 12 of the hotels that declined to participate in the survey and made phone enquiries posing as general customers. The survey results from a total of 19 hotels, including the 7 participating hotels and 12 hotels through mystery enquiries, were consolidated to compare the arrangements when confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 were found at the hotels.
The results suggested a relatively low transparency of anti-epidemic information provided by some hotels, calling for prompt improvement. In the event of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19, amongst the 19 hotels, 20% would not undertake to notify customers under any circumstances, while over 60% did not take the responsibility for notifying guests who booked the accommodation via third-party travel websites. Besides, despite the ongoing pandemic for a year and a half, many hotels still have not put forward clear instructions regarding suspension of facilities for cleaning and disinfection in the event that confirmed COVID-19 patients had used the hotel’s facilities and services. In view of this alarming situation, the Council urged the industry to implement stringent anti-epidemic contingency measures, so as to allow guests to enjoy their vacation with peace of mind, and to enable effective handling by the hotel if confirmed cases arise.
Lack of Notification Reflects Low Transparency in Pandemic Information
In the event that suspected or confirmed cases were found at the hotel, and when the guest’s booking was made directly with the hotel, 4 out of the 19 hotels in the survey expressed that they would not take the initiative to notify guests who have made bookings; 1 hotel was uncertain whether they would notify the customer; for the remaining 14 hotels, despite stating that they would notify customers as soon as possible, 3 could not confirm the notification method, while 5 would only notify by email. Besides, 12 hotels stated that they were not responsible for notifying customers that booked through a third party. However, the Council opines that regardless of what channels the booking came from, the hotel should bear the responsibility of notifying affected customers in the fastest and most direct way, such as by a phone call.
Discretionary Refund or Postponement Not Offered by Some Hotels
Amongst the 19 hotels, 17 declared that they would exercise their humanistic discretions for affected customers in the event of confirmed cases, including postponement or refund, but some stated that an administrative fee would be charged. 5 expressed that customers would be allowed to choose free postponement or a full refund, offering the greatest flexibility for customers and setting a good example for other hotels. However, 2 hotels stated that if confirmed cases were found, they would not offer any arrangements such as refund or free postponement. Customers who had already made a booking may decide whether to check-in at their own cost and discretion.
Uncertain Arrangements for Suspension of Hotel Facilities or Disinfection
In the event that confirmed COVID-19 patients had used the hotel’s facilities or services, amongst the 15 hotels which offered buffets, two-thirds (10) had no clear arrangements while only 5 said that business would be suspended, or that deep-cleaning and disinfection would be arranged at the restaurant. Besides, for the 19 hotels that had swimming pool/gym facilities, 12 did not have clear arrangements, while only 3 confirmed they would close the concerned facilities for 14 days starting from the announcement date of confirmed case. As for the 10 hotels with beauty, massage and spa services, half (5) failed to provide detailed arrangements, or said it depended on the recommendations from the Department of Health.
The Council reminds consumers to pay heed to the following when considering a staycation:
- If the staycation package is booked via a third-party travel website, consumers should contact the hotel directly before checking in, so as to acquire the latest information and arrangements. Also bear in mind if issue arises, it may have to be resolved through the travel website;
- Owing to the pandemic, hotels may alter or suspend parts of their services or facilities. As the terms and conditions may not have laid out both parties’ liabilities, the final arrangements might be subject to the hotel’s discretion;
- For affected customers, they should promptly enquire with the hotel and raise the postponement or refund request should they be concerned about contracting the virus;
- If cases were confirmed during the stay, hotel guests should get tested as soon as possible to prevent further spreading the virus in the community. At the same time, hotels are expected to take up the responsibility of contacting guests that had been in close contact with the confirmed patient.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.