To reject £100 refund offer from BUTLINS after holiday from hell!

[OlderMummy1]

I wrote a letter of complaint to Butlins about a month ago after an absolutely appalling stay there. They replied yesterday (bang on the 28 days they have to reply) stating that they were sorry we were not happy and offered us £100 refund.

I am not happy with this as we had the most awful time. We went to Butlins at Skegness for the ‘Just for Tots’ week from 15th -19th September. We paid over £500 for 5 days in a gold apartment with premier dining with B line passes.

When I telephoned to book the holiday I enquired about the ages of the children who could attend the ‘Just For Tots’ break. I was advised that it would be adults with children under 5, although older siblings were welcome. I asked if any all-adult groups were allowed and was told categorically no. This convinced us to book the holiday as we had heard horror stories about hen/stag groups at Butlins. I also asked if there would be anyone to help us with our luggage as I would be travelling with my elderly mother, my 2 year old with special needs and my 6 month old. I was told that if I went to the Gold Reception someone would be able to assist me. This was particularly important as we were unable to book a ground floor room as they were all taken.

Upon arrival after a 4 hour trip I asked at Gold Reception for some assistance with luggage and was told that no one was available and we would have to do it ourselves. This took me 3 hours to do on my own, in between breastfeeding a baby, whilst my mother looked after the children. It was a very hot day and was utterly unpleasant.
That night we were all awoken at 1.30am by what sounded like a lot of drunk people going up the stairs next to our apartment. We were then kept awake until 5am by bumping, banging, laughing, shouting etc. It sounded like a group of men, although obviously we were sure that they must have children in there as we had been told adult groups were not allowed. We tried to phone the security number 3 times but there was no answer.

I complained at the Gold Reception the next day and a very harassed receptionist wrote my room number on a scrap of paper and said she would look into it. I never heard anything else.

The next night exactly the same happened, although at about 3am it sounded like some women turned up and joined in the drunk shenanigans. This continued every night of our stay.

When we left the apartment on the Friday I went to Gold Reception to ask if we could have some help with bringing the luggage down from the apartment. The receptionist told me that ‘we don’t do that due to the risk of damage to items’ which was completely contradictory to everything I had been told previously. I therefore had to struggle with our luggage myself. The cleaning staff then started to harass us at 9.30am to get into the apartment and we had to actually argue with them in order to get them to wait until 10am.

When I was packing the car I saw the people in the apartment above start to leave. I thought it would be interesting to see who came out as we had been unable to see hide nor hair of anyone. Imagine our shock and horror when 4 rough looking males came out and appeared to walk in the direction of the train station. I took a photograph of them and went immediately to complain to Gold Reception. First I was told that they must be people who had booked their break years in advance, before the Just For Tots breaks were arranged. I said that they were definitely not the sort of people to have done this. I was then told that they must be workers who they have to accommodate. This was much more likely as most of them were foreign and they looked like manual labourers. I was absolutely furious! We had paid a large amount of money for the best accommodation and Butlins thought it appropriate to put workers above us, who were out drinking until all hours and who carried on drinking thoughout the night. Why on earth they weren’t put into the staff accommodation or the caravans opposite I have no idea.

I believe that this was a safeguarding issue as these men could have been anyone. I was also concerned that if they were working on-site during the day they had been heavily drinking all night.

I believe that the advertising was misleading, the information I received over the telephone was incorrect and that my children were put at risk during our stay. All of us suffered healthwise from having hardly any sleep for 4 nights.

In their reply, Butlins stated that they had had no other complaints... blah de blah and that the people in that apartment were NOT contractors. They then implied that if people lie about who is on the booking then that is not their fault. I find this reply even more worrying! If 4 men go to the trouble of booking during a Just For Tots break, making up and paying for an imaginary child, then surely this needs investigation.

I am unhappy about accepting their offer of £100 and feel I should take it further. Luckily I have a brother in law who is a solicitor so he should be able to help me.

What would others do?

Butlins in Skegvegas is never going to be a dream holiday though is it?

op, sounds like you had an awful time when what you really needed was a break from your normal routine & for your kids to have fun. Being sleep deprived is never fun. Yes, ideally, you should have complained more at the time about the noisy neighbours but I expect if you were looking after 3 other people you might not have had the time or emotional energy to confront someone.

In your shoes, I would accept the £100 because trying to get more would cause me too much stress, but perhaps you feel you need to be heard.

Can't offer any practical advice but please ignore posters who are picking on you because they think they're cleverer or more politically correct than you.

Even allowing for the fact it's Butlins I still think you're right to be annoyed.

you were mislead at the point of booking and I'd have thought a one third (rather than one fifth) refund would be more appropriate.

There are some very nasty and smug replies on here.

All of you saying "you should have got it in writing" , sorry I simply don't believe every single one of you would have done that. And in any case a verbal statement was made. I've raised an action in court and won about a verbal statement about a holiday that wasn't delivered on. (I don't think you should OP, partner and I are both solicitors which makes it a lot easier).

So far as your comments about the men. They were not a risk to your children. It sounds as if Butlins takes block bookings from commercial/ industry clients for employees; many hotels do. In relation to that point I would suggest you write to head office and ask for clarity on what the Tots only deals really mean. It is not clear on the website .

Does it mean simply special rates for that type of family in that period? Or does it mean only that type of family can book in that period?

Tots week simply means the activities are most suited to families with toddlers.

I think you have the right to be very upset. It sounds
like you and your family were really looking forward to the break and that you needed/deserved it. £500 would be a huge amount of £ to me and to have it ruined by things that you had checked wouldn't happen before booking the holiday is awful.

soontobesix

"When I telephoned to book the holiday I enquired about the ages of the children who could attend the ‘Just For Tots’ break. I was advised that it would be adults with children under 5, although older siblings were welcome. I asked if any all-adult groups were allowed and was told categorically no. This convinced us to book the holiday"

Have you read the op?

Soontobe I very much suspect your interpretation is correct. The website for these breaks hints that they are family only but do not explicitly say so. The reality is Butlins can't afford to turn anyone away.

Omg, do people really not bother with reading the whole op if they are going to opine on a thread?

I think you have every right to be annoyed OP and you have had some horrible replies. (That's aibu for you though; really bad customer service = your fault for going there).
However I would consider £100 a win in this case and take it no further.

I think I personally would have created a much much bigger fuss at the time about the noise from the other apartment.

"This was much more likely as most of them were foreign and they looked like manual labourers."

There have been some immature and nasty responses on this thread. What OP stated is that she thought it was likely they were labourers as they looked foreign. This is a perfectly acceptable observation as many labourers are immigrants. That is stating fact, nothing racist about it at all.

"I believe that this was a safeguarding issue as these men could have been anyone."

Although the above quote could have been worded far better I do not believe OP is stating that foreign people are more likely to pose a risk to children than Brits. She is just stating she did not know these lot and they could have been anyone, the same would apply if it had been 4 British guys, or women for that matter.

@dinopaws
"You sound like a nightmare!

Sweeping judgements of those men -out of order. And why does them being foreign matter? How is it relevant?"

This post typifies the nastiness that can occur on AIBU. If anyone sounds like a nightmare that would be you, an immature schoolyard bully. The OP mentioned their race as that was why she assumed they were labourers. As someone who works in an industry dominated by immigrant workers there is nothing racist about this at all. When I state the majority of my staff are immigrants that is just a fact, not discrimination. In fact if I was racist I would just employ White British. Shameful and immature behaviour on your part.

the same would apply if it had been 4 British guys, or women for that matter.

Do you really think she would have said that a group of women were a safeguarding issue?

The nationality is irrelevant. I found it offensive that she appears to assume men are out to kidnap and abuse her children.

So basically then anyone else staying there is a safeguarding issue by that interpretation ral. Unless you can book the whole place thats a pretty hard issue to avoid then!

Although the above quote could have been worded far better I do not believe OP is stating that foreign people are more likely to pose a risk to children than Brits. She is just stating she did not know these lot and they could have been anyone, the same would apply if it had been 4 British guys, or women for that matter.

On that basis ever single adult person there would be seen as a safeguarding risk. The OP didn't seem concerned about the other several hundred (or maybe thousands) of people there creating a safeguarding risk, she specifically felt that these men posed a risk due to whatever prejudiced ideas she holds.

I would accept the £100.00 compensation OP and don't use Butlins again. I wouldn't go there on a family Holiday but will try another Adult weekend (even though the last one was pretty bad!)

To be honest I think that's all Butlins is good for now.

Perhaps it was more the appearance (not referring to race here) and mannerisms of these men that concerned OP.

I do not believe for one minute OP thinks all men, or all foreigners are a safeguarding risk.

It is a prime example of people jumping on the offended bandwagon as any excuse to gang up and attack someone online.

Why would somebody's appearance make them appear to be a safeguarding risk? Unless they are walking around wearing rain macs with nothing underneath and carrying a camera which is directed at random children (or similar type behaviour) then I don't see how it could be assumed that they are a safeguarding risk.
Judgemental bullshit based on nothing but unfair assumptions.

It is a prime example of people jumping on the offended bandwagon as any excuse to gang up and attack someone online.

In my case it's a prime example of me thinking it's offensive to consider men a safeguarding risk. Nothing else.

I do wonder how anyone is a safeguarding risk unless you plan on leaving your children unattended with them though.

safeguarding issue as these men could have been anyone

What on earth does this mean? Could they have been David Beckham or Prince Charles? Or do you mean because they were foreigners you expect them to be dangerous criminals?

what a load of rubbish, write it off as bad experience and take the £100

Howlcapone, do you seriously believe OP considers all men as a safeguarding risk? She would have a pretty terrifying life based on that as she would be afraid of 50% of the population.

Missunreasonable to clarify what I am trying to say, she may have found the appearance and behaviour of these guys to be suspicious. In the past I have phoned police 101 when there was a man (just for the record, he was white) acting very suspiciously in our neighbourhood. Police called me back 2 days later as a man matching the description I gave them was involved in an armed robbery at our local shop the following night.

I wrote the last post to illustrate that people are twisting what OP has said to fit their agenda and then insult her. You have responded by twisting my words into me having some preconceived notion of what a paedo looks like. As someone who was assaulted by a perfectly normal looking paedo as a child I know what at least one looks like, you illustrate my point very well, so thanks for that.

ralth in your previous post you were talking about the mens appearance! now you are talking about men acting suspiciously. The OP hasn't stated anything that would leave me as a reader thinking that these men had behaved in a way which would lead to suspicion that they are a safeguarding risk. If you want to talk about behaviour then talk about that but your previous post was going on about the appearance of these men and you out 'other than race'. What exactly are these appearance features that you are talking about.
Men in work clothes. Does that give the impression of a safeguarding risk?
A group of men without women or children. Does that give the impression of a safeguarding risk?

I have wrote in my earlier posts that people who pose a safeguarding risk come in all guises and, shock horror, some might even have children with them. I was being facetious when I wrote about men in macs with cameras, but clearly you were unable to pick up on the facetious tone.
So explain to me, what could it possibly be about this group of men which would lead somebody to believe (based on appearance) that they pose a significant risk to children and moreso than any other holiday makers at butlins. I am keen to know.

I'm presuming that the OP didn't leave her children unattended with these 'suspicious looking' males, so I am not entirely sure how they could have posed any risk at all.

I await a reliable dummies guide to suspicious looking males who post a safeguarding risk to children.

i'm sorry to hear about your experience, I would be fed up if I had asked for help in advance and they couldn't find anyone, that is very poor.

i would also be complaining if there were rowdy drunk people disturbing my dc and my elderly mum in a gold rated accommodation which is catering for toddlers etc.

on a lighter note i thought Butlins were hot on that sort of thing. my dad is very law abiding but when he was 18 in the 1950s he and a group of friends were asked to leave for being a nuisance. we teased him about it as kids.

Apparently it was a mix up and it wasn't his group and they received an apology.

Somebody who assumes that groups of men travelling alone pose a safeguarding risk would probably be better placed to write one. I wouldn't be any good at writing it as I clearly have no clue what appearance to look out for. You clearly seem to know though.......but you haven't yet told me.

I do wonder how anyone is a safeguarding risk unless you plan on leaving your children unattended with them

I was wondering the same thing, I am also as equally offended as howl just because they have testicles does not mean they were a threat to either you or your kids.