To ask is this Hotel policy usual?

[IsThisStrangeOrNot]

Children under 12 not allowed to be alone in bedrooms. Small posh hotel recently refurbished. I can understand why they might not want toddlers running riot in the bedrooms but when DS is asleep and we're watching him on the baby monitor that's still not acceptable. Bedroom is up the stairs and we would be eating dinner in restaurant at foot of stairs, less than 5 seconds to get back to bedroom. It's in an isolated location with nothing nearby so can't imagine policy is for the security of children.
Their hotel, their rules - which we respect but first time I've heard this policy. Anyone else heard such a policy for kids under 12?

mucky DS has his tea at 3.30pm and is asleep by 6.30 so eating together isn't really an option. We generally stay in self catering places but there are a few hotels that I feel comfortable leaving him asleep whilst we eat downstairs. For example, the last one we stayed in had 3 rooms, directly above the restaurant, where our table was at the bottom of the stairs. Video monitor worked perfectly. I understand that many people wouldn't feel comfortable with that but it worked for us.

12! What next, hotel policy that children under 12 should be wrapped in cotton wool and bubble wrap at all times? Small hotel, parent 5 seconds away - I'd be worried if I felt I could not leave my 10 year old watching TV while I eat.

Then find another hotel . Never understood leaving young kids alone in a hotel room, but then, never understood putting them to bed at bloody 6 or 7pm.

That's what we've always done, mucky, or one person goes out and and the other stays in. Always done holidays in a cottage or caravan for this reason, too, only a couple of nights or so in a hotel.

I agree with pp about risk perception. Madeleine McCann was a very tragic isolated incident that very very rarely happens. That's why it made (and continues to make) front page news all over the world. Sadly, children dying in car accidents do not mostly make front page news because it is not a rare and isolated event. Likewise drownings, serious burns etc. Your child is statistically more at risk every time you put them in a car or send them off to walk to school than if you were to leave them in a hotel room.

I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, I have never left my children in a hotel room - just think this is an interesting observation on most people's assessment of risk.

The PP who said "just get room service", how would that work? Maybe with a heavy-sleeping 3yo but what if the child is 10 or 11?

Hotels with small kids are surely a nightmare for precisely this reason. You can't leave them alone, but you can't stay with them without eating and sleeping to their schedule, which isn't a pleasure I'd gladly pay for

If you want to blindly follow rules and leave your child in a burning building that is your choice, it wouldn't be mine.

But it is not about blindly following rules. The rules are there for the safety of everyone. Imagine if there is a fire, the people in the rooms upstairs are all coming down the stairs, maybe all at the same time. It is busy, people are pushing each other in their panic to get out. But they are all heading the same way - down the stairs. Imagine then that someone is trying to go against the flow, to push their way back up the stairs. In the panicking chaos of a fire do you think people will just step to one side and let them through? They would likely be pushed back down again. Or fall over, or cause someone else to fall over. That is why it is selfish, someone going the opposite way in a fire evacuation causes these problems for others.
Especially in a situation where you really could have avoided it by not leaving the child alone in the first place.

I would assume the age is set at 12 for insurance purposes.

I find it interesting that people think they'll be running back to their rooms no matter what in event of a fire. What if the fire blocks access to the stairs? Or if you're in a busy hotel, the crowds of people running towards the exit in the opposite direction are going to slow you down meaning it'll take a lot longer than 5 seconds even if the way to your room is safe from fire.

Having been in a hotel where the fire alarm went off (and it was a genuine fire - which thankfully got under control very quickly) there was no way in hell you'd be getting back to your rooms. You could try all you want but the staff were pretty damn insistent on you getting into the lobby/outside ASAP.

Being in your own home/in a private villa with no strangers or other guests who have their own priorities and ways of escaping is very different to being in a hotel with it's own rules and regulations to follow.

I wouldn't do it in any circumstance tbh when my husband and I have gone away with DS1 we eat early and then spend the evening in the room with them he's now 5 and have a baby so its the same now we go away with 2. It can't be helped once you have kids unfortunately but yes need to know age of child.

I'm guessing if OP is listening to her DC on a baby monitor while she eats, he is a toddler

Yes, the way the OP is worded makes the child sound older but I guess you wouldn't be watching an 11 year old on a baby monitor

They wouldn't stop me. Well I suppose they could with a gun but they would have to use it, not just threaten

Which is probably one of the reasons they don't allow children under 12 to be alone in the room. So the situation of having to stop you won't arise.

But Moonface presumably the monitor is to mitigate for all the improbable scenarios outlined on this thread (someone breaking into the room, etc.) which would apply whatever the age of the child? Or even just so they could nip up if they saw the child waking, not being sure where they were and becoming anxious (which could still happen to some 10/11yos).

I'm an events manager in a hotel but have to do general hotel management as well.
One of the biggies is health and safety. I have absolutely no problem removing someone from the hotel if they are acting selfishly/disregarding our H&S policy.
I have been working when a fire has broken out in the hotel and it is extremely scary. Everyone panics and it is the panic that causes the accidents. As PP have said, trying to force your way up a staircase when everyone is heading down is asking for trouble, not just for you, but for others too.
If you leave your child unattended in a building you don't know and with strangers you don't know (including staff) then you are acting irresponsibly. Staff members are not CRB checked, many have keys into rooms... why take the risk? I have had to sack a staff member for letting escorts into our hotel via the back door, and this person appeared to be a very kind and polite person.

I just don't see the point in taking the risk. I'd just let my child have a late night/doze in the pram if I needed to.

I would never leave a baby or young child alone in a hotel room - but at 10 or 11 I'd feel differently. So I have no problem with the policy but wonder why it's set at such a high age. Still at 10 or 11 they'd be downstairs eating with us anyway at night.

presumably the monitor is to mitigate for all the improbable scenarios outlined on this thread

Yes true. Can't imagine an 11/12 year old being happy about being watched on a monitor though

It's very sensible and should be legally mandatory given how many parents think it's acceptable to leave their kids (including babies) alone unsupervised. A hotel is not like your home, it is full of strangers and if a fire breaks out you won't be able to go back for them. Until a child is old enough to deal with an emergency and mature enough to know how to take care of themselves, parents are responsible.

and I've used a plug in sound monitor to keep track on a 10 year old who was asleep. If I left a sleeping 10 year old alone in a hotel I'd do that so I could go back if they woke.

You can't compare s child alone in a hotel room when a fire alarm goes off to a child in school when a fire alarm goes off. In school the child knows the sound of the alarm, has been repeatedly trained on what to do and, even if separated from their class, can simply follow people that they know to the assembly point that they know.

An unfamiliar alarm in an unfamiliar place combined with not knowing if they should go or if they should wait for their parent to come back makes it's a totally different scenario.

If fire concerns are paramount then it would make sense for this to be standardised across all hotels in the UK. Why are some hotels offering baby listening services when that doesn't mitigate against the threat of fire?

It depends on the hotel, their fire risk assessment and their actions in response to the risk.

Big new multinational chains often have fire doors on each room and at several places on the corridors. They have enough staff to 'sweep' the rooms/floors of a hotel and the ability to contain fire in one place, they often also have 2 routes out of the building and a map on the wall of the exits. There may even be staff staircases that you don't know about.

A small place may have ordinary doors so you need to get out ASAP and only one route out.

I walk with a stick and don't do stairs, I can manage stairs slowly and painfully in an emergency but I would block up a fire exit so in fire drills I go to the refuge and wait.

When I book in to hotels I always tell them that in the event of fire I will not be able to self evacuate, Some look at me like I'm crazy other just get out a file and write down the details because it it is part of their plan.

If you want to blindly follow rules and leave your child in a burning building that is your choice, it wouldn't be mine

If you don't like the rules of the hotel - choose another hotel !

The age limit of 12 is probably an insurance issue. There will be plenty of 10 year olds that can be safely left in a hotel room, and plenty of 14 year olds who will panic if a fire alarm goes off. But they've got to choose a cut off point somewhere. If you don't like it, go elsewhere, don't just ignore the rule.

Depends a bit. Is your DS 3 or 11?

If your child is young enough where you are still using a baby monitor, they are not old enough to be left alone. End of. Whilst there is no hard and fast rule about what age a child must be to stay home alone, a general rule is don't leave them alone in a hotel room if you wouldn't leave them alone in your home to run a 5 minute errand.

This is exactly what Madeleine McCann's parents did. I also think you are grossly misunderstanding how fast a fire can spread in a hotel, even a small boutique one with 10 bedrooms.

We left DS with a babysitter last night and used baby monitor whilst he was asleep in the room. Happy to follow the rules. Wonder why hotels inconsistent in their policies re health and safety

How old is your child op?

If 11 then I can see your point. If 3 you're very unreasonable to think of leaving them.

I would either take the child downstairs, or if we wanted a grown-up date type thing I would hire a baby sitter. All the hotels I've stayed in have provided baby sitters with references. I see it as part of the cost of the holiday.