To expect MoH to refund hen accommodation after we were refused access?

[Hennightmare]

I attended a hen party at the weekend - Friday to Sunday, staying close to a seaside resort in a private accommodation. I paid my share in advance - nearly £300.

Upon arrival, we were greeted by the owner who refused entry on the basis that hen parties (and same sex groups/stags) are not allowed and this is stated in the booking terms and conditions and elsewhere on the website. Despite reasoning, the owner was not backing down, and said there’d been an incident with a same sex group two weekends ago which required costly repairs.

MoH said she was aware of other hens who had stayed and this is how she found the place on instagram. She was told no refund would be given as there wouldn’t be time to let it again for the weekend.

We managed to find budget hotel rooms in the area but this scuppered the plans which were in place for the house - games etc.

I have looked myself and it is prominent on the website about the rules around hen parties etc. It is clear there has been inconsistent approaches in the past though.

Should the MoH cover us for her mistake? I am out of pocket after the hotel booking.

YABU - suck it up, it happened
YANBU - her mistake, she should offer to cover it

Yes fuck that for a barrel of laughs. I’d be fighting this i wouldn’t give a fuck. Cheeky bitch. And the bride should be backing you.

Yes.

Thing is I don’t think the owners changed the terms and conditions.

They only accepted hen via prior agreement.

The Moh never asked she just booked it on the sly because she saw other hens had been held there.

A further email to clarify no hens at all was sent and refund offered if they cancelled because of this.

The moh read that email and went nah fuck them and their rules.

I bet she had been liking all the hen pictures on instagram or something and it flagged to the owners which is why they met in person. Something tipped them off.

This. And my favourite part is how all the friends being aggrieved at losing £300 each is the problem (spoiling the wedding), and not the shitty MOH and her behaviour.

100% agree. Since the bride didn't pay anything, if she doesn't want this to put a damper on her wedding, she should offer to pay some of it.

You can use the website
http://web.archive.org to find how a website appeared at dates in the past. Whether or not there is an archive date close to the booking date I don't know, you'll have to check, but if there is you will be able to confirm whether or not it was indicated that hen dos are forbidden at the time of booking.

Please read the thread! The accommodation was advertised as only allowing single sex parties with prior approval to booking. The MOH booked anyway and did not admit it was a single sex party or a Hen Do.

Then following a catastrophic rental with a single sex party, the landlord has written and clarified no single sex or hen do's, if you are speak up now and I will allow a full refund. The MOH did not put that to the other hens and just ignored it - she gambled in being able to sneak in and lost

Oh that is really interesting, I did not know that!

I think if the MoH had contacted the owner beforehand and offered to prepay a substantial damage deposit (to be refunded if no damage), the owner might have agreed. My hen party was very tame (more like a bunch of 80-year-olds getting together for a knitting party) so no worries about damage.

It was a shitty thing to say but at the same time, surely you can understand why, she doesn't want her mates falling out and causing an atmosphere at her wedding, that is totally understandable, but also unrealistic.

The bride did not do anything wrong, it was the MOH so the bride has no responsibility here and is in a difficult spot. Leave the bride out of what is now happening. She didn't pay so she is not involved in any loss.

In fact she should be left out of the discussion going forward.

The ship of “not having an atmosphere at the wedding” has sailed—MOH assured that when she sent the snarky 2016 message.

I agree with you. I just think the bride should stay out of it since she didn't lose any money. But I can understand her wanting to smooth things over so it doesn't cause bad feelings before her wedding.

Well that could be a hinderance or a blessing depending upon the response.

If the owner comes back and explains their full side, that should clarify the situation, meaning you will not have to involve the bride and basically pave the way for a small claims court. Which incidentally I wouldn't jump straight to.

Maybe after the wedding I would outline the reason for your claim, maybe offer to accept £130 if she accepts responsibility and coughs up, if, not, you will go to the small claims court for the full £300 plus any other sundries you are out of pocket. That give her a little incentive to bring it to a speedy conclusion.

If the landlord is not so helpful, then you need the Bride to confirm the situation, which is not so good.

But a previous poster has said you can get historical web pages so look that up and confirm what it said at the time of booking before you go any further,

How good a friend is the bride and how much would you enjoy the wedding? Because I think I'd now be tempted to say, 'I'm really sorry but the £130 for the new accommodation was my petrol and accommodation budget for the wedding. So I will no longer be able to join you all. I hope you all have a wonderful day.'

How many of the group would accept the bride's money and watch the MoH sit back and let her though. I couldn't. None of this is her doing.

⁸

I was at a (very low key) hen a few years ago, the MOH had also booked a cottage that I discovered on the day was a "no hen" one, the owner let us stay but would have been a similar disaster if they didnt!

There's going to be a lot of drama at the wedding... pls come back with updates👀 👀 👀 👀

The owner hasn't lost out at all. They changed the terms and conditions after booking was made and a very short time before the actual stay. They could have easily worked something out like taking a bigger deposit or something rather than completely refusing access.

From what I’ve read it was always no hens without prior agreement.

So they don’t change the terms for this case as the moh never asked!

They then offered a refund if it was a hen. The moh decided not to cancels. Risk it. That’s her fault not theirs.

If she had of cancelled as per the terms she would have got a refund and they would have rebooked it.

Why after the email offering to cancel and the moh still not being honest would the owners trust them even with an extra deposit.

It sounds like BananaPeels has read the full thread, as have I, and come to the same conclusion, it was pretty crappy treatment of guests by the owner given the short notice and change of conditions and there surely could have been a compromise made. Two things can be true, as the MoH was also at fault.

Maybe you can afford to. For some people that £300 might be the difference between going at half ten with their kids or not. They may have saved for months to pay for this hen do

No, the owner did not change the terms. At the time of booking, the T&Cs said that stag dos/hen parties and other same sex groups would only be allowed at the owner's discretion. MoH never got the owner's agreement to this hen party staying, so the owner deciding not to allow any hen parties is no different to them simply exercising their discretion to say no. MoH simply hoped the owner wouldn't find out it was a hen party.

They aren't out of pocket by 300 quid but by 150. Moh is out by a lot more.

Small claims court FFS. I hope the bride tells you all to do one regarding the wedding invitations - you'll all save some expenses then.

Maybe. I was simply saying what I would do in this situation.

The bride could offer to "pay some" to help smooth things but with the majority coming from the MoH. The bride "is annoyed with MoH but doesn’t want anyone to make a fuss of it and overshadow her Wedding". So, I gather she thinks everyone should pay £300, and the MoH should not be asked to reimburse anyone.

Sorry I don't get your rationale, the property owner did nothing wrong, the MOH was the one who lied by omission and gambled with her fellow hens money/