Anyone snuck three dogs into center parcs

[FlipFlopZebra]

Has anyone snuck an extra dog into center parcs? Really want to book one lodge for myself, husband, daughter and parents but we have three dogs between us.

Two of the dogs are same breed so could pass as one, but I’m working out how to you get past the entrance? Do they record number of dogs in each car?

I would hide the smallest one but she’s noisy 😆 so it would be our largest one who would need hiding as she’d keep quiet.

It’s two labradors and Jack Russell. Just seems expensive to pay for a whole extra lodge just to accommodate a dog!

She’s not harming anyone though!

Oh yes she is. She's not paying the fees required for the visit. It's like saying there's no victims in insurance fraud or benefit fraud. It sounds as though you think travelling on a train without a ticket is just fine because it's not harming anyone!🙄

okies if you think it’s the same, up
to you!

A JRT in a lodge suitable for dogs is a non issue!

Anyway must dash, you’ve given me an idea about claiming PIP, but I’ll jump on a train to Birmingham without a ticket to fill the forms in there!

So even if it was guaranteed you wouldn’t get caught with one small additonal dog you would pay for a whole extra lodge, just on the principle of not ‘breaking rules’?

@fromgothtoboss No, I just wouldn't go. Not that I'm a great fan of CP anyway and seeing the comments on here puts me off even more. But, imho, it's all about integrity which, it seems to me, is pretty absent in this post.

She IS paying the fees for dogs staying in the accommodation though, so your comparison are nonsensical. Having one extra dog in the accommodation would not cause any amount of extra work, or defraud anyone of anything.. she's paying to take dogs to the property.. she is taking dogs to the property.

I've done this at places like haven as they will allow 3 dogs if you pay extra, so after the first time of paying, for years I just took the three and pay for the two.. they don't allow any more time for cleaning for 3 rather than 2 and they don't pass the extra cleaning fee on to the actual cleaners so I'm not lining their pockets any more for he sake of it, it's just corporate greed.

Private rentals/cottages I would always ask, and choose somewhere else if they said no to three, but most that take two, take 3 on request, I've never had a problem with it.

What complete rubbish. So., let's take the train analogy. Mum takes three teenage children on the train but only pays for two of them. That's okay is it?

No it's not, because she would be taking a seat from someone else .. it's not comparable to OPs situation at all.

Op is paying for a cabin, and paying for dogs to stay there, she isn't defrauding anyone like in your analogy.

Not the same at all. The teen would be taking a seat that could be bought by another passenger.

OP is not taking up any extra resources that CP could sell to someone else. She is paying for one lodge and using one lodge. If she paid for two lodges and used 1, CP would lose out because they could have sold the empty lodge to another family who would then spend money while there.

Literally no one loses anything by OP not paying for a lodge she neither wants nor needs.

So if OP did something similar at a hotel that has under occupancy (as many hotels do at the moment). Be it an extra dog or an extra child sneaked in rather than following the hotel’s booking conditions and booking an extra room. They are defrauding the hotel as they are missing out on a room booking.

But it is not a hotel. It is Center Parks, which is almost always fully booked, so how is this relevant?

OP is using one lodge and paying for the lodge, leaving CP free to book the other lodge to actual people who will purchase goods and services while they are there, as opposed to it being occupied by a single, unemployed JRT with no money to spend on goods and services.

@Frequency so is that where your nuance comes into play?
Some people only do the ‘free’ swimming at CP and self cater, so not everyone pays for anything else

CenterParcs are barely dog tolerant , nowhere near dog friendly: I'd never visit with my dog (or without her) ever again.

Take a look at Bainland Lodges - now they "get it" .

Wrong again. You dont buy a seat. What your ticket gives you is being transported from A to B. You could be standing, sitting on the floor or whatever.

A JRT in a lodge alone is not necessary.

If on holiday with family, do you think that the family is going to split up and never have meals together, never have drinks together, never sit round the table together to play games. Because you know, the JRT must not be in the same lodge as the other two dogs? Because it’s “not allowed”.

You think one part of the family is going to separate? Do you think that CP then purely being used as a sleeping space for one (and a JRT at night) is acceptable, no electricity used, one lot of bedding, barely any cleaning because all the entertainment has been done in the “main lodge”? So they make loads of extra money…..now I wonder if that’s why they say it, rather than for “guest comfort” 🤔.

At the end of the day, this is not really about a JRT in a lodge at CP; this is about integrity. You can do and support anything you like but in this case, it's simply dishonest, whether it makes sense or not. It's about the way you behave in life, the example you give to your children and the way you behave with other people. You can do what you like and I couldn't really care less but don't think dishonesty is fine when it suits you and not fine when it doesn't.

Have a great day.

Even if OP booked a second lodge they’re not going to use are they? They’re not actually going to install the JRT solo in there, nor is she going to make her dh sleep in a lodge on his own with the JRT.

If OP did book a second lodge there would be the exact same number of dogs in CP. so CP can obviously cope with the “influx”.

The only benefit would be OP would be able to feel virtuous that she hadn’t broken any rules and CP gets an extra £800. The “impact” on other guests would be no different.

If OP only books one lodge then the other lodge she could/should have booked is then free for someone else to bring their dogs, max 2, so the point is there are then 5 dogs across those two lodges when the max is 4. The rationale for the rule is presumably that CP don’t want to go above a certain number of dogs across the site, and OP is breaking that rule. As with a lot of rules, if one person breaks it with one dog the impact is obviously fairly small, but if everyone does it? That’s 50% more dogs (3 instead of 2) than the limit CP have set.

It’s clear that as a matter of principle, OP is wrong.

We too our dog to Centre Paris earlier this year. They checked the car at check in and wanted name, breed, colour of dog. I'd be surprised if you could smuggle a third in. Tbh, it was a crap holiday - the lodge was dirty, it rained constantly and the dog park was a fenced off mud pit. I'd choose somewhere else.

The dog friendly lodges at CP are probably the lower standard or older ones.

Center Parcs should employ their own team of sniffer dogs to sniff out contraband dogs on their premises.