- Report: #101955
Complaint Review: Days Inn - Expedia
Related Reports
Featured Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
Special Features
-
Doctored Reviews is designed to help patients, doctors, and websites understand the problems created by Medical Justice, a company trying to restrict online patient reviews, and to offer some ways that let patients freely talk about their healthcare experiences. -
The government should serve voters, not corporate special interests. Public Citizen works to empower ordinary citizens, reduce the influence of big corporations on government, open the government to public scrutiny, and hold public officials accountable for their misdeeds. -
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BBB: NOT a government agency as listed in your local phone book. Instead the BBB is a private non-profit / franchise operation. 20/20 exposes the BBB, Hamas Terror Group Gets 'A' Rating - BBB is running a "pay for play" scheme.
| Days Inn - Expedia 384 East Ave
Rochester, New York U.S.A. |
|
Days Inn/Expedia ripoff Rochester New York
*Consumer Comment: Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
*Consumer Comment: Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
*Consumer Comment: Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
*Consumer Comment: Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
*Consumer Suggestion: Expedia violates contratc law
*UPDATE Employee: Did you ever think....
*Consumer Suggestion: Third Party Websites
*Consumer Suggestion: Third Party Websites
*Consumer Suggestion: Third Party Websites
*Consumer Suggestion: Third Party Websites
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
Days Inn Downtown Rochester, NY (Sunday Night rates)
all-hotels.com 82.10 +++
hotels.com 89.00
expedia 80.10
All promise LOWEST prices ONLINE.
Walk in and pay at the door $49
This is the ad I found at Hotels.com about the Rochester Downtown:
Our Guests Enjoy Amenities
Such As Free Continental Breakfast, ...
In-Room Hairdryers ...
Based on that I booked my room at Expedia.com.
I did not bring my hair dryer, there was none. OOPS!
Continental Breakfast is very important to me.
There was none. OOPS!
No restaurant onsite. Unless you count vending machines. OOPS!
After I stayed in my $80/night dilapidated room, I overheard the manager quote $49/night. OOPS!
I could have booked another hotel for $50 instead I chose Days Inn for $80, so I could eat breakfast while my wife got ready to go. Then there was the worst nightmare of a hotel I have stayed at in 50 years of traveling.
The night I stayed there I was up all night as a "frat" party went on in the next room (or at least it sounded like it). Cases of beer and guitars were seen going in the hotel. They had no drums, so they used the wall next to my head.
I called the front desk at 2AM to put a stop to it. They might have stopped, but I can't tell because I still hear the drums, two days later.
On a smaller note:
The bathroom door would not close,
The TV could not be heard if the A.C. was on.
The ceiling looked like it wouldn't make it through the night, I know I stared at it all night.
What a nightmare! AN otherwise good trip turned sour.
Imagine driving home 8 hours with no sleep.
Complaining to the OWNER was fruitless. She said she had no authority to lower the rate because I booked online and I had to take it up with Expedia. I did.
And I took it up with Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, and All-Hotels.com, since they all claimed this to be a 2 star hotel with a restaurant. A "vending machine" is not a restaurant.
This is disgusting.
Thomas e.
Syosset, New York
U.S.A.
all-hotels.com 82.10 +++
hotels.com 89.00
expedia 80.10
All promise LOWEST prices ONLINE.
Walk in and pay at the door $49
This is the ad I found at Hotels.com about the Rochester Downtown:
Our Guests Enjoy Amenities
Such As Free Continental Breakfast, ...
In-Room Hairdryers ...
Based on that I booked my room at Expedia.com.
I did not bring my hair dryer, there was none. OOPS!
Continental Breakfast is very important to me.
There was none. OOPS!
No restaurant onsite. Unless you count vending machines. OOPS!
After I stayed in my $80/night dilapidated room, I overheard the manager quote $49/night. OOPS!
I could have booked another hotel for $50 instead I chose Days Inn for $80, so I could eat breakfast while my wife got ready to go. Then there was the worst nightmare of a hotel I have stayed at in 50 years of traveling.
The night I stayed there I was up all night as a "frat" party went on in the next room (or at least it sounded like it). Cases of beer and guitars were seen going in the hotel. They had no drums, so they used the wall next to my head.
I called the front desk at 2AM to put a stop to it. They might have stopped, but I can't tell because I still hear the drums, two days later.
On a smaller note:
The bathroom door would not close,
The TV could not be heard if the A.C. was on.
The ceiling looked like it wouldn't make it through the night, I know I stared at it all night.
What a nightmare! AN otherwise good trip turned sour.
Imagine driving home 8 hours with no sleep.
Complaining to the OWNER was fruitless. She said she had no authority to lower the rate because I booked online and I had to take it up with Expedia. I did.
And I took it up with Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, and All-Hotels.com, since they all claimed this to be a 2 star hotel with a restaurant. A "vending machine" is not a restaurant.
This is disgusting.
Thomas e.
Syosset, New York
U.S.A.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/03/2004 01:33 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Days-Inn-Expedia/Rochester-New-York-14607/Days-InnExpedia-ripoff-Rochester-New-York-101955. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Days Inn - Expedia
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Search Tips#1 Consumer Comment
Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
AUTHOR: Timothy - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 27, 2005
I think you're correct, for the most part, Michael. Expedia may try to tell consumers that it has no responsibility when a hotel gives them false information, but I think a judge would probably tell Expedia otherwise. Expedia makes express statements as to what amenities will be available at a given location and, at least in my mind (and most likely in the law) has created an express warranty. In most, if not all states, a retailer can be held liable for misleading statements on a product that he sells. I fail to see how this situation is any different.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #2 Consumer Comment
Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
AUTHOR: Timothy - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 27, 2005
I think you're correct, for the most part, Michael. Expedia may try to tell consumers that it has no responsibility when a hotel gives them false information, but I think a judge would probably tell Expedia otherwise. Expedia makes express statements as to what amenities will be available at a given location and, at least in my mind (and most likely in the law) has created an express warranty. In most, if not all states, a retailer can be held liable for misleading statements on a product that he sells. I fail to see how this situation is any different.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #3 Consumer Comment
Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
AUTHOR: Timothy - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 27, 2005
I think you're correct, for the most part, Michael. Expedia may try to tell consumers that it has no responsibility when a hotel gives them false information, but I think a judge would probably tell Expedia otherwise. Expedia makes express statements as to what amenities will be available at a given location and, at least in my mind (and most likely in the law) has created an express warranty. In most, if not all states, a retailer can be held liable for misleading statements on a product that he sells. I fail to see how this situation is any different.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #4 Consumer Comment
Why Expedia should be liable (even though they claim they aren't)
AUTHOR: Timothy - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, February 27, 2005
I think you're correct, for the most part, Michael. Expedia may try to tell consumers that it has no responsibility when a hotel gives them false information, but I think a judge would probably tell Expedia otherwise. Expedia makes express statements as to what amenities will be available at a given location and, at least in my mind (and most likely in the law) has created an express warranty. In most, if not all states, a retailer can be held liable for misleading statements on a product that he sells. I fail to see how this situation is any different.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
In fact, liability is more appropriate in this case because Expedia takes affirmative steps in the presentation of this potentially erroneous information. I believe that the law would impose upon Expedia a duty to investigate the validity of information given Expedia by individual hotels, and a corresponding liability when they fail to do so.
I part ways with you, Michael, in regards to the "standing against the hotel" issue. First, Expedia is in the position of a retailer, and the hotel in the position of supplier. Generally, direct vertical privity is not required of the consumer in these arrangements. If you purchase a defective product, you are not limited to litigating against the seller of that product. You may, generally, sue all the way up the chain to the manufacturer. The obvious, hypothetical parallel is that Expedia, as retailer, and Hotel, as wholesaler, are links in a chain that does not require a direct contractual relationship between the victim and the chosen defendant(s). Of course, if you choose to litigte only against Expedia, they can possibly implead the hotel for indemnification, but that has no effect on your suit.
Even if that theory is incorrect, you probably have standing as a third party beneficiary of the contract between Expedia and the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #5 Consumer Suggestion
Expedia violates contratc law
AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Expedia keeps claiming that they use the information provided by the hotel and that they are not responsible if the hotel is not as advertised. However Expedia has a legal duty to verify the service is what they report it as. If expedia advertises a specific amenity and it is not offered then expedia is responsible. They always hide and say they are not because the hotel provided expedia with misleading information. However the contract exists between expedia and the consumer and expedia has no legal standing if they service is not provided. Expedia is required to make good to the costumer and expedia has the option of going after the Hotel, but the customer can not go after the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #6 UPDATE Employee
Did you ever think....
AUTHOR: Stacey - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 01, 2005
Maybe all of the .com websites have the same incorrect information because the hotel gave it to them? Did you ever call Expedia.com and advise them of the incorrect information? If you really think about it how would they all have the same incorrect information if it was not suppiled by the hotel.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #7 Consumer Suggestion
Third Party Websites
AUTHOR: Joelle - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, September 24, 2004
Hello Thomas. That experience does sound horrible. The thing of it is that most third party websites are not very reliable. They often have false or misleading information. How do I know? I worked in customer service for Days Inn. Whenever there are problems with third-party websites, there is not much we can do. Sure, we can file a complaint for you, but as far as the false information given, we are not responsible, as we are not affiliated with the websites and it is the hotel's responsibility to make sure information they list is correct. My best advice to you is to go through a hotel directly or try going through the 800# for Days Inn. They have the best and most accurate information available, and if you question the information, most 800# reservation agents are willing to try to contact the hotel directly and make sure the information is correct.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #8 Consumer Suggestion
Third Party Websites
AUTHOR: Joelle - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, September 24, 2004
Hello Thomas. That experience does sound horrible. The thing of it is that most third party websites are not very reliable. They often have false or misleading information. How do I know? I worked in customer service for Days Inn. Whenever there are problems with third-party websites, there is not much we can do. Sure, we can file a complaint for you, but as far as the false information given, we are not responsible, as we are not affiliated with the websites and it is the hotel's responsibility to make sure information they list is correct. My best advice to you is to go through a hotel directly or try going through the 800# for Days Inn. They have the best and most accurate information available, and if you question the information, most 800# reservation agents are willing to try to contact the hotel directly and make sure the information is correct.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #9 Consumer Suggestion
Third Party Websites
AUTHOR: Joelle - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, September 24, 2004
Hello Thomas. That experience does sound horrible. The thing of it is that most third party websites are not very reliable. They often have false or misleading information. How do I know? I worked in customer service for Days Inn. Whenever there are problems with third-party websites, there is not much we can do. Sure, we can file a complaint for you, but as far as the false information given, we are not responsible, as we are not affiliated with the websites and it is the hotel's responsibility to make sure information they list is correct. My best advice to you is to go through a hotel directly or try going through the 800# for Days Inn. They have the best and most accurate information available, and if you question the information, most 800# reservation agents are willing to try to contact the hotel directly and make sure the information is correct.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #10 Consumer Suggestion
Third Party Websites
AUTHOR: Joelle - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, September 24, 2004
Hello Thomas. That experience does sound horrible. The thing of it is that most third party websites are not very reliable. They often have false or misleading information. How do I know? I worked in customer service for Days Inn. Whenever there are problems with third-party websites, there is not much we can do. Sure, we can file a complaint for you, but as far as the false information given, we are not responsible, as we are not affiliated with the websites and it is the hotel's responsibility to make sure information they list is correct. My best advice to you is to go through a hotel directly or try going through the 800# for Days Inn. They have the best and most accurate information available, and if you question the information, most 800# reservation agents are willing to try to contact the hotel directly and make sure the information is correct.
Respond to this report!
What's this? 
