What do you think of this hotel rule?

[poppy]

Be angry with the families or groups who made the rule necessary, not the hotel. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by poppy

[Laura Corin]

When Calvin was 15, he stayed with two friends, one of whom was over 16, in a chain hotel with no adult supervision.  It was fine.

[Haiku]

The only time we stayed in a hotel with loud kids, it was also a hockey team. The parents were drinking hard liquor in the lobby.

 

We always drink beer and sometimes even drink hard liquor in the lobby. That's not the source of any noise problem. We don't get wasted and ignore our kids. There is a reason my son's team has been invited back to our regular hotel (and given a sizable discount on rooms) year after year. It's because we are good guests. (And our kids always have a 10:30 pm curfew, per the coach's directive. If we have a super-early game, the curfew is 9.)

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by TaraTheLiberator

[HS Mom in NC]

Hotels aren't think tanks about parenting philosophies. These kinds of rules are made because of  practical business, not ideological points of view about the maturation process.I've been to hotels where I saw bad behavior from teens. I get why they have the rule.  It's too bad they need the rule, but they're probably tired of dealing with angry customers complaining about obnoxious teen behavior then they have to find then teens causing the problem then they have to find the parents and then the parents go one about whether it was their teens being loud and obnoxious or other teens blah blah blah so they make a rule where the parents have to be with the teens to reduce the behavior. Then the staff only have to see an unsupervised teen to intervene and insist they get an adult or get kicked out instead of having all sorts of teens wandering and the staff figuring out which are the problem.  No detective work involved. Sherlock doesn't run a hotel.

I attended an international archery competition with my middle daughter in Las Vegas every year for 4 years. They didn't have that rule but it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually create one.

 

[LibraryLover]

I've never encountered that.  We traveled frequently with two of our children w/ the music program in high school. The teens went to the lobby, pool. etc  Last Dec our ballet school stayed at a hotel for Nut. The teens went about the hotel without parents without issue.  When on vacations with my children, same thing. They walk/walked around resorts, hotels etc without us frequently. 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by LibraryLover

[kewb]

When Calvin was 15, he stayed with two friends, one of whom was over 16, in a chain hotel with no adult supervision.  It was fine.

 

I am glad it was a positive experience.  More often then not it probably is fine.  Until it is not. 

 

It is a bit of a circular argument.

 

I often hear "we didn't have bike helmet laws when I was a kid and we are all fine."  Except for the kids who aren't around to tell how it was not fine for them to be riding around without a helmet becasue they are now dead or severely brain damaged.  Yes, I survived my childhood of zero safety laws.  No bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, seat belts, and a host of other things we now realize are not safe.

 

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with the rule but I would follow it if I was staying there.  Pkease note that I was not singling you out in any way nor do I disagree with you allowing your child to stay at a hotel. I am only looking at your argument.

[Haiku]

The teens went about the hotel without parents without issue.  

 

While I am not disputing you, I will say that even people who say, "My teens never cause problems" may not actually know this. I have stayed in many hotels and been bothered by many things that I didn't actually make formal complaints about. I just grumbled to myself or my husband. I don't report every loud kid, teen, adult, or bachelorette party that I encounter.

 

So, just because no one has complained to you (general you), or just because the hotel staff has never reported to you that there has been a complaint, doesn't mean that the teens in question didn't bother anyone.

 

(And yes, I know that people other than teens can be loud and bothersome, but this thread is about teens.)

 

I'm pretty confident that my son's team doesn't cause issues because, as I have stated, we generally go to the same hotel that has hosted the team for years, and if the kids were violating the written contract they signed and causing other people to complain, we would know about it, and since the staff know our kids, they would be proactive about addressing our kids by name before others even had a chance to complain. But ... if someone did report to me that my kid was being loud or bothersome, I simply wouldn't be shocked. He's a teen boy with a group of his friends. Accidental loudness does happen. ;) (I'm reminded here of the Dumbledore quote.)

 

As an aside, it baffles me why hotels that have groups staying with them don't put the group members all together in the same area of the hotel. When traveling with my daughter's team this year, we seemed to be spread all over the hotels: different floors, different wings, etc. If you have a group rate, block the rooms together. That will definitely decrease the potential for issues if all the kids are staying right by one another.

[Laura Corin]

I am glad it was a positive experience.  More often then not it probably is fine.  Until it is not. 

 

 

Well: a sixteen year old can join the army or get married in the UK.  In Scotland a 16yo can vote.  So I think it would be odd if they were not allowed to check into a hotel with two friends.  

 

I'm not talking about how things were 'way back when' - I agree that the arguments that you mention about seat belts and bike helmets don't add up.  I'm instead talking about the real risks now for real young people staying in a hotel (and travelling unaccompanied on the train to get there).  If you can give me statistics that show that a 15yo is more at risk in that circumstance than in his parent's car going to get ice-cream, I'm happy to think again: real risks, not fears based on not being in control of young people's every movement.

 

I would also have followed any rules of the establishment.

[zoobie]

Well: a sixteen year old can join the army or get married in the UK.  In Scotland a 16yo can vote.  So I think it would be odd if they were not allowed to check into a hotel with two friends.  

 

I'm not talking about how things were 'way back when' - I agree that the arguments that you mention about seat belts and bike helmets don't add up.  I'm instead talking about the real risks now for real young people staying in a hotel (and travelling unaccompanied on the train to get there).  If you can give me statistics that show that a 15yo is more at risk in that circumstance than in his parent's car going to get ice-cream, I'm happy to think again: real risks, not fears based on not being in control of young people's every movement.

 

I would also have followed any rules of the establishment.

 

Some hotels here have a minimum check-in age of 21 or even 25. Our ages here are all over the place. 

[Laura Corin]

Some hotels here have a minimum check-in age of 21 or even 25. Our ages here are all over the place. 

 

Ours aren't entirely logical, but not too bad:

 

Have sex/get married with parental approval (England) get married without parental approval (Scotland): 16

Voting in UK and European elections: 18

Voting in Scottish elections: 16

Driving: 17

Leave school: 16

Drink with a meal in a restaurant with parents: 16

Buy drink and tobacco: 18

 

Some hotels do have an age of 18 for checking in.  That's entirely their choice but it seems odd to me.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Laura Corin

[JumpyTheFrog]

I was looking up marriage ages by state because I thought it was funny that you could get married (with parental consent) at an age younger than the hotel would let you get ice by yourself.

 

Strange facts:

 

-One state had a minimum marriage age of 21 w/o parental approval.

-lowest official age with consent was 13 for girls, 14 for boys

[zoobie]

I was looking up marriage ages by state because I thought it was funny that you could get married (with parental consent) at an age younger than the hotel would let you get ice by yourself.

 

Strange facts:

 

-One state had a minimum marriage age of 21 w/o parental approval.

-lowest official age with consent was 13 for girls, 14 for boys

 

Well, you know getting ice can getcha pregnant... ;)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was looking up marriage ages by state because I thought it was funny that you could get married (with parental consent) at an age younger than the hotel would let you get ice by yourself.

 

Strange facts:

 

-One state had a minimum marriage age of 21 w/o parental approval.

-lowest official age with consent was 13 for girls, 14 for boys

What state requires parental approval for a 19 year old to get married?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ha! Found it - Mississippi. Should have guessed. Lol

[zoobie]

Ha! Found it - Mississippi. Should have guessed. Lol

 

I would've guessed they'd be on the 14 year old end. 

[Katy]

I totally agree with the rule.  I wish having that rule was a filter I could use in an internet search.  The last time we had to travel out of state for a funeral there were rowdy and sometimes scary teen boys prowling the halls, making a huge racket day and night.  Multiple teams were there for some sort of tournament, and it was pure chaos.  I had to go to the front desk for something at one point and watched as multiple adults in front of me made complaints about kids.  In one instance a crime was committed and the police were called.  I don't ever want to stay in a hotel like that again.  Next time I'll google local news and check for tournaments, and choose to drive an hour rather than deal with that again.

[Renthead Mommy]

As a former hotel front end manager, and sales manager, I think it is a wonderful rule.  

 

Too many parents, coaches, youth leaders whatever seem to think once they get to the hotel, they are off the clock.  They don't have to parent because they aren't at home.  And both kids and teen seem to forget that not everyone is on your schedule, and not only are there people on either side of your room, but also above and below.  

 

As to the pp who spoke of the hotel not being able to to anything at 3am, unfortunately, usually at that point, it is one employee doing the overnight accounting.  If it was me working, I would probably have called the cops if the adults were too drunk to deal with their kids.  But as guest in that situation, I would have no hesitation calling the cops at that point.

 

One thing I think people on this board seem to forget, you are on this board because of homeschooling.  That implies you are an involved parent, actually parenting your child.  There are a lot of parents out that that just don't do that.  So often, holding our view of kids and parenting, based on what we often see as homeschoolers, doesn't always work when put on the general public. 

 

And I don't mean that homeschoolers are better parents by any means.  That is just the group we all belong to.

[Danestress]

I just hope they display that prominently on their webpage or make it clear when reserving. I would not want to stay at a hotel where I would have to get all my kids out of bed to get ice or when one wants a snack or needs a tooth brush from the front desk. It's an odd enough rule that I think people should know it up front.

 

If they do that and it doesn't affect their business, great. But I would not want to only hear about this after I am in town and the other hotels around are booked.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

My guess is that they probably don't enforce the rule unless the kids get unruly.  A single teen quietly walking to the ice machine and back isn't going to get anybody's radar up.  But, if a group of kids/teens start acting up, it is easier for the hotel to control them if there is a rule in place.  I have never seen a rule like that, but I wouldn't worry about it.  I would like to be able to call the hotel desk to complain about noisy kids/teens outside my door/window.

[Danestress]

My guess is that they probably don't enforce the rule unless the kids get unruly. A single teen quietly walking to the ice machine and back isn't going to get anybody's radar up. But, if a group of kids/teens start acting up, it is easier for the hotel to control them if there is a rule in place. I have never seen a rule like that, but I wouldn't worry about it. I would like to be able to call the hotel desk to complain about noisy kids/teens outside my door/window.

Then in that case, I would want them to write that. "We have this rule. But it probably only applies to other people, not you. Our employees are empowered to decide which people have to follow which rules."

[Χά�ων]

I hate rules like this but can totally understand why they are made.

 

My dd's sports' team stayed at a hotel a couple of years ago that happened to also be occupied by a large hockey team. We had to be up very early in the morning for competition. The hockey "chaperones" were up drinking and loudly partying all night. The teen boys were loudly running the halls. At 2am, we called the front desk. They said they would take care of it. At 3am, the noise was even worse. Dh went into the hallway to find the boys had taken all moveable furniture out of their rooms and were throwing mattresses down the stairwells! Dh went to the front desk to ask why it was not being "taken care of." The poor woman at the desk said she was there alone and couldn't do anything. Dh tracked down the adults in charge, who were wasted. The "spokesperson" for the group, who was at least twice dh's size, told dh to "make him" do something about the situation. Dh finally begged the boys themselves to just stop, which did work.

 

Mere hours later when we were checking out, I demanded our money back since we were not able to sleep more than an hour or two. The hallway walls were wrecked. There was food smeared on everything. Soda was even sprayed on the ceiling. They would not refund our money. I was livid (and exhausted). I appealed all the way up the chain of command of the hotel and got nowhere. All I got was "boys will be boys" and "we have to defer to the adults in charge of the teams in these situations." I did not fail to mention that we were also there with a team of kids that were all under control at all times. I will never stay at the hotel chain again.

 

I am now 100% in favor of such rules although I doubt it would have made any difference in our situation. How they could only have one employee on staff overnight who was too chicken to call for back-up OR the cops, I will never understand.

Why did you not call the cops? Serious question. I have called in the past.

[Χά�ων]

I have no love for the idiots who cause problems and ruin it for the rest of us.

 

I have just spent several hours trying to figure out a way for my son to travel half a dozen states with no adult and failing to find anything for that distance for a reasonable price that complies with the rules for unaccompanied minors. I seriously debated coaching my son to lie about his age. He could pass for older and is capable of managing on his own and that mode of transportation would save me several hundred dollars. I decided against it, but not for moral reasons, but because even with that extra age the trip was not not allowed per their UM guidelines and he cannot pass for an adult. Sigh. I will probably spend a 40 hour period driving 28 hours to drop him off. Then I will do it again a week later. Because it is so safe to have an exhausted driver on the road.

[Χά�ων]

Some hotels here have a minimum check-in age of 21 or even 25. Our ages here are all over the place.

Yep. And it is insane. I remember going on vacation with a friend when we were 19. We were so excited to go on our first "adult" vacation. Except we could not get a hotel.

[Rachel]

The mother of my college roommate got married at 13, dad was 18. They didn't have kids for a few more years and were still married when I met them.

 

I was looking up marriage ages by state because I thought it was funny that you could get married (with parental consent) at an age younger than the hotel would let you get ice by yourself.

 

Strange facts:

 

-One state had a minimum marriage age of 21 w/o parental approval.

-lowest official age with consent was 13 for girls, 14 for boys

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Then in that case, I would want them to write that. "We have this rule. But it probably only applies to other people, not you. Our employees are empowered to decide which people have to follow which rules."

 

 

The thing is, I've worked in hotels, and in other places with rules like this.  If they (most likely a housekeeping employee) see your teen walking down the hall with an ice bucket, they may say, "You're not supposed to be in the hall by yourself," but it's doubtful.  If I were staying in the hotel with my teens, and we needed ice, I'd just instruct my teen to be civil to whomever might challenge them, and to come directly back to the room.  It's not a "We will arrest your teen if they step out of the room by themselves" kind of rule.  It's just not.  

[skimomma]

Why did you not call the cops? Serious question. I have called in the past.

 

I had my phone in hand and was prepared to do just that if dh's last-ditch effort to ask the kids to knock it off did not work.  He asked and they either quit or went somewhere else in the building where we could not hear them.  I figured that all we wanted was quiet.  If the hotel employee did not care that these kids were trashing the place, that was not my business either.  We got the impression that the employee was afraid of the kids and parents.  In the morning we learned that almost every member of our team had called or gone to the front desk to complain.  Why that employee did not call the cops or at least for a supervisor, I will never understand.  

 

Had the crazy continued, I would have had no problem calling the police.  We actually debated it after the parent/coach/whatever made it clear he was going to do nothing.  But we also calculated that we had 3 more hours to sleep and how much of that was going to be eaten up by waiting for the cops and dealing with them.

[skimomma]

 

 

As an aside, it baffles me why hotels that have groups staying with them don't put the group members all together in the same area of the hotel. When traveling with my daughter's team this year, we seemed to be spread all over the hotels: different floors, different wings, etc. If you have a group rate, block the rooms together. That will definitely decrease the potential for issues if all the kids are staying right by one another.

 

I asked about this once because every group we have ever traveled with has been all over instead of in a block.  The manager explained that it is an effort to discourage "group partying."  That if the rooms are not near each other maybe people will just stay in their own rooms and not take over a whole hallway or floor or whatever.  I can kind of see the logic but also see how it can backfire.

[TN Mama]

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I hate the "they can have whatever rules they want" mindset, in part because this sort of policy bugs me but also because I don't think people really think that's true. What if it was elderly people? What if it was women? What if it was one race of people or one religion? It's discrimination. The fact that it's against kids is the only thing that makes it okay in many minds. But it's not really okay with me because kids are people too. Make a rule about the behavior you want and enforce that. Don't make a rule against a whole group of people.

Exactly. My older daughter and I stayed in a hotel recently and the ADULTS in the room next to us were the loudest most thoughtless people I have ever encountered in a hotel. They let their door slam with ever entrance/exit of their room - and I have no idea why they were going in and out of their room so often at 2 in the morning. Thankful my daughter slept through the whole thing, but not so much for me.

[TN Mama]

I'm not surprised because of all the problems with loud people, but agree adults are just as bad.  Just last weekend, apparently someone decided at 2 am that they didn't want to take a cell phone call in their room and went out into the hallway, talking at full loudness right outside our door. At  2 am.  This was a grown man.

 

Regretfully, rudeness has no age limits.

Ugh - what is it about 2 am??

[bettyandbob]

Why do coaches and parents allow shenanigans late into the night. Don't they care how the kids perform in the tournament?

 

I've seen this behavior happen and I just wonder why be in a tournament if you aren't bgoing to be at your best.

[skimomma]

Why do coaches and parents allow shenanigans late into the night. Don't they care how the kids perform in the tournament?

 

I've seen this behavior happen and I just wonder why be in a tournament if you aren't bgoing to be at your best.

 

I think that sometimes they are staying the last night after the competitions are done before traveling home.  

[Lolly]

I think it is ridiculous. I would have ignored the silly rule. As a frequent hotel guest, the worst, and most frequent, offenders are adults. Kids on sports teams generally quiet down around 10.

[trulycrabby]

Well, as a mom of a 12 year old boy who plays travel soccer, I think that rule is pretty good. The soccer team kids are sweet but loud and boistrous, they hog the pool, and run around the halls and lobby like ferals.

 

We do have curfews, though.

Edited March 18, 2016 by trulycrabby

[Seasider]

Honestly? That's the hotel I'd book a room in.

[MistyMountain]

I would prefer they make a rule about loud behavior or a curfew for noise and enforce that rather then an overzealous age rule. It may just be one place but it is getting more common for people to think older kids and teens are not capable of being away from parents. If one hotel has the rule it will be one more common in other places. I think people correcting a teen's behavior if they were being immature is better then never allowing them freedom. If a big group is causing problems then the adults in charge of those groups should be informed. I personally believe that giving my kids more freedom over time is good for them. When I have stayed at hotels I haven't run into kids behaving bad but there have been occasions when adults have.

Edited March 19, 2016 by MistyMountain

[J-rap]

It sounds like overkill, but my guess is that the hotel has had some bad experiences in the past, so you do what you have to do.  

 

For example, maybe there were school groups that stayed and the chaperones did not do a good job supervising and there were lots of problems.  I can totally see a hotel putting a rule like that in place if they had reasons like that.

 

[Seasider]

It sounds like overkill, but my guess is that the hotel has had some bad experiences in the past, so you do what you have to do.

 

For example, maybe there were school groups that stayed and the chaperones did not do a good job supervising and there were lots of problems. I can totally see a hotel putting a rule like that in place if they had reasons like that.

And, not all hotels are financially backed by deep corporation pockets. A minimum amount of damage can really impact a sole proprietor.

[Danestress]

The thing is, I've worked in hotels, and in other places with rules like this. If they (most likely a housekeeping employee) see your teen walking down the hall with an ice bucket, they may say, "You're not supposed to be in the hall by yourself," but it's doubtful. If I were staying in the hotel with my teens, and we needed ice, I'd just instruct my teen to be civil to whomever might challenge them, and to come directly back to the room. It's not a "We will arrest your teen if they step out of the room by themselves" kind of rule. It's just not.

Right. I understand that. Their enforcement power is limited to asking the people to leave. They don't make a rule saying "excessively noisey people will be asked to leave," because they know that is a subjective standard. So instead they make a rule that seems less subjective and universally prohibits everyone from having a child unattended. But they never intend to enforce that rule consistently. They know they will only enforce it when there is a problem in the eyes of whoever is on duty. Back to a subjective standard that leaves room for Inequal inforcement.

 

If they think it's a good rule, they should make its very clear to people considering staying there. I don't like dumb rules, but I also don't like tellng my kids we don't have to follow rules.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Danestress

[Katy]

<snip>

 

If they think it's a good rule, they should make its very clear to people considering staying there. I don't like dumb rules, but I also don't like tellng my kids we don't have to follow rules.

 

See, now this I don't understand.  I think it's important to teach kids to sometimes purposefully disobey certain rules, in age-appropriate ways. I think most kids are capable of understanding the nuance of just vs unjust rules, and when to be quietly respectful about disobedience, and when it's important to protest unjust rules.  Choosing when to follow vs having the courage to go against the grain is an important skill in a myriad of ways. Something along the lines of, "Don't be a jerk for the purpose of being a jerk, but know when to stand up for yourself (or for someone else)."

 

Similarly, teaching kids it's fine to talk to strangers but to obey their gut instincts and to be wise about who to go to for help keeps them safer then blindly following "don't talk to strangers!"

[Tsuga]

"I think it's important to teach kids to sometimes purposefully disobey certain rules, in age-appropriate ways."

 

Sure. But generally, I'd much rather not patronize a private business with which I do not agree, than break their rules. I would use boycott. Once they have my money, they've kind of won.

 

I agree with both rule following once you have signed up, and civil disobedience, and this seems much more in line with the "you chose it, you follow the rules" side of things.

 

I agree with both that it's a stupid rule, but whatever, not my property.

[creekland]

But generally, I'd much rather not patronize a private business with which I do not agree, than break their rules. I would use boycott. Once they have my money, they've kind of won.

 

I agree with both rule following once you have signed up, and civil disobedience, and this seems much more in line with the "you chose it, you follow the rules" side of things.

 

In general, I agree with you and if there's an opportunity to avoid an issue, that's what we'll choose.  But these sorts of rules are not always known ahead of time. Many folks (like us) make reservations in advance.  

 

It's also not unusual for the vast majority of people to do what they feel is right regardless of rules.  How many of us follow the speed limit all the time?  It's a very similar situation - including the fact that if a youngster were to get caught, they ought to expect to be sent back to their room (or even have their family sent packing if the youngster were really obnoxious or damaging things).

 

It always amazes me when people say "a rule is a rule, follow it!" 'cause I'd love to see what their driving is like.  ;)

 

The vast, vast majority of humans pick and choose which rules they follow.

[Danestress]

See, now this I don't understand. I think it's important to teach kids to sometimes purposefully disobey certain rules, in age-appropriate ways. I think most kids are capable of understanding the nuance of just vs unjust rules, and when to be quietly respectful about disobedience, and when it's important to protest unjust rules. Choosing when to follow vs having the courage to go against the grain is an important skill in a myriad of ways. Something along the lines of, "Don't be a jerk for the purpose of being a jerk, but know when to stand up for yourself (or for someone else)."

 

Similarly, teaching kids it's fine to talk to strangers but to obey their gut instincts and to be wise about who to go to for help keeps them safer then blindly following "don't talk to strangers!"

 

It's not like I think people have to follow every rule. I just don't like to model an attitude that certain rules don't apply to me, or that I am too cowed to confront a rule but will skitter around avoiding it, or that everyone understands that rules saying one thing mean another or apply only to some people.

 

Hotels love to call us "guests" but I am not a guest. I am someone who entered into a contract to exchange money for lodging. I am an equal player in that business transaction. I am not a child who has to follow rules I did not agree to. I am not a child who has to "break" rules on the sly. I don't care, in this case, about just or unjust rules. This is a badly designed rule that can't be easily enforced and probably wasn't not intended to be enforced as written. I haven't looked, but I bet most hotel websites already have boilerplate language about noise and disruption. This rule is probably posted because they have a hard time enforcing the rules they already have and just want really broad power. But I don't give people that power lightly.

 

I am a consumer who can say, "That rule was not on your website or agreed to when reserving a room. I won't follow that rule. Would you like to see my 'add on' rules for you and your staff?"

[Bluegoat]

I would prefer they make a rule about loud behavior or a curfew for noise and enforce that rather then an overzealous age rule. It may just be one place but it is getting more common for people to think older kids and teens are not capable of being away from parents. If one hotel has the rule it will be one more common in other places. I think people correcting a teen's behavior if they were being immature is better then never allowing them freedom. If a big group is causing problems then the adults in charge of those groups should be informed. I personally believe that giving my kids more freedom over time is good for them. When I have stayed at hotels I haven't run into kids behaving bad but There have been occasions when adults have.

 

I think it would be much better to make it very clear that inappropriate behavior will have people kicked out, or if they are kids, they and their guardian will be kicked out.  Even in the middle of the night. I think the increasing tendency to treat teens like kids is a problem too. 

[kroe1]

Do kids have to go out alone in hotels to become good adults?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not like I think people have to follow every rule. I just don't like to model an attitude that certain rules don't apply to me, or that I am too cowed to confront a rule but will skitter around avoiding it, or that everyone understands that rules saying one thing mean another or apply only to some people.

 

Hotels love to call us "guests" but I am not a guest. I am someone who entered into a contract to exchange money for lodging. I am an equal player in that business transaction. I am not a child who has to follow rules I did not agree to. I am not a child who has to "break" rules on the sly. I don't care, in this case, about just or unjust rules. This is a badly designed rule that can't be easily enforced and probably wasn't not intended to be enforced as written. I haven't looked, but I bet most hotel websites already have boilerplate language about noise and disruption. This rule is probably posted because they have a hard time enforcing the rules they already have and just want really broad power. But I don't give people that power lightly.

 

I am a consumer who can say, "That rule was not on your website or agreed to when reserving a room. I won't follow that rule. Would you like to see my 'add on' rules for you and your staff?"

 

1.) You are assuming the rule in question isn't somewhere on a hotel's website.

 

2.)  You do have the right to inform the hotel that you will not follow their rules.  They also have the right to request that you take your business elsewhere.

[Danestress]

1.) You are assuming the rule in question isn't somewhere on a hotel's website.

 

2.) You do have the right to inform the hotel that you will not follow their rules. They also have the right to request that you take your business elsewhere.

Actually I have said twice in this thread that if they have the rule, it needs to be on the website or made clear at the time of reservation. If they have done so, great. I did not assume either way.

 

Secondly, I think a good Argument can made that, having made a reservation and given my credit card number, we have entered a binding contract. They can usually charge me if I don't show up or cancel before a certain date. Arguably I have a contractual right to a room under the terms agreed upon. Most likely, the terms include a broad 'all rules and regulations' type provison, anyway. Lots of different facts that can come into play, so I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.

 

But mostly I was responding to the attitude of 'their hotel, their rules." There actually are limitations on those rules, and basic contract law may be one of them.

 

And actually I think there Is a general assumption about this being a noise issue.

 

I think it's also possible that the rule is about hotel liability. In the event a child is victimized or injured, the hotel may want to be able to say, "the parents are at fault here. We had a rule."

Edited March 20, 2016 by Danestress

[JumpyTheFrog]

Do kids have to go out alone in hotels to become good adults?

No, of course not. My concern was more that as rules and laws setting minimum ages like this spread across society in more areas of life, parents have fewer and fewer ways to let their kids gain some independence. When we have schools requiring an adult meet their neurotypical 10-12 year at the bus stop states trying to make it illegal to leave 13 year olds alone in a car, then parents have to worker harder to find ways for their kids to grow up.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually I have said twice in this thread that if they have the rule, it needs to be on the website or made clear at the time of reservation. If they have done so, great. I did not assume either way.

 

Secondly, I think a good Argument can made that, having made a reservation and given my credit card number, we have entered a binding contract. They can usually charge me if I don't show up or cancel before a certain date. Arguably I have a contractual right to a room under the terms agreed upon. Most likely, the terms include a broad 'all rules and regulations' type provison, anyway. Lots of different facts that can come into play, so I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.

 

But mostly I was responding to the attitude of 'their hotel, their rules." There actually are limitations on those rules, and basic contract law may be one of them.

 

And actually I think there Is a general assumption about this being a noise issue.

 

I think it's also possible that the role is about hotel liability. In the event a child is victimized or injured, the hotel may want to be able to say, "the parents are at fault here. We had a rule."

 

If they have boiler plate language on their website (and they will), then it is not a binding contract in the manner you are thinking.  Temporary lodging contracts have a lot of wiggle room in them and a rule of this nature would not violate basic contract provisions.  You can't force them to rent a room to you if you refuse to agree to their rules, and a policy of not allowing minor children on the premise unattended would generally not be a breach of contract over which a civil (likely small claims) court would side with you.

[Danestress]

If they have boiler plate language on their website (and they will), then it is not a binding contract in the manner you are thinking. Temporary lodging contracts have a lot of wiggle room in them and a rule of this nature would not violate basic contract provisions. You can't force them to rent a room to you if you refuse to agree to their rules, and a policy of not allowing minor children on the premise unattended would generally not be a breach of contract over which a civil (likely small claims) court would side with you.

I think I could make a decent claim depending on the facts. But let's face it - I would probably never bother, as an attorney or a patron.

 

But hypothetically, they would hate having to deal with the issue too, and a small claims court loss is the least of things they would be worrying about. Corporate needs to address is the possibility that they have a rule that the staff ignores unless subjectively they think a patron is a 'problem.' It raises the possibility of allegations of discrimination, for example, that a mostly white staff seems to always notice the black kids who are unsupervised or loud.

 

Or when a 15 year old commits a violent crime against another patron, the hotel gets sued by a victims who says the hotel is at fault for not enforcing that rule. It's probably not a winning argument, but it's still a bother.

 

I can imagine a number of really bad PR possibilities, as well.

 

I don't object to enforcing rules about quiet. Or about unaccompanied minors, really, aware the rule before I committed. But I do object it a rule being sprung on me after the fact, if that is the case.

 

The hotel, though, need to think about making rules that are not going to be enforced except sometimes against some people, if that is the case here. It's a bad rule if there is no easy enforcement mechanism, the hotel doesn't really intend to try to enforce it, it's really meant to deal with an entirely different problem than what appears in its face, and it's likely just much broader than the actual situations the hotel is concerned about.

 

To me, it's laziness. Put some brains together and ask, what is the problem? How do we address it in a way that is meaningful, effective, and safe? Why are our existing rules about noise not working? What rule do we really need, that we are willing to announce and enforce, and how will we enforce it? What is out actual policy about unaccompanied minors? Do we call DSS below a certain age? What age? When would we call the police? What do we actually do about unruly guests of any age? How do we handle complaints about noise? Would shutting down the pool at a certain time make a difference? Would a security guard help? If we have the "under 16" rule, what do we do when a patron complains about a kid who appears to be 15, quietly reading the paper and eating a donut at breakfast alone because his mom took the toddler to the toilet? And do we expect her to take her 15-year-old son into the ladies room so he won't be unaccompanied in the hall, or do we expect her to change the toddler in the men's room where her teen can be present? What happens when a large party books 30 rooms not knowing about this rule, and then cancel at checkin when informed? Will we tell them that as long as they are quite we don't enforce it? Will we let them cancel with out penalty? Will we insist that we charge their cards for late cancellation even if the rule was not provided ahead of time?

Edited March 20, 2016 by Danestress

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think I could make a decent claim depending on the facts. But let's face it - I would probably never bother, as an attorney or a patron.

 

But hypothetically, they would hate having to deal with the issue too, and a small claims court loss is the least of things they would be worrying about. Corporate needs to address is the possibility that they have a rule that the staff ignores unless subjectively they think a patron is a 'problem.' It raises the possibility of allegations of discrimination, for example, that a mostly white staff seems to always notice the black kids who are unsupervised or loud.

 

Or when a 15 year old commits a violent crime against another patron, the hotel gets sued by a victims who says the hotel is at fault for not enforcing that rule. It's probably not a winning argument, but it's still a bother.

 

I can imagine a number of really bad PR possibilities, as well.

 

I don't object to enforcing rules about quiet. Or about unaccompanied minors, really, aware the rule before I committed. But I do object it a rule being sprung on me after the fact, if that is the case.

 

The hotel, though, need to think about making rules that are not going to be enforced except sometimes against some people, if that is the case here. It's a bad rule if there is no easy enforcement mechanism, the hotel doesn't really intend to try to enforce it, it's really meant to deal with an entirely different problem than what appears in its face, and it's likely just much broader than the actual situations the hotel is concerned about.

 

To me, it's laziness. Put some brains together and ask, what is the problem? How do we address it in a way that is meaningful, effective, and safe? Why are our existing rules about noise not working? What rule do we really need, that we are willing to announce and enforce, and how will we enforce it? What is out actual policy about unaccompanied minors? Do we call DSS below a certain age? What age? When would we call the police? What do we actually do about unruly guests of any age? How do we handle complaints about noise? Would shutting down the pool at a certain time make a difference? Would a security guard help? If we have the "under 16" rule, what do we do when a patron complains about a kid who appears to be 15, quietly reading the paper and eating a donut at breakfast alone because his mom took the toddler to the toilet? What happens when a large party books 30 rooms not knowing about this rule, and then cancel at checking when informed? Will we tell them that as long as they are quite we don't enforce it? Will we let them cancel with out penalty? Will we insist that we charge their cards for late cancellation even if the rule was not provided ahead of time?

 

The legal issues you raise are generally non-starters, and no, you really can't make a good case for having damages if the hotel won't let you register without following their policies.

 

You also are assuming that this policy is not working for this hotel.  If it is, then all of the brainstorming you suggest is moot.

 

Also, cancellation policies are generally most easily enforced with no shows/late cancellations. When a party arrives and the accommodations are unacceptable for some reason, a hotel has less leeway in enforcing the cancellation policy. 

Edited March 20, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix