Have a picture of Haven Holidays, Haggerston Castle?, please send it to us.
| Value for Money | 4.4/10  |
|---|---|
| Overall rating | 4.8/10 |
By catcal on 7th Oct 2006
| Value for money | 10/10 |
|---|---|
| Overall value | 10/10 |
 catcal's recommendation | |
As I, too, have never even received an acknowledgement of my letter of complaint. I publish it here:
12th September 2006
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Haggerston Castle Visit 19.8.06 3 Nights Ref: CAO 0017/16
We were extremely disappointed with both our reception and the accommodation provided during our stay in August. I took the decision not to waste precious holiday time spending it on complaining, but feel compelled now to write and express how we felt.
We had our own camper van, but we had decided to splash out for 3 nights of our holiday on the comfort (or so we thought) of a caravan with linen provided. We had chosen Haggerston Castle as it had been recommended by several friends, and we were looking forward to our stay with our friends in the adjoining caravan (CAO 0016).
Upon arrival, the checking in procedure was such that, could we have taken back the £480, which we had already prepaid, we should have left there and then. We frequently camp, and I hopped out of the van expecting to check-in and be directed to our site as normal. There was no indication in your brochure that I would have to stand in a queue behind at least 50 other people for 30 minutes with the loud sounds of amusement arcades all around me. I simply could not believe that people on their holidays could be treated in such a way. Worse than cattle!
Worse still, when, finally, I was given the key and check-in package, I was redirected to another building to queue for a carrier bag of laundry! This was reminiscent of newsreels of refugees receiving handouts! What is more, the state of the bed linen was so dreadful (not unwashed, but so old and used it was washed out, grey and bobbly) that we could not contemplate using it. Luckily, we had our own sleeping bags that we made use of instead.
As for the caravan, I cannot understand why, having paid exactly the same as our friends in CAO16 (a considerable sum of money for 3 nights), we were not provided with the same level of accommodation. I had booked Bronze for both caravans. However, our caravan had not been refurbished in at least 10 years, was shabby and dirty and the facilities provided were not at all the same. Both the carpets and upholstery were filthy and badly stained. Our friends had a music centre, prints on the wall, a proper vacuum cleaner (all we had was a broom!), a separate WC and shower room, and their caravan was clean and looked as though it had been refurbished within the last few years. As for "poor relations", we felt "impoverished" by comparison!
Surely the whole point of having varying levels at varying prices should result in a comparable level of comfort and accommodation. The price we paid was certainly not cheap for a mere 3 nights! The only difference between our friends and us was that we had booked in a dog.
This led me to wonder if dog-owners are just given the oldest, grubbiest accommodation? However, we are responsible dog owners and, despite the pathetically small dog exercise area and lack of dog-bins, our dog's feet were always cleaned and we took him off site for calls of nature. Our dog does not go on beds or upholstery any more away from home than he does at home. Whilst I appreciate that not all dog owners are this responsible, why should we be penalised? Had I known that to be the case, I would never have booked, and it would be better if you just stipulated "No Dogs."
Just to finish our stay, my friend left behind her wedding and engagement rings in CAO 0016. We rang within an hour of leaving, but we were told that the rings were not in the caravan. The only people who had been in the caravan at that stage were the cleaners, so I would have thought they would have been found, but despite several subsequent calls, they have never turned up.
I would appreciate your comments on our "holiday".
catcal's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!
Would you like to see a review that's not being listed?
simonebell
on 9th Jun 2008