• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Kicked out of resort because of [occupancy rules exceeded.]

Status
Not open for further replies.

jc92869

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
337
Reaction score
1
Points
128
Location
southern california
A bit of a rant, A bit of cautionary tale.

Wife, baby and I booked a week at a very popular SoCal beachfront resort for 4th of july. We were lucky to see it available through RCI a year in advance, and since it is a very popular beach destination (specially on 4th of july), we jumped on it and booked the only unit available which was a studio.

Although we are SoCal locals, we really were looking forward to this vacation, since there is a really nice fireworks display right in front of the resort, and overall it's a fun place to be. So we treated it like an actual vacation. we both got time off work and made plans to meet friends at the beach etc.

Fast forward to this year. We checked in at the resort on July 3. during the check in process, the front desk staff was acting weird. One of them even told us to keep our baby quiet and to try to sneak him into the room. Wife and i found this very odd, but went along.

About twenty minutes after walking into the studio unit, we got a call directly from RCI stating that the resort manager had called them and had asked RCI to please ask us to leave the resort. The problem being that a studio unit is only for two people and they were counting our baby ( 1 year old) as a third person.

Long story short, we had to leave, and we did. To be fair, RCI booked us at another resort about 45 minutes away. The new resort was nice and we ended up having a good time, but it was not the same. it's akin to booking New York for new years, and getting relocated to new jersey.

i understand that this was them being by the book, but I've never had any place count a baby as a whole person. Even the evil airlines still grant leniency towards children less than two. Never imagined it would be an issue.

Although rules are rules, we felt very humiliated. the whole process made us feel less-than. The manager was cold and although he let us stay for at least the night of check in ( we had to leave the next morning), he made it sound and feel like he was doing this as an act of kindness. like we were homeless refugees. never mind that we had booked and paid for this stay. The whole thing just felt dirty.

As i mentioned, the resort on that week at that location is very popular, and one of the check in staff mentioned that they already had six people on the waiting list looking to rent that unit for the week at a very "Hefty" rate.
I don't know if this had anything to do with us being kicked out or not, but it does raise the question.

So lesson learned. Some resorts will adhere strictly to their max occupancy.
 

Ty1on

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
1,958
Points
348
I read a story about adult-only pools being struck down in Cali because it is discriminatory. I get that they used room occupancy to push you out, but this might be worth consulting an attorney.
 

Fern Modena

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
Southern Nevada
Why would they want to waste money on a lawyer? A baby is a person. A small one, to be sure, but nonetheless a person. I am sure some resorts allow maximum occupancy PLUS a baby, but we've heard before that many do not.

Seems to me you pay your money and take your chance. Even though they ended up "in New Jersey," miles from where they had planned to be, they were lucky to have gotten anything else for the July 4th week. Lucky for two reasons...one, RCI didn't owe them anything, and two, as stated above, it's a busy week.

Sorry you weren't treated well, though. And appreciate the cautionary post so others know it can happen.

Fern
 

Ty1on

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
1,958
Points
348
Why would they want to waste money on a lawyer? A baby is a person. A small one, to be sure, but nonetheless a person. I am sure some resorts allow maximum occupancy PLUS a baby, but we've heard before that many do not.

Seems to me you pay your money and take your chance. Even though they ended up "in New Jersey," miles from where they had planned to be, they were lucky to have gotten anything else for the July 4th week. Lucky for two reasons...one, RCI didn't owe them anything, and two, as stated above, it's a busy week.

Sorry you weren't treated well, though. And appreciate the cautionary post so others know it can happen.

Fern

Because a consultation wouldn't cost a lot, and because given the strange complexion of California laws, the resort may well have violated a law. That's why.

Parents with young children should not be relegated to the darkness of their homes for the crime of having a baby. Nor should they be compelled to pay for lodging space they don't need to accommodate an infant.

The big problem to me is that they checked him in, then called RCI to evict him. Not even the cajones to tell him themselves. I would like to know the resort, because I would like to know whether they clearly state on RCI that an infant as a third guest is forbidden at the resort. Even if they do, there is a chance that DFEH and/or a California judge will see their policy as unnecessarily discriminating. At any rate, "paying your money and taking your chances" is unacceptable.

jc92869, you actually don't have to consult a lawyer. You can file a complaint with http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

You should be able to reasonable expect to travel with your children without being discriminated and without getting a finger wagged at you on TUG.

http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch3

"The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51 (hereafter the Unruh Act or the Act) prohibits discrimination in "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." (50) This provision has been interpreted to include businesses and persons engaged in the sale or rental of housing accommodations. (51)

While the Act specifically prohibits only discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, or disability, its language, unlike the FEHA's, has been judicially and statutorily construed to apply to arbitrary discrimination based on personal traits, beliefs, or characteristics similar to those specifically listed. (52) The Act, for example, has been held to prohibit discrimination against families with children and against persons based upon their sexual orientation or their age. (53) Accordingly, the Act does not apply only to those bases which are specifically listed, but may also apply to other, unlisted but similar bases, as well."
 
Last edited:

Bucky

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
980
Points
473
Location
The Carolina’s
Resorts Owned
Marriott Oceanwatch (2)
"Parents with young children should not be relegated to the darkness of their homes for the crime of having a baby. Nor should they be compelled to pay for lodging space they don't need to accommodate an infant."

This statement is hilarious. So, let's see. Is it ok for a family with 1yr old twins also? How about triplets? Where do you draw the line? Nobody is forcing them to pay for space they don't need. They are paying for space for two people only that was clearly disclosed prior to them paying for it! Then they decided to put three people in the room. Go figure. Are you saying that baby is not a person? Rights to Life people would love an answer.

Civil law is irrelevant. Rules are rules. You know that when you book an exchange. When it says max occupancy 2, I'm pretty sure that's what it means! Sure, there are some resorts that will look the other way but you better know darn sure who they are before confirming the exchange. While I feel sorry that the OP felt humiliated, I don't see a leg to stand on here.

Last, but certainly not least, is I'm pretty sure that the RCI agreement each member signs has some verbiage about max occupancy of units!
 

csxjohn

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
134
Points
348
Location
North East Ohio
Resorts Owned
Tropic Shores Resort, Bluegreen points
Many resorts count babies as a person, some do not. If you are going to go over the occupancy limits it would be best to call first to see if they count babies.

You should not have felt humiliated, you did not get booted because you have a baby, you got booted because you tried to go over the stated occupancy of the unit you exchanged for.

As you said, lesson learned.
 

vacationhopeful

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
12,760
Reaction score
1,699
Points
498
Location
Northeast USA
RCI called you because YOU had paid your money to them ... they were your landlord.

The Front Desk did not discriminate against YOU or your family .... you were the RULE BREAKER. And RCI went out of their way to get you lodgings in the immediate area. Sorry, but 45 minutes away in CA could be a 10 miles or less as the crow flies.

I KNOW if my one of my resorts kicks a guest (owner or renter) out of a unit for not following posted rules .... they would be homeless and MONEY not refunded (like their MFs). And I own a studio which have a clear 2 person occupancy limit .... I state that on my rental agreement and emails as being "2 breathing persons" defining that occupancy limit of 2 persons.

PS When is a "baby" no longer a baby? I hear some parents call their 15 yo a baby because that child is the youngest or does the dumbest things or acts out with immature acts.
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
2,324
Points
648
Location
New England Coast
I neither have nor want any dog in this fight, but will merely note objectively that (...RCI "rules" completely aside), local fire codes / maximum occupancy limits for rental units (...yes, certainly including any and all timeshare units) are actually laws (i.e., not just "guidelines") and they include and apply to persons of any and all ages.

A resort (and / or motel) manager could be (and should be) understandably uncomfortable about the potential liability associated with knowingly and willfully permitting "exceptions" to known local laws and ordinances. Any such "permitted exceptions" can (and sometimes do) come right back to "bite in the butt" in our litigious society. Sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished and there is considerable legal risk associated with choosing to just "look the other way" on applicable law(s). Enough said.
 
Last edited:

Icc5

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
585
Points
474
Location
Los Altos, California (Northern Ca.)
Rules are Rules

I neither have nor want any dog in this fight, but will merely note objectively that (...RCI "rules" completely aside), local fire codes / maximum occupancy limits for rental units (...yes, certainly including any and all timeshare units) are actually laws (i.e., not just "guidelines") and they include and apply to persons of any and all ages.

A resort (and / or motel) manager could be (and should be) understandably uncomfortable about the potential liability associated with knowingly and willfully permitting "exceptions" to known local laws and ordinances. Any such "permitted exceptions" can (and sometimes do) come right back to "bite in the butt" in our litigious society. Sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished and there is considerable legal risk associated with choosing to just "look the other way" on applicable law(s). Enough said.
I agree with the Resort and feel they bent over backwards to help you. RCI finding you another place was very nice on their part. If I bring too many people I would be kicked out and just out of luck I'm sure.
I look at it that I follow rules and others also should plus the fire codes are there for a reason.
 

vacationhopeful

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
12,760
Reaction score
1,699
Points
498
Location
Northeast USA
I had a father rent a week for his daughter and her very close friends. I warned him that the SHORT senior front desk clerk had worked 27 Spring Breaks and could count - 8 occupants meant 8. NOT 9 or 10 occupants. And if his daughter and her friends did NOT comply, they would have to rent an additional unit at RACK rate or would be kicked out with NO REFUND.

Talked to Dad at least 3 times - restating the occupancy limit each time - put it in the rental agreement which HE signed & returned with payment.

Yes, they showed up at the Front Desk with NINE and the SHORT senior front desk clerk caught the 9 count BEFORE they had the room key cards. Well, she was a GREAT friend whose plans had changed and BEG to come along on their trip. They got to rent a 1bdr unit at RACK RATE on Daddy's credit card ... most likely about the same I charge them for a bigger unit. Dad paid it ... and Dad did NOT complained to me ... he upfront told me, I predicted EXACTLY what and who would "catch on" ... he was just surprised it was BEFORE they had the room key cards.
 

presley

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
6,313
Reaction score
1,121
Points
448
Timeshares are not like hotels. You cannot sneak in extra people. They probably should have never let you check in, but probably some of the staff would have preferred to just let you stay there. Keep in mind, if just one guest complained about you be over the limit, they would have had to remove you, even if you were already there for most of the week. It sounds like it was an unfortunate situation, but the rules have to be followed. I'm guessing this was SCBC?
 

bnoble

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
11,783
Reaction score
5,510
Points
798
Location
The People's Republic of Ann Arbor
IMO, not justified as a rant---the limit is the limit, and it's up to the resort to decide whether or not infants count, and at what age if not.

Definitely justified as a cautionary tale, though. If you are planning to travel with a very young child that would put you over the limit, definitely call the resort before you confirm the hold to make sure that it is okay. Preferably, get it in an email message.
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
2,324
Points
648
Location
New England Coast
A fictitious story, but not at all a fairy tale...

When occupancy limits are exceeded (i.e. when local laws and ordinances are violated --- never mind RCI "rules") there is great potential for the tables to get turned against a permissive facility, whether it's a hotel, motel or timeshare facility. Let me present a hypothetical (but completely realistic and entirely possible) scenario:

A manager reluctantly but knowingly allows a 2 person studio unit occupancy maximum to be exceeded. The size, age, gender, etc. of the "extra" (third) occupant is irrelevant and matters not one bit, but let's just say for the sake of discussion that it's an accompanying infant.

In the hypothetical small studio unit, one adult occupant with hot coffee in hand trips over the portable crib they've brought into their unfamiliar and somehat cramped surroundings and promptly spills the hot beverage onto the infant, who subsequently requires and receives medical attention for (potentially disfiguring) burns sustained.

Next thing you know, lo and behold, the occupants are blaming (i.e., filing a lawsuit against) the facility whose manager, being compassionate, had "looked the other way" regarding the "extra" occupant. Now it's somehow the facility's "fault" for knowingly allowing the visitors to violate applicable occupancy limits (laws and ordinances)? :eek:

The End.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is not a story (or a lawsuit) that I ever want to see unfold at any of my facilities. As one who sits on a timeshare BoD, such completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable legal dilemmas (and costs) are not where I ever want a dime of our financial resources to ever have to be spent. Occupancy limits are applicable law, not just mere suggestions or helpful "guidelines".

Frankly, the manager who allowed even one overnight for the OP's trio did so at risk to his / her continued employment and to all other interval owners at that facility.
He or she would very soon be looking for a new job in my universe, empathy or sympathy or personal compassion notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,652
Reaction score
17,480
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Well, of course there was a remedy. Since the OP clearly knew of the occupancy rule, and chose to 'fudge', or ignore it, s/he could have left the spouse and baby there and gone back home after the fireworks.

The title of the thread should be amended to: [One too many occupants gets guests evicted!]

That might serve as a more cautionary post than the current title, which seems to blame the resort. The resort did nothing wrong!

Jim
 

ronparise

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
12,664
Reaction score
2,134
Points
548
Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person

You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2
 

Ty1on

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
1,958
Points
348
Well, of course there was a remedy. Since the OP clearly knew of the occupancy rule, and chose to 'fudge', or ignore it, s/he could have left the spouse and baby there and gone back home after the fireworks.

The title of the thread should be amended to: [One too many occupants gets guests evicted!]

That might serve as a more cautionary post than the current title, which seems to blame the resort. The resort did nothing wrong!

Jim

You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange. Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy. Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.

"Keep your baby quiet" is a very discriminatory thing for the front desk staff to have said, and coupled with the fact that they checked him in and then yanked the rug, could possibly give him a case for complaint.

And for you other hall monitors, I still feel that if he was breaking occupancy, they should not have checked him in. To check him in and then have RCI evict him was spineless and humiliating.

I would like to see a case like this hit DFEH. I realize none of you have an infant child, and neither do I, but a little empathy can go a long way.
 

ace2000

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
5,032
Reaction score
152
Points
498
Maybe it wasnt the baby. It could have been either one of the two adults here that was considered the 3rd person

You or your wife could have slept in the car to bring the number down to 2

Perfect... problem solved! Next? LOL :)
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
2,324
Points
648
Location
New England Coast
<snip> Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code. <snip>

No offense, but you are just selectively and conveniently deflecting away from the core issue with this particular observation, at least from my perspective.
With all due respect, the applicable local laws and ordinances are really the ONLY factors that carry actual weight of law in the discussion at hand.

My child-rearing days are long behind me now but I am certainly not unsympathetic to (or unfamiliar with) the difficulties of young parenthood --- but that's completely irrelevant to the issue of violating local laws and / or the associated legal liability of doing so knowingly and willfully (I refer more to the manager here than the parents).

I've often said here on TUG on differing topics and viewpoints that sitting on a BoD (as an unpaid volunteer), brings a certain responsibility to all other owners at a facility. I certainly am not interested in ever being a "hall monitor", but as I have observed here before in regard to a HOA / BoD perspective --- "walk a mile in my shoes".
Think about the hypothetical scenario presented upstream in this thread --- and just maybe you'll come down from your high horse of entirely unwarranted indignation.
 
Last edited:

Ty1on

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
1,958
Points
348
No offense, but you are just deflecting away from the core issue with this particular observation, at least from my perspective.
With all due respect, the applicable local laws and ordinances are the ONLY factors that actually carry weight of law in the discussion at hand.

My infant rearing days are long behind me now and I am certainly not unsympathetic to (or unfamiliar with) the difficulties of young parenthood --- but that's simply irrelevant to the issue of violation of local laws and the associated legal liability of doing so knowingly and willfully (I refer to the manager here, not the parents).

I've often said here on TUG on differing topics and viewpoints that sitting on a BoD (as an unpaid volunteer), brings a certain responsibility to all other owners at a facility. Not interested in ever being a "hall monitor", but as I have observed here before in regard to HOA / BoD perspective --- "walk a mile in my shoes".

Again, you are assuming that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy. The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him. Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,652
Reaction score
17,480
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange. Others are making an assumption that the two-person occupancy is driven by fire code, not resort policy. Unit occupancy isn't ONLY dictated by fire code.

If you re-read the 4th paragraph of the OP, it appears that the OP booked the unit, knowing there was an occupancy rule. I'm not assuming anything, including what grounds the resort used in determining the rule.

The OP knew the rule going in, and seems surprised at the enforcement. :ponder:
 

theo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
2,324
Points
648
Location
New England Coast
Again, you are assuming that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy. The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him. Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).

I'm not going to pointlessly split hairs with you. Yes, I most certainly do "assume" that there are, in fact, local codes and ordinances (i.e., laws) firmly in place and directly applicable and relevant to virtually any and every commercial facility with rented occupancy, whether it's a hotel, motel, timeshare, youth hostel, or Bed & Breakfast.

If the distinction between applicable law vs. facility "policy" is unimportant to you, that's fine and certainly your prerogative. Perhaps we can instead then simply agree that "more people than the clearly posted maximum allowed" is just precisely that, invoking whatever particular authority or law or policy or rule floats your boat.
 
Last edited:

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,614
Reaction score
5,783
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Again, you are assuming that this occupancy limit is a result of local law and not resort policy. The front desk checked them in, telling them to keep the baby quiet (which is discriminatory), then evicted him. Heck, if it IS resort policy instead of municipal code, it could even be argued that the rule is squarely aimed at young children, because a couple with a young child is most likely to want to put 3 in a studio without a second bed (or alternative).

How do you know that the front desk didn't tell him they'd let them stay for the night but would be contacting RCI in the morning, and that they should try to keep the baby quiet to keep other guests from complaining which would force the staff to evict them during the night?

None of us knows the whole story but the OP clearly said that he knew the occupancy limit (which reason for it is immaterial.) The time to argue over whether a baby should be included in that limit is before you get to the resort, not after.

I do understand the argument you're making and who knows, it could hold up if ever this was to make it to a court. But really, are you in favor of the OP being rewarded when he knew beforehand enough to be more careful? And in favor of the resort being punished when for all we know, they could have been trying to help the OP by giving him a place to sleep while they worked out the problem?
 
Last edited:

Ty1on

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
1,958
Points
348
I'm not going to pointlessly split hairs with you. Yes, I most certainly do "assume" that there are, in fact, local codes and ordinances (i.e., laws) in place and applicable for virtually any and every commercial occupancy facility (hotel, motel, timeshare or hostel).

If the distinction between applicable law vs. occupancy limit "policy" is irrelevant to you, that's fine. Perhaps we can then just simply agree that "more people than the posted limit" is still just precisely that, under whatever particular authority or policy floats your boat. :shrug:

The distinction is very relevant to me.

When I was with a resort in Reno, we had hospitality suites. The posted occupancy limit for the suite was 6. However, for hospitality events, the local ordnance occupancy of 30, based upon the square footage, was permitted. My opinions come from 30 years in the hospitality industry, I'm not just grasping at thin air.
 

bnoble

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
11,783
Reaction score
5,510
Points
798
Location
The People's Republic of Ann Arbor
You're making a leap to assumption that the OP "clearly knew" of the occupancy rule, unless you were involved in his reserving the exchange.

Every exchange I've ever booked through RCI includes both the maximum and "private" occupancy for the unit. If the OP booked a studio that slept 2/2, then it's the OP's obligation to confirm with the resort what their policy is for small children/infants. One cannot just assume that a resort will allow a party to bring an extra infant beyond the maximum capacity of the exchange. The resort gets to decide whether or not the occupancy can be exceeded with an infant-in-arms. The fact that many resorts do allow this is immaterial.
 

tschwa2

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
16,058
Reaction score
4,708
Points
748
Location
Maryland
Resorts Owned
A few in S and VA, a single resort in NC, MD, PA, and UT, plus Jamaica and the Bahamas
RCI's Urgent information

General Urgent Information
Occupancy limits are strictly enforced: could result in forfeiture of the unit and/or other penalties.


I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the terms and conditions stated in the Urgent Information


If nothing else this is a cautionary tale to remind those with small children that you should double check when booking (within 24 hr so you can cancel) and ask if an infant or small child counts toward the occupancy limit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top