What will VB do about false claims to start ratings

[Windy]

I think we have been here before.

There is a web site in The Lakes that currently has 5 lodges claiming VB 4 star ratings and 1 claiming a 5 star rating that I cannot find on the VB site. (The logo they show clearly uses the Visit England White Rose so it must be the VE/VB scheme that they are claiming to be graded by)

It is pretty clear I think that VB do not actively police misuse of their star ratings.

As somebody who pays a significant sum to have a rating for my lodge, its value is significantly undermined if so many operators can get away with misuse like this.

Can somebody from VB please clarify current policy towards policing misuse and the actions that they will take if made aware of it.

[Windy]

OK - so no reply from VB/QIT yet - it would be nice to be able to assume that they do read and will contribute to this (their own) forum from time to time.

So, time to name and shame.

There is a site called www.lakedistrict-stay.co.uk/ which is a very successful listing site that carries a lot of adverts for my competitors.

On this site there would appear to be at least 7 lodges (direct competitors of mine) which are laying claim to VB star ratings but which I can't find on the Visit Britain web site. I can provide full details to EE/QIT on request

There may well be other examples as well.

I have made the web site owner aware of this on at least 4 occasions over the last 4 weeks. His contention is that as the parks they are on are 4 and 5 star, and as this is mentioned in the text there is no offence being committed as the star ratings "clearly" refer to the park. Given that by that logic all of the 150 lodges at Limefitt Park could claim on his site to be VB 5 star rated I hope it is safe to assume that VB will not condone that, especially as the rating is shown in a box with details about the lodge and not the park.

So my question, again, is what will VB do to preserve the integrity of the Quality Assessment scheme when presented with evidence of flagrant abuse like this. I did rejoin the scheme this year although my decision was on a knife edge. The only reason why I did so was because in these tough times maybe the distinction provided by a VB rating may pay dividends. Obviously this will NOT be the case if VB condone listing sites "innocently" abetting people to claim false ratings in this way.

I don't believe that is is MY job as a paying customer to police VB's rating scheme or to take up this matter myself with trading standards. That is CLEARLY VB / QIT's job and I would like to see some evidence that they are doing it. Please would someone from VB / EE / QIT respond to this posting.

[Windy]

I did post here naming the web site concerned but it seems the censors blue pencil is alive and well (or the moderators are asleep).

In that post I asked that someone from VB should do something to protect the value of the star ratings.

Pam Foden - if you are reading this or if someone you know is would you please contact me - details on www.lakedistrictholidaylodges.co.uk. Please don't ignore this.

[greenbarncottages]

I share Windy's concerns regarding abuse of the VB rating system and businesses that make fraudulent claims with impunity. IIRC previously we had a highly unsatisfactory response from VB to the effect that the only option available was for an individual guest to report the fraud to the local TSO, an extremely unlikely event.

For those of us in the business of providing self-catering accommodation there is only one significant benefit to membership of VB, and that is the star rating. It's a very important benefit; it's widely and internationally recognised, it instils a valuable sense of confidence and expectation of quality into the minds of potential visitors, it differentiates our properties and level of service from the also-rans. It is a hard-earned and expensive membership of an exclusive organisation.

Membership of this exclusive organisation gives us the right to display and trumpet our rating in our advertising material for the purpose of attracting guests, particularly those guests who are looking for the reassurance of knowing that the property they are considering for their holiday dream has been inspected by a Government backed organisation, and declared to be of a certain standard. The presence of the White Rose and stars symbols on the property's advertising material tells these potential guests all they need to know; they are not going to cross check with the VB website, indeed it's unlikely that they will know of its existence or hit it during their Google searches for places to stay.

If a VB rating is displayed by a business that is not a member of this exclusive organisation, a business which hasn't been inspected or officially assessed, and the organisation chooses simply to ignore the evidence, then that organisation is demonstrating a lamentable failure in its duties and a cynical disregard for its members, those choosing to stay in the UK, and hence the UK tourist industry.

Of course VB cannot police abuse of its rating system by actively checking the claims of every holiday rental in the UK, but it can choose to act when such abuse is highlighted. Or it can choose not to act, and render the system worthless.

As a simple parallel example, if a company fraudulently claimed BSI certification to the ISO 9001 Quality Standard, and displayed the relevant BSI logo, BSI would light a fire under them in order to protect its members, the consumer, and its own reputation. So what's the difference?

To repeat the question in the OP: What will VB do about false claims to star ratings?

As a final point, the OP is a direct appeal to VB for a response to a very important question. It is very disappointing that no response has been forthcoming after several days. This is a closed forum, and the obvious place to raise issues of such major importance, to receive meaningful responses from VB, and to further the discussion. I hope that is going to happen, rather than the possible alternative of the discussion moving to a public forum.

[Windy]

How very bizarre that you sit on my follow-up posts for so long (not at the weekend btw but during normal working hours) and then post them both at once without explanation.

The moderation on this forum and its usability in general is truly of the clod-hopping variety. It is all so unnecessarily slow and pointless. This has to be one of the least easy to use forums that I frequent, and given that there are so many effective and user friendly versions of open source forum software out there - smf , php bb etc etc, that is pretty inexcusable.

GB - I think you assume that the contents of the forum are only available to logged-in subscribers. Try logging out :-). These comments are in the public domain anyway. IMHO it SHOULD be a private forum but it isn't. Maybe they think it is? Mind you if it were we wouldn't need the pointless moderation delay that no other forum I use imposes?

As regards VB I have contacted Pam Foden directly having found her email address. She is on holiday but will address this as soon as she can. I am interested that VB do not respond to direct requests on this forum though - maybe they would like to explain why not.

[VisitEngland_Feedback_]

VisitEngland is looking into this report of misleading rating claims. The confusion arises when a lodge is on a five-star holiday park, but the lodge may not have five stars or even have a star rating at all.

We have contacted the website mentioned and are in discussions with the operators of the site and will report back directly to the participant who has reported this problem

[Longinthetooth]

False star rating is also happening where I am. I just rang the Quality in Tourism Office and as luck would have it the said miscreant was being inspected that very next week! This reminds me to check it out they are displaying their correct star grading!!!!

[Windy]

"The confusion arises when a lodge is on a five-star holiday park, but the lodge may not have five stars or even have a star rating at all."

"confusion"???? I think you mean "misrepresentation" - Oh my lord you sound as though you are excusing it!! Come on - show some mettle for once!

[greenbarncottages]

I've looked at the listing site in question.
It covers a wide area, not just properties on parks.
For each property, there is a space to show a rating for the property. Most of the properties on the 4 and 5 star parks don't show a rating. Some show a 4 or 5 star rating. That rating can only be interpreted as applying to the individual property. It doesn't.
There is no "confusion" taking place, just fraudulent misrepresentation.

[Windy]

Thank you Greenbarn - it seems perfectly cut and dried to me - no "confusion". The false ratings are still being shown though in spite of the fact that "We have contacted the website mentioned and are in discussions with the operators of the site". What are we supposed to make of that?

[Windy]

Well I'm ever so much looking forward to the promised feed back - "will report back directly to the participant who has reported this problem". The false star ratings are STILL there btw.

I haven't heard anything yet so I'm thinking of awarding all the lodges on the local listing site that I run 5 Visit Britain stars each because all 30 are on 5 star parks. VB / QIT can hardly complain if I do can they?

[VisitEngland_Feedback_]

Please find below comment from Jeremy Brinkworth, Director of Business Development, VisitEngland

"VisitEngland is as frustrated as you by any misrepresentation of the VisitEngland star ratings by businesses not entitled to use such.

We are looking into this case but I would like to emphasise that VisitEngland does not – and never has had – any statutory or legal powers in cases like this. We can exclude businesses from participation in our schemes but that of course does not stop them automatically from displaying signage to which they are not entitled. We would then write a “cease and desist” letter and if this had no effect we would enlist the support of the local Trading Standards authority. It is fair to say, that some TS officers give such cases higher or lower precedence than others – it is a variable picture.

This course of action does not preclude another business or private individual going directly to Trading Standards.

I am commenting here on the general principle and process. VisitEngland will continue to investigate any specific case and talk to individuals involved directly – it would be inappropriate to do so in a forum environment."

[Willowfield]

If I understand this reply fully ? The only recourse open to Visit England is the same as is available to all of us as individual businesses ?
Exclusion from participation ?? Why would anyone be participating at a cost if they are using the logo illegally free of charge ??
A "cease and desist " letter? cease and desist or else --What ?? We'll tell on you !! ? whether that has any effect would be determined by the potential punishment and perecntage of risk?
Perhaps Visit England can supply figures for succesful prosecutions by Trading Standards in cases of misrepresentation such as the one originally mentioned ?
Then we can all decide whether it is worth it to continue paying £700 a year , when others display the logo for free ?

[Windy]

Well I have still heard nothing and the listing site is still happily displaying these misleading star ratings. I thought it was an offence to do this but it seems that it's fine.

In the meantime it seems that 600 more people have viewed the listing for the lodge on my site. If you need my details to be able to contact me as promised do let me know. I am waiting... rather impatiently it should be said.

[greenbarncottages]

Does anyone have any experience of how the AA would handle a similar situation if their ratings were being used for the purposes of fraudulent trading?

Are they in the same position as VE of not being able to take any direct legal action?

[Windy]

Why are you not letting my posts through? Is it that you embarrassed that nothing is being done about this? You ought to be of course! This is your chance to show that you have teeth and mean what you say. Carry on doing nothing, saying nothing and letting this web site get away with taking the mickey out of your grading system and you will really look (even more ) toothless and ineffectual (than usual). I am preparing a scathing post about VB / QIT and the ineffectual nature of grading enforcement for my blog. I will also be offering it as an article to the major newspapers. If you would prefer me not to do this then contact me with an update as promised above. I am gobsmacked by your lack of action here and I think i have a very good case for reclaiming the fee I paid you this year for my grading. What a test case THAT would be eh? I will post this to Laymyhat.com so it doesn't get lost like my previous posts

[Windy]

Because of this awful forum software I didn't realise that these page 2 replies were posted (all other forum software I use takes you to the most recent posts not the first page and coupled with the awful moderation lag it's easy to assume that the last post shown on the page you see is the last post) so apologies for being impatient with VB. I see you HAVE in fact replied, and you have told us that our grading scheme is a steaming heap of nothing. You can't and won't police it so anyone can do what they wish and trading standards have bigger fish to fry.

Given that any of us can therefore claim as many stars as we like why would nyone pay for a VB rating from QIT. For the search engines out there (as this is a publicly visible forum) I'll ask again, What use is A Visit Britain rating? Eitehr b need to grow a pair or you have to publicly admit that you can't police abuse of your system so it isn't worth anything.

[Windy]

"it would be inappropriate to do so in a forum environment."

Why?

[Windy]

Well I decided to put this to the test and called trading standards. I ended up speaking to a chap in some "govt direct" type outfit who said he'd pass on the details to trading standards (hello I though that was who I had rung, but he said they did it this way to TS don't have to deal with unimportant stuff like this directly - yes he really said that). Apparently they may or may not take action, but I may or may not ever know as they may or may not get back to me.

A totally satisfactory outcome as I am sure you will all agree.

I also spoke to the AA who, it would appear, are just as effective as VB in this department. the man I spoke to in Hotel Services muttered something about exclusion from the scheme for offenders, (which totally misses the point) and passing complaints on to trading standards (who are quite likely to do nothing it seems)

My conclusion here is that anyone can probably get away with misuse of VB or AA ratings and nothing will happen to them. As a result customers should not trust these ratings and I am wasting my time and money by getting myself graded. I would love to be proved wrong of course, so I will look forward to hearing from VB or Trading Standards that they have done something.

[Windy]

Well Trading Standards called me and left a message saying they couldn't see a problem. I called them back to explain the difference between a 5 star park and a 5 star lodge but I am not sure that I penetrated the fog. Apparently I am really supposed to contact VB. VB should then send a take down letter and if that doesn't work VB will contact TS who will then contact the person making the misrepresentation as described above by Mr Brinkwater. TS clearly don't know how to deal with a complaint from someone like me it seems, so to say "This course of action does not preclude another business or private individual going directly to Trading Standards." might be true, but I can assure you that if any of us do this we will just meet a wall of fog.

So, VB/QIT it would appear to be down to you to police your own scheme after all. Let's wait and see how effectively you are able to do this. I would suggest that if the site concerned is still displaying the large quantity of incorrect VB ratings a couple of weeks from now, that is pretty conclusive proof that a lot of us here are wasting a lot of money on being VB rated, and a lot of the holiday buying public have misplaced trust in a system that is fundamentally flawed by the fact that is has neither the teeth nor the will to enforce compliance.

[Windy]

Well TS have had a full week to act now and the site is still displaying unearned (or paid for) star ratings. I disappointed but not overly surprised I suppose. The guy who runs the site must be killing himself laughing that he can get away with this in spite of complaints to the only people with the teeth to stop him.

Scores so far

VB - 0/10
TS - 0/10
Stay In - 10/10 winning all the way.

Convincing proof that you can lie about not one but several VB ratings and still get away scot free.

[Windy]

And it's still there now - It has been viewed by no less than 3,000 more people since I first raised this issue apparently. That's 3,000 more people who are being mislead about VB's star rating scheme and VB / TS either can't or won't do a d*** thing about it. There was a trail of letters in the Blackpool Gazzette ( - the local evening rag where I live) about why local hoteliers are not renewing their VB subscription. I think may have to add to it.

[VisitEngland_Feedback_]

Some of the post on this thread have been removed as the contents of recent posts have breached the guidelines of this Forum, by disclosing personal data.
If Forum members wish to report examples of VisitEngland exterior or online signage/star ratings they believe to be out-of-date or invalid, please email feedback@visitengland.org as this mailbox is monitored daily. All reports will be passed to Quality in Tourism, who will follow up on VisitEngland's behalf.

[greenbarncottages]

It's a rather unfortunate development that a post that had been previously passed as suitable for the forum is subsequently deleted in its entirety; I don't recall the inclusion of any personal data beyond the name of the owner of the offending website, but I imagine the reasons for the decision by VE management to remove the post run a lot deeper than that. I've now seen that Sharpe's post has also gone, perhaps because it referred to the subsequently deleted post, rather than because it was critical of VE management.

Regardless of any possible doubts over the reasons, or any questions as to whether this was a good decision by VE management, the OP's persistence in standing up for the VE membership does seem to have been noticed, and it is very good to have the assurance from VE that they will now take action against all instances of the abuse and misrepresentation of the rating system. This system, after all, is the key benefit to members within the s/c sector and its reliability is fundamental to the existence of VE as a credible organisation.

So a partial thumbs up for VE, then, and two thumbs up for Windy.

[markteale]

One problem I have encountered is with businessess that have stopped using the official rating system - but the official ratings still appear on various booking sites, i.e. laterooms, Booking.com, Expedia and Trip advisor to name but a few. Obviously this gives these operators an advantage as they have the benefit of appearing to be in an assessed scheme, but none of the costs. I conplained to VB about one such establishment, quoting them and Laterooms. This was recified, but not presumably not via the operator, but just through Laterooms, they are still promoting themselves on Trip Advisor and Expedia as a VB assessed property.

I would suggest that VB employ one of there staff for a few days to:

1. Contact the various promotional websites and ask them to emial thier clients in respect to the fraudulent claims in respect to assessment.

2. Have a trawl through the estagblishments that have dropped out of the scheme and conduct some sample research to get a feel for the scale of the problem.

If this is nor reseolved I will probably join this particular bandwagon and have a slightly better holiday myself this year!