Justice for Natalie- Merged thread
#48
Hit 16's
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: Justice for Natalie
Me: "Right, I want corporate buy-in for a world-wide block of all our group companies from using Kempinski and their related companies, because of their appalling treatment of one guest."
Corporate: "Sounds fair, if the treatment's really atrocious."
Me: "Yes, I wouldn't want one of our employees staying at any of their hotels if this is their attitude."
Corporate: "Fine. By the way, do you know the person involved?"
Me: "Not directly, no."
Corporate: "A friend of a friend, then."
Me: "Not exactly."
Corporate: "How do you know about the case, then?"
Me: "Er... I read about it on a social networking site."
Not real, but that's how I imagine it might go.
So, before I think about doing anything: any verifiable facts out there?
Corporate: "Sounds fair, if the treatment's really atrocious."
Me: "Yes, I wouldn't want one of our employees staying at any of their hotels if this is their attitude."
Corporate: "Fine. By the way, do you know the person involved?"
Me: "Not directly, no."
Corporate: "A friend of a friend, then."
Me: "Not exactly."
Corporate: "How do you know about the case, then?"
Me: "Er... I read about it on a social networking site."
Not real, but that's how I imagine it might go.
So, before I think about doing anything: any verifiable facts out there?
#49
Re: Justice for Natalie
I'm all for boycotting Kempinski hotels - I do anyway but due to price
However, these things are never clear cut. Kempinski may not actually be responsible in this case...
Hotels are almost always built and owned by a different party to those who put their name on the front door. In this case, Emirates Palace is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi and operated by Kempinski.
So, Kempinski inherited this building and all its faults and it has to live with them under the terms of the management contract. No doubt there is a latent defects clause in the management contract and they themselves are in a battle with the owner, who is in turn in battle with the contractor, who is - no doubt - in battle with the architect.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. It's a fact of life - but boycotting and running a hate campaign against Kempinski probably isn't the right way to go about it. I personally would look to the owner.
However, these things are never clear cut. Kempinski may not actually be responsible in this case...
Hotels are almost always built and owned by a different party to those who put their name on the front door. In this case, Emirates Palace is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi and operated by Kempinski.
So, Kempinski inherited this building and all its faults and it has to live with them under the terms of the management contract. No doubt there is a latent defects clause in the management contract and they themselves are in a battle with the owner, who is in turn in battle with the contractor, who is - no doubt - in battle with the architect.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. It's a fact of life - but boycotting and running a hate campaign against Kempinski probably isn't the right way to go about it. I personally would look to the owner.
#50
Re: Justice for Natalie
My understanding is that the hotel was found culpable but has gone to appeal.
#51
Hit 16's
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: Justice for Natalie
I'm all for boycotting Kempinski hotels - I do anyway but due to price
However, these things are never clear cut. Kempinski may not actually be responsible in this case...
Hotels are almost always built and owned by a different party to those who put their name on the front door. In this case, Emirates Palace is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi and operated by Kempinski.
So, Kempinski inherited this building and all its faults and it has to live with them under the terms of the management contract. No doubt there is a latent defects clause in the management contract and they themselves are in a battle with the owner, who is in turn in battle with the contractor, who is - no doubt - in battle with the architect.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. It's a fact of life - but boycotting and running a hate campaign against Kempinski probably isn't the right way to go about it. I personally would look to the owner.
However, these things are never clear cut. Kempinski may not actually be responsible in this case...
Hotels are almost always built and owned by a different party to those who put their name on the front door. In this case, Emirates Palace is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi and operated by Kempinski.
So, Kempinski inherited this building and all its faults and it has to live with them under the terms of the management contract. No doubt there is a latent defects clause in the management contract and they themselves are in a battle with the owner, who is in turn in battle with the contractor, who is - no doubt - in battle with the architect.
I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. It's a fact of life - but boycotting and running a hate campaign against Kempinski probably isn't the right way to go about it. I personally would look to the owner.
#53
Re: Justice for Natalie
Regardless of Kempinski's right to claim from others, it is (I assume) Kempinski who (would have) accepted Natalie's payment for her stay at the hotel, so it is Kempinski that has liability to Natalie. No doubt Kempinski will have insurance and the right to claim that liability lays elsewhere, but that's nothing to do with Kempinski's liability (and, perhaps, moral obligation) towards Natalie. That said, Natalie may have a legal right against the owner and other parties (eg the maintenance company, if there is one), but I don't know how that aspect of law operates out here.
I'd still run my hate campaign against the owner. Imagine the damage to the tourism effort you could do.
#54
Re: Justice for Natalie
There are other ways of approaching the situation and I'll be following that up shortly. I don't think that angry posts on the hotel's FB page is the way to go. Better to deal with individuals and be human about it.
It's a sad situation, whatever the details, and this poor woman is very ill indeed. She's currently back in hospital in ICU.
#55
Hit 16's
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: Justice for Natalie
Yeah, right
#56
Re: Justice for Natalie
So, Kempinski inherited this building and all its faults and it has to live with them under the terms of the management contract. No doubt there is a latent defects clause in the management contract and they themselves are in a battle with the owner, who is in turn in battle with the contractor, who is - no doubt - in battle with the architect.
Structural and other guarantees will last longer but an item like described in the incident will purely be down to hotel maintenance. The structural, mechanical guarantees are sometimes also carried by decennial insurance backed by a supervising consultant during the construction and again not by the contractor.
For what its worth on the incident itself, I agree with Bahtatboy, we have no details, no actual reports of what happened, just a vague internet facebook campaign.
#57
Re: Justice for Natalie
Many of us know people who are friends with this woman, so have no reason to doubt any of the details.
#58
banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,611
Re: Justice for Natalie
What are Kempinski's grounds for an appeal?
Just looked at the FB page..what a shame, poor girl. I hope this is resolved.
It got me thinking as my wife has an illness that is rather unpredicatable..what point would we move back to the UK and the full support network..
Just looked at the FB page..what a shame, poor girl. I hope this is resolved.
It got me thinking as my wife has an illness that is rather unpredicatable..what point would we move back to the UK and the full support network..
#59
Re: Justice for Natalie
It's a delicate one to cover, but working on some local press coverage now.
#60
Re: Justice for Natalie
Would Natalie not be better in the UK regards treatment costs? or is she not allowed to leave the Country for some reason?