Harrington 102-"..Worst Hotel Experience Of My Life!"

The terrible reviews for Soheil Mehrab-Khani's "hotel" (it's registered as an accommodation facility) keep rolling in. It's like watching a train wreck. One woman named Pat was so upset by the experience, she wrote two reviews on two travel sites!

Just to refresh, one Soheil Mehrab-Khani, pictured above, owns the Harrington 102 as well as several other properties, and has been in and out of court on various building breaches as well as being convicted of a breach of restraint order against myself and smashing a windscreen of his neighbours car in a public street in a fit of rage.

The picture below is one of the court photo's used in evidence where Mehrab-Khani approached and threatened me and attempted to push his thumb in my eye.

He, along with his wife Jaklin Rahimi own and manage the Harrington 102. It is inevitable from my point of view with my previous experience of this man, that his "hotel" would not be free of controversy given his "bedside manner."

The Harrington 102, picture above, has garnered a raft of negative responses. As mentioned above, traveller Pat was so "incensed" she wrote on two different travel sites--Trip Advisor and Booking.com.

Here's what she says:

Pat W

Adelaide, Australia

Reviewer

 3 reviews

 1 helpful vote

“The need for up front payment said it all”

Reviewed 28 November 2012

"I am incensed by the experience I had at this hotel. I booked for 7 days and was asked to pay upfront on arrival. I had booked through bookings.com.

 I approached the woman at the hotel on the day after my arrival and told her I wished to change my plans and wished to leave on the Saturday (3 days away) The woman said I would have to cancel through booking.com or she would lose the fee she paid for each night.

 I asked about contacting them but was given no help. Although the hotel has internet its only available in the foyer and with your own laptop. I tried to find an email address for the booking company but couldn't. I had to phone them in the UK.

I was at a conference for two days and I had no opportunity to phone until the Friday night. In the meantime we had agreed that if someone came in for a room she could let mine and also that she could put it on the internet as available. 

However these regular conversations with the woman indicated she was more concerned about getting someone else in than how I could resolve the situation. I was given to understand that if bookings.com agreed I was able to have my money refunded. 

Bookings.com were happy to cancel and refund but needed to check with the hotel. When they did they were told that the hotel needed 72 hours notice from bookings.com. This of course meant that I was unable to cancel. 

As soon as I tried to have a conversation about this and point out I had let her know 72 hours before the woman raised her voice and talked over me. She was also very rude. 

I have travelled all over the world and generally I find that hotels factor in the changing requirements of tourists and I have not had trouble with changing plans. At this hotel I felt as if I was there for the hotel's benefit than the other way around.

I was also trapped by the upfront payment which I note on this site is not an unusual experience for guests at this hotel. There is no attempt at service - just the basic minimum at the least cost to the owners.I noted that the rooms were described as small and they were. They were clean and had most things in them. 

The walls are however paper thin and noisy guests can keep you awake as can showers at all times of the day and night. I would not like to be caught in a fire there as there was no way out except the stairs - the windows are glass bricks.

The breakfast is basic to say the least and although the booking form asked for dietary preferences the hotel does not supply anything other than breakfast cereal and toast. Apparently even a boiled egg would require a licence and other food is too perishable! 

I would strongly recommend against this hotel"

 ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The second review:

"I was very upset about this place. I was asked to pay for my stay on arrival - I did not know this would be required before I stayed. I had a sudden change of plans because of an opportunity that arose for the last three days and I raised this with the hotel on the day after I arrived which gave them three days notice.

They told me I could only make changes through Bookings.com. I could find no email contact for you and I was at a conference for the rest of the week. I discussed my desire to change each morning but got different information each day. 

The hotel was concerned about losing the booking fee they paid to you. I eventually found a phone to phone bookings.com in the UK and was pleased to find a willingness to accommodate me if the hotel agreed.

The hotel had told me I could make the change if I did it through you. However the person at the hotel said they required 72 hours notice from Bookings.com. This was the first I had heard of that and I feel cheated by the hotel. When I raised the matter with the woman at the hotel she was rude and aggressive.

They had my money and were not parting with it. I have since found that I am not the only guest who has been treated like this. The service was generally poor - breakfast is the most minimal I have ever seen in a hotel - cereal and milk and toast - no accommodation of dietary variations. Internet is only available in the immediate vicinity of the front desk - too much trouble to have it extended to the rooms."

 ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The review before Pat's has been listed before (above) but I want to repeat part of it relating to lack windows in case of fire:

" Our biggest concern was that the was only 1 way in and out of the building, via the stairs, oh yes we had to drag ourselves and luggage up 4 flights of stairs, NO LIFT. With NO window in the room, and only the stairs, WHAT IF THERE WAS A FIRE???? How the hell do you get out ??????? IS THAT LEGAL???"

********************************************************************************************************************************

For this and more, check out Trip Advisor:

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html#REVIEWS

Some more reviews from Booking.com:

The above are from Booking.com but the gem to end this all is by a couple from Hawthorn East. This gets my Review Of The Month Award!!!

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

"That was the worst hotel experience in my life. Very disappointed and upset with the 5 days holiday in Hobart. 

The hotel owner and staffs are extremely rude to customers. The knocked at the door and force us to check out early on the last day.

Threatened would call the police and charge us for stealing. We could only use the wifi at the reception area. They switched the wifi off after I used only for half an hour and complaint I had used for too long.

I even saw them refused to help an elderly lady to bring the luggage down stair since they didn't have lift in that hotel.

 I strongly suggest Booking.com to remove this hotel on the list. I will never use booking.com for hotel booking again and even tell all my friends not to use this site if such quality hotel still on the list."

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The link from Booking.com is here:

http://www.booking.com/hotel/au/harringtons102.en.html#hash-blockdisplay4

KHANI FLOPS in 2ND BUILDING APPLICATION at 33 Marlborough St.

The land that Mr Khani bought in Marlborough St, Sandy Bay in a contract of October 12^th 2006 for $412,500 is impressive.

8561m2 in area it occupies a prominent ridgeline visible from the river,parts of the Eastern shore & from some places in the city & Sandy Bay Rd. It borders the City’s “Bicentennial Reserve” & is in the Hills Face Zone.

Because of it’s position & prominence it, like 2 neighbouring properties, has  Conditions Registered on the Title to preserve the area’s character,including native vegetation & wildlife.

These include that:-

-there is a 600m2 Building Envelope,

-that “no vegetation or ground disturbance is to occur outside the building envelope without the written approval of (the Council)”,

-to strictly comply to the Geotechnical Report,&

-that only 1 dwelling can be constructed.

Soon after completing the purchase in February 2007 Mr Khani had about 2,300m2 of the land (nearly all being outside the Building envelope)  excavated with a bulldozer and a large quantity of fill dumped there.

A subsequent Geotechnical Assessment ordered by Mr Khani termed it “deep site fill” & “illegal fill” “…“which appears to be poorly consolidated with a considerable content of large rocks/debris which has potential for instability”.

It went on to say that the upper layers caused “considerable risk of debris slide”.

The half dozen or so neighbours below like the late Bob Petrass were in fear of a collapse onto them of this huge mound & have complained since of flooding of their homes after rain. 

Readers of this site will recall other instance of Mr Khani ignoring the law & interferences with neighbours rights  such as building closer than permitted to 163 Bathurst St & actually cutting off part of his neighbours fence at 178 Brisbane St,then constructing a pillar on the neighbours property & seeking to widen his driveway funnel shaped across that neighbours front garden.

The Council acted in due course and finally in July 2009 the Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal Ordered the harm undone:-

-the fill to be removed,

-excavation works reinstated,&

-a re-vegetation plan to be carried out.

In July the Tribunal noted that Mr Khani’s appeal came on “after a protracted & somewhat tortuous process” & that Mr Khani filed no evidence or any material.

In a decision of February 2010 the Tribunal termed Mr Khani’s opposition to the Council’s conditions as “frivolous or vexatious”.

It awarded the Council’s legal costs against him at 90% of the Supreme Court scale.Ouch!

Lord Mayor Damon Thomas has since labelled him “uncooperative”.

The response of Mr Khani in October 2009 was to lodge a planning application for a huge house of 3 stories with provisions for 10 parking spaces,an “Olympic” sized tennis Court & lap Swimming pool.

Those plans termed the area illegally excavated & filled (all outside the building envelope) as “level area  created by existing fill on site” and attributed to it a planned fountain & access stairs.

It seems to have been lodged on the assumption that if approved,it would retrospectively authorise the illegal work. Upon being told in about November ’09 that a Planning Officer had recommended refusal, Mr Khani asked to withdraw the application.

However it was to be over 2 ½ years before the Council acted to remedy the land devastation.

Council Officers had claimed that negotiations were going on with Mr Khani for him to do it.

If that is so, it seems that he succeeded in gaining what will amount to over 3  years grace.

For whilst the Tenders called for closed on July 12^th 2012, no Tender has yet been awarded.

Soon after Tenders closed Mr Khani lodged another building application.

Whilst the car spaces were reduced to 5 & the tennis court went,most of the plans were the same ones and still bearing their 2009 date.

The 2012 application included:-

-the illegally excavated & filled area being accepted & used as access to parking,

-5 bedrooms all with en suites,

-clearing more vegetation,

-a lapped swimming pool,&

-5 car spaces.

The Planner in recommending refusal noted:-

-the density of a residence should be minimised to protect the characteristics of the Zone,

-the building bulk, footprint & land clearance need to be minimised in this area, and

-the proposed additional clearing of vegetation would have a significant visual impact.

It was before the Council’s Development & Environmental Services Committee on October 15^th and due to go to the full Council on October 22^nd. But on October 15^th as he’d done in 2009 Mr Khani acted to remove it from the Committee when he heard of the recommendation for refusal.

The Committee agreed to it being deferred but noted that any more than a minor amendment would require a new application.

It seems that a new application is unlikely given the cost of an Architect and that Mr Khani always careful with his money (and toilet rolls), is currently trying to borrow to finish units in Bathurst St & seems to now have no real intent to build on the land & reside there.

He has long had the land for sale,currently with Falls Real Estate “offers over $750,000”. Interestingly their ad mentions the land size but says nothing about  the limited building envelope or of the restrictions on the Title,let alone the Planning Tribunal Order or the Council’s calling for Tenders to remedy it all.

Under S.196 of The Property Agents Act it is an offence if an Agent does not disclose to a prospective purchaser any information that he knows or ought reasonably know is likely to affect the purchaser’s decision,and he/she is liable for any loss or damage flowing to the purchaser from that failure to disclose.

Approved building plans would obviously only help a purchaser if he/she wanted exactly the house approved & approvals last only 2 years.

There might,of course, be  a new attempt if he thinks it will delay the awarding of a tender.

But Council Officers assure that any building application will not affect it and that the delay is only to obtain a Quantity Surveyors report because the amount of the Tenders is high.

The Lord Mayor is being questioned about it again at the Council meeting on November 5^th so we might see some action this year at least in the form of a tender being awarded. The tip is big money-probably over ¼ million.

Mr Khani will be responsible for it.Presumably the Council will register a caveat for it over all his properties.

That won’t be nice for a cash strapped owner.

Adding that cost to the $412,500 purchase cost + over $14,000 in Stamp duty to buy it + lawyers costs + ANZ fees re the Mortgage you’d probably need  the $750,000 sought less Agent’s Commission to break even.

And then, of course, there were the Council’s legal costs at the Tribunal and the money he paid to the excavator & fill dumpers in 2007 and to the Architect.

And, the ongoing costs of possibly about $25,000 p.a. for ANZ interest, Land Tax @ 1.5% of the land value & Council Rates.

Of course achieving anything like $750,000 will be difficult.When he bought it for $412,000, the Gov’t Valuation was only $195,000.

Maybe Mr Khani will join the frustrated residents of upper Marlborough St in wishing that he’s not so acted in clear contravention of the requirements on his Title. But maybe something about “leopards & spots” applies.

HARRINGTON”S 102 CONTINUES TO OFFEND GUESTS

This ‘accommodation facility’ seems to have suffered a dramatic fall in patronage following a wave of Complaints & Reviews to major travel Websites like Trip Advisor where it is ranks last of all reviewed accommodation in Hobart.

But some tourists continue to stay there many, it seems, reserving through the “Booking.com” site where it is wrongly described as a “bed & breakfast”. “Bed & breakfast” accommodation is within a home where the owner(s) use the majority of the residence. 

In just July & August this year “Booking.com” has received these complaints:-

ROOM SIZE

July 9^th-“very small rooms”

July 30^th-“cramped room”

August 15^th-“the room was barely big enough for 2 people to move in”

DEFECTS

July 28^th-“the electric cables needed hiding”

            -‘the shower door needed fixing”

-‘the vents needed fixing back in place”

LACK of BASICS

July 4^th-“when you run out of toilet paper that’s it,no more regardless of duration of stay”

            -“2 single beds pushed together, not a queen”

July 12^th-“no clean towels”

-“bed never made”

-“room wasn’t serviced for 5 days of my stay”

WHAT MR KHANI REPRESENTS-

On the “Harrington 102 website" - Modern & Immaculate Facilities”

On “Wotif”-“Ultra Modern”

On both the “Wotif” & “Hotel Club sites –

“Ideal & Inexpensive Accommodation”, &

“Suited to the Business person”.

Queen beds are listed.

PORKIES

On July 6^th Martin thought the explanation of ‘password issues’ might explain the absence of the advertised Wi Fi access.

But on August 4^th another Aussie traveller recorded that Wi Fi didn’t exist.

On July 12^th an attempt was made to placate Mark of Tweed Heads by saying  that a cleaner had just quit.

On July 9^th Paul from WA complained of the false claim outside of a “luxury hotel at bargain price” when it was “very basic”.

He could have added that is not an “Hotel” either.

BREAKFAST

On Aug 4^th an Aussie complained of the “breakfast” being just “sliced bread for toast, add hot water to instant coffee, etc”

She did better than Kerrie of Deloraine who reported on July 8^th - no breakfast (& no electric blanket & the need for ear plugs because of the noise).

WHAT MR KHANI REPRESENTS-

On the Hotel Club Website -“Restaurant. This property serves a delicious Continental breakfast every morning for you to make your day a tremendous one”

WARNINGS

On July 4^th a guest said I “strongly recommend not staying there”

On July 12^th Jan of Tweed Heads said “I’ll tell my friends not to stay there”

These were obviously not read by a guest who said-

On August 4^th “I don’t normally write reviews but after this hotel, I consider it only fair to other travellers that they be made aware of short comings of this establishment”

IS this Accommodation Facility accurate in claiming “Very Reasonable Rates” & “Inexpensive Accommodation”?

It’s compact rooms are advertised for $125 per night; currently available for $79.

It’s top room is advertised @ $195;currently available for $160.

The very highly rated Astor Hotel, Macquarie St starts from $57.

Other low price city area accommodation @ present includes:-

Cascade Hotel $56

Tower Motel $58

Marquis of Hastings $69

Shipwrights Arms $75

Blue Hills Motel $78

Central Bar & Café $85,&

Fountainside Hotel $89.

At a higher level The Macquarie Motor Inn starts at $83.70 and The Mercure at $99.

Nearer the top the Casino starts at $106, new Hotel Collins at $124 and the Grand Chancellor at $139.

Still who could forego the charms of being woken as Cheryl from Augusta, WA says she was on about July 10^th by another guest who was screaming out “CRAP MOTEL”?