This couple left very complimentary of their stay and settled their account on departure. They confirmed in an email following their visit that they have taken away some very positive experiences, both in terms of how hospitable and helpful our staff were and the beautiful setting.
Almost 10 days after their departure they wrote to say they wanted $70.00 back on their meal, $325.12 refund on the chapel and $490.00 refund on the video package they had chosen. (Total 46% of the services)
Of most surprise to Stoneridge, was how exaggerated their issues had become on trip advisor since they did not receive what they wanted in terms if an expectant refund, compared to the email they sent which I am prevented from publishing on Trip Advisor.
A summary of my response at the time (10 days after they left) can be summarised as follows.
1. In the Chapel venue contract that was signed (and which is on our website) , it states that “if it is felt that any issue arises from the inadequate performance or provisioning of any service this must be reported to the duty manager and manager immediately”. When I spoke to the celebrant and videographer, neither was aware of the couples concerns in relation to another couple that had crossed the boundary into the Chapel grounds. If they had been they would have contacted one of my staff at the lodge and this could have been resolved immediately. As was pointed out by the couple when they were here, we do have signage advising the public that this is private land and entry should not be had unless by appointment.

2. I spoke with our staff member about the lamb rack and she maintains that she said that she had not seen the seasoning used on the rack of lamb and not that it was a new recipe. The menu (also on our website) shows a Canterbury Rack of Lamb, French Mustard and Malden sea salt rub …. As this is a Trust the Chef menu you chose, I guess there is a chance that not every dish will be totally suited to everyone subject to any special dietary preferences for which we seek confirmation prior. It is my understanding from staff member that served the couple, that the rack of Lamb was in fact consumed but the sea salt was scraped onto a side plate. In any event if this dish was unsuitable the chef was available to prepare another dish should they have wished or if this had been returned.

3. Upon speaking with the videographer she told me there is at least 40 minutes of unedited video. Having had a look at the package purchased it would appear that all aspects of the package have been covered, including the runsheet scheduling of videographer’s time post ceremony, if they were not happy with this it would have been advisable to have let me know prior to the wedding day. If they were unhappy with the DVD upon receiving it then I was happy to submit it to an independent review authority for comment as to its value, professionalism and whether its coverage reflects that of the package that you purchased. I think it is not fair to judge the value of this product until at least the couple had seen it.

In any event, in each of the issues, it is impossible to remedy any service deficiency whether actual or perceived, when it has been only raised in the timeframe such that is has.

The couple were happy to receive complimentary wine and beverage with their dinner as a gesture for the inconvenience of the couple walking on the grounds during videography.

If their concerns had been highlighted in terms of an expectant refund then this could have been dealt with more appropriately at the time. I don’t believe it is fair and certainly not legal to have services performed in good faith and then so long after, find some deficiency as grounds to a refund.

In any event, as a gesture and without prejudice, I offered $200.00 refund.

This offer was never accepted.

Alternatively Stoneridge offered to pay for arbitration of the matter, (done by teleconference), and would pay twice the award, if any. This was not acceptable either. I believe if the couple were sincere in their expectations of a refund, they would have accepted my offer above.

Turning to the other points on trip advisor.
The ceremony booked was a Wedding Blessing Ceremony with only the couple in attendance.
The couple were consulted as regards timings for the services booked for their ceremony. Furthermore they were provided a detailed itinerary outlining the time scheduling for their day for which they were asked to confirm and provide feedback on, should any changes be required. They confirmed everything met with their approval.
It was by the couples own admission, approximately 30 mins prior to their ceremony start time (2pm) that they had misunderstood/misread the videography package they had selected from the options sent to them. The packages (inclusions) were also detailed on the itinerary for which the couple confirmed. They thought they had the videographer for ten hours on their day, rather, the package states it includes ten hours editing (not coverage).
Here is the video package as the couple had purchased it.

RUNAWAY PACKAGE $980 inc. gst
Entire Ceremony
Signing of the Register
Guests Mingling and Congratulations
Candid style Camera after the Ceremony
10hrs Full Digital Editing
1 x DVD Authoring
DVD Sleeve and Label Design
The couple spent all morning preparing in the cottage for their ceremony including their own hair and make up and dressing preparations. The bride having declined flowers asked for ribbon to try and construct her own wedding bouquet from the flowers we had provided in the cottage tariff, only 10 minutes prior to her ceremony start. If they were running late or feeling rushed they only had to ask for a delay to the heli-flight. Stoneridge reject the claim that insufficient time was allowed; rather it was the client’s budget and their mis-interpretations, that provided the only constraints on their day..
The couple say they found salt excessive on 1 out of 5 courses, (but still chose to eat the meal), it is our policy, as in most fine dining establishments, to enquire as to guest satisfaction with their meal, particularly the main course. If the couple had been unhappy with the lamb and wanted a replacement dish then our chef would have been pleased to have provided an alternative. We are sorry the couple did not enjoy this particular course, but reject their claim that it was inappropriate to raise the issue being a private meal as apposed to one in a restaurant.
We were also sorry a couple transgressed through the estate to the gallery during videography. This had no final bearing on the couple’s ceremony which was in the chapel, or the final video, as the video was still to be edited. As is apparent from the correspondence, the couple were decidedly unhappy with the product even before it had been sent to them in the UK. The 11 acre estate comprises of 5 luxury rooms, it is I believe, reasonable to expect another couple in the garden and certainly we don’t advertise exclusivity of the entire venue unless all rooms are booked.
The two perceived mistakes in the video resulted in the videographer re-editing and sending a second copy. No thanks or credit was given by the couple for this when writing to trip advisor. The only criticism remaining was that of professionalism – which again comes as a surprise as they are one of the most reputed videographers in the region.
The couple believe they should receive a refund of $70 + $490 + 325.12 Total $885.12NZD
As can be found on our website, they were charged $650.00 (chapel), $315.00, (dinner for two) -5 courses, $980.00 videography package, Total $1945.00
They therefore seemingly want a 46% refund on these services, which frankly, I find unbelievable.
The remainder of the $4720 they paid was for accommodation, heli-flight and marriage celebrant.
The cottage does not have a double duvet (rather a king,) and has been assessed as a very high 5 star facility by Qualmark NZ.

No person on the Stoneridge property has a gun licence or either adjacent property – I am at odds to explain why this couple thought there were gun shots.

The owner did not serve this couple, and the cottage is no where near to where the owner resides on a completely separate property.

Manager/owner