Reviews are ordered by language and date with a maximum of 25 reviews.
Grubby and overpriced
| Average rating: |
 |
1.8 |
Guest name: laurona, Leeds
Guest type: Young single
stayed in May 2008
When I first arrived at this hotel I follwed the signs into the their overspill carpark. This was full of rubbish and the building looked shabby (almost derelict).
A short walk found the main carpark which was better, aleit full of office workers smoking from the nearby offices.
My company booled this room for me, and I'm glad because if I was footing the bill I would hve been really upset.
My first room (single) was really dated and grubby. It was like a shoebox. Wallpaper was hanging off the wall.The bed was tiny, my feet hung over the end (I'm only 5ft11) and the window was full of rust/mold.
I complained and got upgraded to Jnr Suite (sound good eh), well not really.Again a tiny room, grubby windows, glass cracked, slightly bigger bed (not double), which was well past its sell by date. You could feel the springs in the matress !!
Although others say the rooms were clean I thought they were dirty. You could feel bits/grit in the carpet if you dared walk on the creepyfloorboards, other peoples hair in the shower (nice!)
No remote for for the oldest TV in the world - all in all one of the worst hotels I've stayed in for ?80. Go to a Travellodge you will be far happier.
My ratings for this hotel are:
2.0 Check in / front desk
1.0 Value
2.0 Service
2.0 Location
A good experience
| Average rating: |
 |
4.0 |
Guest name: Bigdaddy183, Southampton
Guest type: Honeymoon
stayed in Mar 2008
We were surprised at the negative tone of some of the reviews. We found the hotel welcoming and friendly. The decor is past its best, but full of character, much more than a modern chain.
Our room was huge and very clean and comfortable with a bathroom big enough for a game of squash.
All the hotels were located in the same area, and a visit to the cathedral did include traveling through an underpass. The food was fine,except for a fish dish which my wife didn't like. It was changed without question.
As for value for money, we saw the advert in a newspaper and paid ?69 per person for two nights full board.
My ratings for this hotel are:
4.0 Check in / front desk
4.0 Value
4.0 Service
5.0 Rooms
3.0 Location
4.0 Cleanliness
Awful; are the flea bites a coincidence?
| Average rating: |
 |
1.6 |
Guest name: businesstraveller67, SE England
Following a single night stay in what can only be described as a grubby hotel in need of refurbishment, I am covered in what look like flea bites. Is that just a coincidence? you decide.
My ratings for this hotel are:
1.0 Check in / front desk
2.0 Business service
1.0 Value
2.0 Service
1.0 Rooms
3.0 Location
1.0 Cleanliness
Hard to ‘Swallow’ – Canterbury Fails.
| Average rating: |
 |
2.0 |
Guest name: cricklewood, Bournemouth, United Kingdom
Location – On the wrong side of town – whilst only a few minutes walk from the city centre you approach on foot through a dark & twisty subway – the neighbourhood may be OK but there is a sense of uneasiness that is not pleasant. Perhaps the fact that the hotel is right behind a Inland Revenue tax office made me uneasy!
If you arrive by train at Canterbury East is a three-minute taxi ride.
Part of the Swallow group of hotels so one has to assume this one is up to their standard.
Parking – There is a hotel car park.
The building – At first flush attractive enough – but the location is not good – the views from the hotel are non-existent & that 1950s tax office looms over the site – not pleasant
Reception & Public areas – Check in was fine – check out was brusk no effort to ask how ones stay was – perhaps she knew what the response would be. The d?cor is faded, the chairs in the bar area thread bare (& I mean that) as was the stair carpet- this hotel is not good
The rooms – Oh dear – grubby, the paint work was terrible, the wallpaper stained, no TV remote, the TV itself was old, the bed small & uncomfortable- no duvets – sheet & blanket. The pillows were OK. The wardrobe was dirty inside, the trouser press loose on the wall – from the window a view of a wall. Oh almost forgot the carpet – you would not want to walk bare foot believe me this room was the worst bedroom I have stayed in for many years.
The bathroom – A disgrace. The shower curtain was dirty, the loo flush loose, no shower control hoze.
Food –. To be fair the evening bar snack was OK – not hotel standard but by the time I ate my expectations had dropped so much I was just pleased it was eatable.
Staff – Check in receptionist was good, the elderly bloke in bar ‘in different’ the breakfast waitress tried her best & the lady on check out did what she had to. To be fair to them the hotel did not present a sense of pride – clearly the manager did not bother about standards.
Over all – If you are on holiday do not book in here – try the County (ABODE) on the High Street – that is a proper hotel with standards. If you are on business try & avoid – honestly it is terrible
Tip – Just don’t book in – especially if you are on holiday or a weekend away – it will just spoil the experience of Canterbury. I am not exaggerating – if you look at my other reviews I am always balanced in my comments – this place is as bad as it gets.
Swallow hotels – you should be ashamed.
My ratings for this hotel are:
3.0 Check in / front desk
2.0 Value
3.0 Service
1.0 Rooms
2.0 Location
1.0 Cleanliness
Well, I quite liked it!
| Average rating: |
 |
3.4 |
Guest name: ukgroom, ukgroom
Guest type: Honeymoon
stayed in Feb 2008
I stayed at the Swallow Chaucer this weekend, having found myself in Canterbury without a bed for the night. Overall I found the hotel quite pleasant, so was surprised at there being so many negative reviews here.
We chose the Chaucer based on it's location (about 2 minutes walk from the centre and less than 5 from the Cathedral) and the fact that it had it's own car-park. You do have to cross the main road to get to the centre, but there is a safe and well lit subway that makes this painless enough.
The public areas of the hotel were mostly comfortable and well presented. The breakfast room is rather functional and could be made more welcoming, but otherwise the reception, bar etc were all inviting and comfortable.
The staff too were friendly and helpful at all times. The receptionist in particular was a credit to the hotel.
Our double room was fairly small, as expected in an older building, but clean and comfortable. Decor was a bit "twee" for my own personal tastes and was generally looking tired, but that does seem to be quite common for hotels in this price bracket.
Overall I thought that the price was a tiny bit high for what we got, but we had walked in off the street and I was way too tired to haggle over a few pounds.
All in all though it was a friendly and pleasant stay and the Chaucer is a hotel that I would certainly use again.
The building itself appears to be quite old, so creaky floors and smaller rooms are to be expected.
My ratings for this hotel are:
4.0 Check in / front desk
2.0 Value
4.0 Service
3.0 Rooms
4.0 Location
3.0 Cleanliness