|
|
| L. Klomp, Dutch (25 October 09) |
|
|
|
I've stayed here together with my 2 sons to show them London but if I have known that the hotel was this bad I would have spent more money! We did not use the showers because these were too dirty to stand in and the heat in the room was terrible I could not turn down the radiator for the knob was off. The room was far too small for 3 people and was in bad shape! Maybe this is the quality of 2 star London hotels but I think for the money spend it can be better! I've stayed in many guest houses all over the UK but never experienced a dump like this!
|
|
| Peter Kennedy, British (05 October 09) |
|
|
|
I stayed at this hotel for 2 nights over the weekend. It is fairly basic, but similar to most of the other hotels in Argyle Square - Ive stayed in 8 of them over the years and this is certainly not the worst! Some were considerably more expensive that the Melville, but had the same basic level of facilities! The staff I met are almost all Eastern European, and with one brief exception, they were all friendly and courteous. The room had no wardrobe/chest of drawers, but did have fridge! The room wasn't that small. The breakfast was basic, but there was a choice - cornflakes, muesli, orange and apple juice, mandarin segments. Tea and coffee. On the Saturday there was some ham and processed cheese slices. The ham wasn't offered on the Sunday, but there was still cheese slices and jams. The hotel appeared good value for money, though a neighbouring hotel offers cooked breakfast at the same price as the Melville's basic room and continental breakfast. The hotel's décor and the general ambience might be poor, but then people rarely treat other's property in a good way, so whilst a lack of investment is clear, this is reflected in the prices paid
|
|
| Anne Mellor, British (01 October 09) |
|
|
|
Comfortable bed, clean bed linen & towels, good breakfast. Rooms are in need of decorating/updating but for a short stay the basics are good value for money. Have already re-booked for my next visit
|
|
| Suzy, British (31 August 09) |
|
|
|
Was greeted politely on arrival although they couldn't find our reservation first off, room was clean and fresh bedding and towels were laid out, but we found the room very small, went for a shower only for the water to be freezing cold, the heating in the room didn't work, also it stated in the welcome notes that Sky TV was in rooms but when we asked why there was no remote for it we were told Sky wasn't available as of yet, so therefore it shouldn't have stated there was, it was well located in a nice area, the noise level inside and outside the hotel was on a low level, breakfast was very disappointing, very little choice and not very nice at all, plus we had to walk to another hotel across the square only for the dining area to be full so was asked to go back to Melville Hotel, it would have been nice to have a little bottle of shampoo and shower gel in room as well, I expected it to be very basic and that’s what we got, price was reasonable I guess but notes in welcome packs in guests room should be updated to what is available in the hotel, not advertising Sky TV when clearly there was none there, it was enjoyable for the night we stayed but I don’t feel I could have stayed two or more nights, it was too small for a double room and the food overall disappointing
|
|
| K Shirley, British (10 August 09) |
|
|
|
The hotel was cheap and therefore I was not expecting too much. However, it was really threadbare and tatty looking and the facilities were tiny. Couldn't swing a cat in the toilet! However, it was clean and the bed comfortable and I got a cot for my daughter which was also in perfect condition. The person at the desk was not too helpful or cheerful when we checked in but seemed more friendly in the morning
|
|
| Maeve, Irish (07 August 09) |
|
|
|
Fine for the price. Room small but clean, staff friendly and convenient location for train stations.
|
|
| Shaman, Russian (03 August 09) |
|
|
|
It is a dusty hostel, not a two star hotel of course. I took a single, as it was the cheapest single in London at the moment (38 pounds July 2009). It was, probably, one of the worst I lived in. The rooms were painted a long time ago - the walls were dirty. Room was about 5 square meters. So, when you put your bag inside - it is hard to move. Dusty. Only one outlet was functioning. Shared shower-room was dirty and very small. Advantages - there was a basin in the room. Toilet was the next door to my room and was private - as there were no more guests in the ground floor
|
|
|
|
|
Okay for one night. Beds, rooms and bathroom were clean, reception friendly, location perfect for St. Pancras, breakfast was basic. Our room had a washbasin, toilet and shower were shared. We were given a room with a double and a single bed as a double (no other furniture). Had we actually been three people it would have been very cramped
|
|
|
|
|
Cheap hotel, good location. Rooms tend to be small but have everything you need. Showers on the other hand are a bit annoying: clearly not up to standards there
|
|
| Linda, Danish (13 July 09) |
|
|
|
Good cheap hotel. Nice staff. Chose this hotel cause it's located very near Camden Town/central London plus had stayed there before. Includes okay breakfast. Could do with some clean towels during the stay though! Will choose to stay there again.
|
|
| C Morgan, English (02 June 09) |
|
|
|
We thought it was very central to where we were going to visit and near Kings Cross Station. Would stay again but not on the top floor . The stair carpet was very worn and I thought was unsafe.
|
|
| D Bisby , English (27 April 09) |
|
|
|
Would not stay there again as I was running the marathon I only had a bag with running kit but as there was no wardrobe in the room at all I could not hang anything up if I wanted to and no towel in the room.
|
|
| Diane , British (20 April 09) |
|
|
|
The rooms were really clean and the Hotel was very up to date. The breakfast staff and room let the whole place down. They did not want to speak to us and did not listen when we asked for a coffee so we had to ask again. The location was very good for places we wanted to visit.
|
|
| Laura Krug, German (19 April 09) |
|
|
|
I did only stay in Melville Hotel for two weeks. The only positive aspect was that the rooms were clean. But there was no table, only a staple-chair where I put my notebook on. No cupboard to put my clothes into, only a little box with three damaged drawers. The heating was very low, so that I used the towel-warmer to get the room warm. The bed was very big, big enough for two people. The bathroom was very small without any possibility to put things somewhere. The so called curtain had a kind of watered border. The breakfast was always cold toast. After three days I had to go for breakfast to the Albion Hotel, because there were not enough guests in Melville Hotel.
|
|
| Mrs H Watchorn, British (31 March 09) |
|
|
|
This hotel is probably one of the worst i have stayed in, the carpets were threadbare, the showers and toilets were tiny, there were no wardrobes or drawers to put your clothing in but a fridge was in the room!! The floorboards creaked with every movement. We stayed for 4 days and during that time only had one shower as the water was freezing, the toilet handle broke so could not be flushed and I was greeted with a toilet bowl full of loo roll as no-one had put an out of order sign on the door. On another floor one of the toilets light switch did not work. On a good note the location was good and the bedding clean. I was glad to get home.
|
|
| Kat, British (30 March 09) |
|
|
|
I would definitely stay here again. I would advise groups and young people to stay here, not for families. It’s very basic but clean. The showers are a bit temperamental but we got them working! Excellent location- 5mins to King’s Cross. Not got a bad word to say about the stay really. Get what you pay for: this is very cheap and satisfactory.
|
|
| Miguelangel Fernandez, Venezuela (25 March 09) |
|
|
|
The place is quite clean for a low budget stay. Shared areas like the shower and the toilet are a little uncomfortable and archaic. Breakfast is just cereal and two toasts with jam. I tried to use the kitchen and cooking utensils were completely insufficient plus plates, forks, cups and everything needed to serve an even minimalistic table were under lock and key. So don't count on the kitchen except perhaps microwave dinners.
|
|
| Robert Mayne, British (30 December 08) |
|
|
|
I stayed at the Melville for one night and found the room clean and tidy. It was easy to find and very quiet for being in central London.
|
|
| H Hillen, British (30 December 08) |
|
|
|
On first arrival the window was broken & wouldn't close so the room was very cold. There was no wardrobe to store any clothing and the shared bathroom and toilet left much to be desired. We only stayed for a few hours sleep before we had to catch the Eurostar, but we would not recommend this hotel. The price was very expensive for such a basic stay.
|
|
| Christopher McSporran, Anon (10 December 08) |
|
|
|
We stayed there for 3 nights. We didn't sleep too well because we could hear pipes running during the night. One of the beds was not very comfortable. There wasn't any hot water so taking a shower was out of the question. Although the location was excellent, there are tons of other accommodations available in the same area that should be checked out first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have more than 85,000 reviews from customers just like you, so you can find out the inside story on our range of accommodation and make an informed choice about where to book.
