Anyone stayed in their hotels before?
Seems like these hotels are located nicely but all pretty torn and shabby.

Which one hotel under this group around Bloomsbury/Russell Square area is better? Newer? and clean?

Thanks!

I've stayed at the Royal National Hotel twice and would stay there again. It is very big and institutional, but the price was right (British Airways deal) and the location can't be beat. The rooms were small, but clean, and continental breakfast was included. I haven't stayed at any of the other Imperial Group hotels, but I've heard that the Imperial is the nicest one.

Thanks Jame!

I have read from tripadvisor that Royal National is not clean, esp the bathroom....and hence I have my hesitations. Anyhow, still thinking which hotel to pick from the group since as you said, the location and price are unbeatable!

Btw, I read that there is 24 hours internet access from the coffee shop in one of the hotel, should be Imperial. Anyone had checked that out?

Institutional and tour groups characterise much of Imerial Hotel Group properties. To be avoided is the rock-bottom County, which has no private bathrooms (down the corridor). Next up, Tavistock and Royal National are really two-star, ok but nothing special. Noise level can be high because of constant coming and going of big groups. President, Imperial and Bedford barely scrape into 3-star with slightly better facilities and marginally more space, but not much more. Staff are efficient enough but without much charm. Breakfast ranges from passable to barely edible.
Unless you get exceptional rates or just need somewhere to kip for the night, I'd look for other hotels first in Bloomsbury, like some privately-owned small hotels near British Museum, or Thistle Bloomsbury, Euston Plaza, Morgan or Meridien Russel ( bit pricy).

I just returned from London and stayed at the Imperial Hotel, the "flagship" hotel for the chain. I was so disappointed...it being the flagship, made me think that the chain would be espcially proud of this property and thus would care for it...hah! What a dump! The first room was dirty, the toilet had been used and not flushed, and the furnishing had to be 10+ years old. I asked for a different room and was given a similar room, though this time at least the toilet flushed! The wall paper in the hallway was peeling off the wall, and the carpet filthy. The lobby of the hotel wreaked of cigarettes, had piped in music playing and furnishings that looked like they came from a garage sale. I chose this hotel because it was recommended by British Airways, thus I expected there to be some sort of quality assurance...what a joke! I'll never stay at any hotel in this chain again and will never book through BA again!

I have stayed twice at the Tavistock Hotel and have reservations there for an upcoming trip to London in May. Contrary to others here, I have no complaints about the hotel. I had a single room before; it was small, but it had a mini-bar which suited me perfectly. I found the staff to be very friendly and helpful. The breakfast is not that great, but there is plently of it and OK for those who like eggs, beans, fish and tomatoes in the morning (I'd much rather eat fruit). I have also stayed at the Royal National in a twin room with a friend. No complaints about that either. You get what you pay for. Besides, the location is great, with buses stopping right in front (including the bus from Heathrow), and the Russell Square Tube Station less than a block away.

Dirty bathrooms, barely edible food, lobby reeking of cigarette smoke, noisy groups and expensive. Why would you even consider staying there?

Maybe things have gotten worse over the years. When were you there? I stayed at the Tavistock in November/2001, and the Royal National in March/2003. Were you there recently?

Having just returned from London Kaneohe would be better able to answer your question than myself. In addition to the other comments - what a dump is pretty clear. References to dirty bathrooms at 2 different hotels. I also checked the website for prices. Way too expensive. No, thank you. I quit staying in central London a few years ago.

from what i read on tripadvisor quality varies widely in this sub $100 nightly chain. i choose the tavistock, which didnt have the consistently negative reviews of its cousins.we found the room to be as advertised,large with both a bathroom and a seperate WC.the furniture in our room was recently refurbished. the catch was the breakfast which came with the room: very basic: *just* toast/tea, but you could upgrade to english breakfast if you paid extra £4 daily.
its a clean base to see london.

I just checked recent reviews (dated feb.2005)on Trip Advisor and they all were very satisfied with the Tavistock. In a large hotel such as that one, there are different cleaning people per floor, so there could be variation in how you find the rooms. Based on my past experience and on the recent reviews I will stick to my bookings at Tavistock - unless a fantastic deal comes around.