I'm belatedly writing this after reading the review dated 23 May '05. We stayed at this hotel in September 2004. Our room was poor - very basic with a small old fashioned bathroom. However, we found the food good but very rich. The dining room was attractive. Service was excellent and not at all intrusive. Breakfast was good.
Our overall impression was of somewhere just about of two star standard. We would not stay there again.

This hotel appears in a number of reputable guidebooks, but unfortunately it is misrepresented.

This actually is not a good hotel and the pictures you will see of pretty, bright rooms are only the three on the ground floor. The others, the majority and all those in the featured annexe are very poor, dark, tatty and unmodernised, probably not since the early 70s. In our room - the bathroom had lights that did not work, it was impossible to stand up in the shower due to the steeply sloping roof and impossible for a man (expect perhaps Lautrec) to stand up in the loo. The bedroom lights fell off the wall above the bed the whole room was dark, dingy and none too clean.

We did not eat in the restaurant, but spoke to a mixed French/British party the next day who did. Their experience was one of average food but which took ages to be served. They too complained of their rooms. We complained about ours but got a shrug and were offered a room in the annex. This room was more suited to a dosser hostel. It stunk of cigarettes and made the first room look classy by comparison.

Hotel guides must check the rooms before featuring bad hotels on the say so of the owners and insist on being shown a range of rooms. We booked this due to the features in two different guides, both of which were totally missleading. Believe me, this is a bad hotel. If you write guides - check this out for yourself.