Thread: Travel lodge bristol central Soft top damage in scure carpark

Hi

Hope this thread is in right place, first off I have been fighting this for months now.

My MGF had the softop damaged by some individual in the car park , that is the carpark owned and run by the bristol central travel lodge, the staff were very un helpful and now the travel lodge just ignore my emails.

Damage was totalled at £800 for a new softop, the CCTV footage was well below par according to the police and they told me that it was awefull this has not been an isolated case, in the car park, I need some advice as what to do next. They have admitted that security has not been adequate int he carpark and are now reviewing it. has this been an admission of neglegting security on site.

How can I now proceed to claim the costs from them

Similar Threads:

• Bitter soft centres anyone???
• HSBC Lodge AQ
• Where to Lodge Claim
• off to lodge some claims
• I guess I am too soft.

They ripped the soft top at the back and all the stitching so yes the damage was excessive. Regardless of signage, they have proved negligent in the security for the fact that it has been a regular occurance. Travel Lodge have admitted that the security has been less than adequate and the staff already knew this was going on for some time. The fact they also charge for the carpark as well. To the fact this happened at about 7-8 in the evening less than 2 hours after parking the car. And please tell me where did you get it recovered for £80 just not possible

I believe the sign saying 'parked at owners risk' is meaningless. do not be put off by that.
its on a par with the classic 'no refunds' sign you see in shops...

Originally Posted by lamma

I believe the sign saying 'parked at owners risk' is meaningless. do not be put off by that.
its on a par with the classic 'no refunds' sign you see in shops...

Ive heard that a few times aswell Lamma

A parking at your own risk sign is unlawful - just like the 'no refunds' one is in shops - in the case of parking it is an attempt by the landwoner to limit their negligence including death and personal injury, this is not allowed.

Has there been any case files like this, that have been successful, I just want to take this further than I already have.

every case turns on its own issues and facts, we don't know all the facts around your case so how can anyone find relevant cases for you.
you DO know all the facts though, exact wording (signs/ticket), charges, any conversations...

do they offer 'secure' car parking explicitly ? any exemptions, conditions etc. you get the idea.

gather all your info is best.
plenty of compo lawyers around that will chat about it and probably take it on if you have a good case. but get all the facts ready first.

If you can prove it's a regular occurrence & therefore foreseeable that your vehicle would be damaged then unless they warned you of this risk(irrespective of any signs) then it could be held that they are liable.

A failure to warn you could be considered as being negligence & all the disclaimers in the world won't exonerate negligence by the company

Most such signs are unlawful........... unless they specify that they only accept liability if it's the result of their negligence

agreed re the acceptance, we don't know the extent of the 'secure' offer yet though.

Originally Posted by Borgonian

Has there been any case files like this, that have been successful, I just want to take this further than I already have.

Whilst remembering that county court decisions do not set precedence...

I know of a case 30 or so years ago where a pub had a notice stating that cars were parked at the owners risk.

A car was vandalised and it was held by the judge that 'owner' could equally well apply to the owner of the car park.

Hi all this is the repsonse from the travel lodge.

Dear Mr Quinn,

I reiterate the information I gave you in my first e mail. I am satisfied that the signage is correctly displayed and adequate for the car park at Bristol Central. There is no obligation on Travelodge to provide any security function whatsoever. However where there are issues we install the appropriate security systems. Bristol central has been equipped with a CCTV system, and barriers at the entrance and exit. When you enter our car park the signage is very clear. No liability will be accepted for any loss or damage however caused. I am sure that you understand the reasons for such clauses, which are common to all car parks in the U.K. You are paying for the right to park a vehicle on a particular piece of private land for a specified time. You are not paying to have your protected for the duration of the visit. I am satisfied that Travelodge will successfully defend any civil court action you may decide to take. I do urge you to seek specialist legal advice however before embarking on a course of events which could result in you incurring further costs. I have had no contact from the police, but if you provide the officers details I will contact him regarding the CCTV data provided.

Peter Gurney
Head of Security

office +44 (0)1844 xxx xxx . +44 (0) 77401
mobile +44(0) 7776164494
before you go anywhere, go totravelodge.co.uk

So there you have it, but what it fails to mention is that the car park had already had a spate of break ins prior to me arrival, and I was not notified by staff, surely they have an obligation to inform customers of this as a precautionary measurement, which they did not of course.

Regardless os signage they knew about the problem of break inns in the car park but did not warn me /or other customers of this when checking in.

yep he has admitted known problems and his reference to the signs "No liability will be accepted for any loss or damage however caused." completely skips over the validity or otherwise of such signs. In his efforts to spin out of it he seems to have given you what you need.

To re-use Pats reference from earlier YOU are not accepting the liability are you ? ?

1st their 'however caused' is wrong as for negligence by either their staff or the company they ARE liable

2nd The fact that there was a known (foreseeable) risk they should have warned you then you could have made an informed decision as whether to use the C/P or not

Also I should report their signage to TS

Forgot to mention he may claim they are common signs (which they are) but that still doesn't make them valid

When you enter a supermarket C/P many display the same sign but some don't. They whilst disclaiming any other damage they admit if it's their fault they are liable

Yes. Mr Gurney has very kindly opened to door for you. Go after them.

you got pictures of the car park, signs etc I take it ?

"However where there are issues we install the appropriate security systems. Bristol central has been equipped with a CCTV system, and barriers at the entrance and exit".

Oh dear what a jerk Methinks it's he who should seek legal advice before he utters another word

lamma He doesn't need pictures. Mr Gurney has kindly admitted what the signage states namely "No liability will be accepted for any loss or damage however caused."

The most important fact is the admission that they install security devices where there's a KNOWN problem which must be why they have here

In his haste to spin Mr Gurney may have made a mistake there also...

Originally Posted by JonCris

1st their 'however caused' is wrong as for negligence by either their staff or the company they ARE liable

2nd The fact that there was a known (foreseeable) risk they should have warned you then you could have made an informed decision as whether to use the C/P or not

Also I should report their signage to TS

Hi Crisjon and every one else keep the advice coming, painting a great picture for me can you explain the last term "report signage to TS" what is this TS if you dont mind me asking, I seem to be having a gereatric moment.

Thansk for all the advice everyone.