Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

travelodge smoking fine


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

soz,just joined..not sure if ive posted properly,if not please be patient im sure ill suss it out given time.

in may i booked a room at travelodge and paid online by card.few weeks later i noticed an unauthorised withdrawl from my account for £150 credited to travelodge SMK.after a few minutes on google i found out this was a smoking fine.

i e-mailed them vehemently denying smoking in the room.

they replied that my room smelt of smoke and therefore they were sticking to their right to fine me.

my room may have smelt of smoke as i am a smoker and had gone outside several times during my stay for a smoke.

they have advised me to contact my bank?

do i have any redress?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately many smokers do not realise that even if they are not smoking, their clothing reeks of smoke and this can often transfer to any room they enter.

 

There is no easy answer, since the majority of smokers, in spite of what they say, are unwilling or unable to give up their addiction.

 

Smoking is not illegal, just anti-social, and it seems that Travelodge are treating it as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have no right to fine you.

 

Their Ts & Cs may be worded such that you agree to pay a surcharge if you smoke in the room - Do you have theses available?

 

Contact your credit card company and make a chargeback. Failing that, write them a letter before action, and be prepared to take them to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the e-mail i recieved from them after questioning the fine

 

Travelodge reserve the right to apply a charge to the card used to make the booking if there is evidence of either room damage or smoking discovered inside the room after the guest's departure.

 

This is stated in our terms and conditions (Section 5, point 4) that if evidence of the above is found we will charge the relevant card.

 

In this instance the charge refers to evidence of smoking in the room after you checked-out. The incident report we have states that the room smelt of smoke and ash was found on the windowsill. As we operate a strong non-smoking policy I regret to inform you that we would be unable to offer you a refund on this occasion.

 

If you wish to dispute this charge then I have been advised that you will need to take this matter up with your bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is from their terms and conditions

 

 

The terms below apply to your Booking if you are a consumer and book from 5th January 2009.

When you make a Booking on our website, you will be asked to click "I accept" and you will not be able to complete your Booking if you do not do this. This confirms that you accept these terms. We strongly recommend that you read the terms before accepting.

 

5 - Rooms

4 - You must not smoke in any of our hotels or interfere with our fire detection system. If you do so, we will terminate your Booking without refund and require you to leave the hotel immediately. You authorise us to charge you any costs we incur if you smoke or cause damage in our hotel including costs for specialist cleaning (to make the room fit for sale as a non smoking environment) and the cost of the room for any time period it is unusable. You authorise us to charge this amount to the payment card used in your Booking. We will send you (at the address on the Booking) a breakdown of these charges within 10 working days. We may refuse to accept bookings from you in future.

 

i did not smoke in their room or interfere with their fire detection equipment

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gist of this is an allegation to the effect that Travelodge fabricated evidence, that's a suspicion of a criminal offence, the appropriate redress being to report the incident to the Police to investigate, along with whatever evidence to prove the case.

 

It may alternatively be possible to show that they made an honest mistake, if the fact of the matter is that another smoker previously occupied the same room which was not inspected and cleaned on every occasion that the room was used, which is not to suggest that this is likely.

 

It could rather be the case that their reaction came about because another customer complained about the state of the room, expecting to occupy it in a better state.

 

In the mean time, beware please that the tendency nowadays is to regard smokers in general as irresponsible untrustworthy individuals not so well blessed with a sense of care, on any occassion. That's the way it is, like it or not. The benefit of a doubt is not so likely to get you out of this if that is the hope.

 

:shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will send you (at the address on the Booking) a Breakdown of these charges within 10 working days. We may refuse to accept bookings from you in future

 

they did not send me any breakdown of charges,the first i knew of it was when i noticed they had debited my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! You didn't do it so you should win.

 

It's not as easy as that. The OP is a smoker and smoking was detected in the room as well as ash on the window sill.

This is far stronger evidence that smoking did take place than a plea of 'I didn't do it'.

 

The hotels operating license could be at stake as it is illegal to allow someone to smoke in a building and if they are not seen to take action, it could land them in trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

their ts and cs state that they will inform me of charges within 10 days..they failed to do this.to date i have not received detail of charges.had i not checked my bank statement i would still be unaware of any problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately many smokers do not realise that even if they are not smoking, their clothing reeks of smoke and this can often transfer to any room they enter.

 

There is no easy answer, since the majority of smokers, in spite of what they say, are unwilling or unable to give up their addiction.

 

Smoking is not illegal, just anti-social, and it seems that Travelodge are treating it as such.

 

It is in a enclosed public place or place of work.

 

I have a couple of observations; if you were smoking, why did the smoke detectors not detect it at the time? I suppose Travel lodge are suggesting that you were smoking out of the window. If that is the case, is there any CCTV covering that side of the building?

 

Also £150 seems a tad over the top anyway for spraying a bit of air freshener and scooping a bit of ash up. I would suggest this amounts to a penalty and is disproportinate thus may be un-recoverable under English law. As far as I am concerned, the can only charge to cover their losses so you could ask them to explain how the get £150.

 

I suggest you write back to them and state quite firmly that you did not smoke in the room and do not except this charge. Ask them to provide you with substantial proof that you were responsible for the ash on the window sill otherwise you require them to refund your money within 14 days. If they fail to do so, you will consider making an application to the small claims court.

 

NOTE: Only do the above if you intend to carry this out, which I would do if you were definately not smoking in the room. Let a judge decide.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the effect of raising the stakes is to highlight the question of what exactly was the truth of it. Disputes like this are won by the most credible version of events, so the problem then is the want of an alternative explanation of ash on a window sill, with some sort evidence to substantiate the alternative.

 

If you rather dispute the operative terms and conditions the attempt would have to regard the broader context.

 

Are their terms extraordinary, or par for the course?

 

If you're invoking the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulations, which of those do you cite as your grounds?

 

:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive just received this in my e-mail,i assume its an internal travelodge one sent by mistake...its interesting that they refer to it as a smoking fine and not as cleaning charges

 

Hi Helen

 

 

 

Please could you provide me with a copy of our letter to this customer re the smoking fine of £150.00 which he claims was not received!

 

 

 

Thanks very much

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped at a Travel Lodge with a partner about 3 years ago, we were out for the afternoon and on our return the television was on with a static almost teletext looking page stating that smoking had been detected in our room and we would be charged as per their t&c's. Neither my partner or I were smokers. What we did notice though was that the fire detector / alarm had been covered over with a dust protector and a solitary cigarette butt in the bin in the corner. We never did work out if they were there on occupation of the room or mysteriously appeared over the course of the day we were out. However we flew down to reception and gave them a few stern words. Their response was not far from the lines of 'oh, that was probably the cleaners......' :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their response was not far from the lines of 'oh, that was probably the cleaners......' :eek:

 

Just before I read your post I was thinking the very same thing might have happened to the OP. I wonder if a Witness Statement from you might help if it went to court?

 

Don't want to put you in a position, GreatWonder, just wondering if in theory you would be prepared to attend court, as saying that you will could give leverage, and Traveodge might back down without a hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So ....

 

do you intend to complain that Travelodge overdo their attempt to discourage smoking, or should we rather complain that they are insufficiently tough about it?

 

If the cleaners could smoke in a room and expect to get away with it, more should be done to police the issue, not less.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That surprises me, however this rules it out:

 

(b) has been designated in writing by the person having the charge of the premises in which the room is situated as being a room in which smoking is permitted;

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Take them to court. Just tell the truth and you should win.

 

I agree if you didnt do it then fight, otherwise there is a chance it will happen to others, especially if third party is doing it, poss cleaners etc....

Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone think it's feasable for me to take them to small claims court.im really busy at work right now,so dont have much time to devote to it.im thinking of just accepting the fine right now

 

If you're wondering if anybody here is willing to cover the cost or to put the work in, it might be better to put the question as such.

 

Otherwise the comment appears to answer itself.

 

Words are cheap.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're wondering if anybody here is willing to cover the cost or to put the work in, it might be better to put the question as such.

 

Otherwise the comment appears to answer itself.

 

Words are cheap.

 

:eek:

 

 

:?::?::?: valid point :?::?::?:

 

 

 

:)

 

 

dk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...