Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Who actually carried the items? Was it Hermes? I understand that you declared that they were loudspeakers and that before you enter the contract you were told that they would be protected for loss only and so you took out an insurance to cover that risk – is this correct? I'm afraid that if that is correct then there is probably very little you can do. Was it provided to in writing that these would be protected for loss only?   
    • Hi Peter,   I recall Barclays required the account to be brought under a stated threshold. I presume that the failure to comply would allow immediate payment and the filing of a default.?  
    • Peter,   I thought overdrafts were payable on demand ?  
    • I'm sorry but this may be a long post but I really need some advice : My son has been working on a fixed term, claims based contract which usually finishes at the the beginning of January and then employees are asked back.. Unfortunately I was sent home from work to self isolate due to being in contact with a positive contact .I then started to feel unwell and sent for a test which unfortunately came back positive so my son had to also isolate. During this time he had kept his employers informed that he was having to self isolate and that I had received a positive and he had ordered a test and was being tested. (which actually came back positive) This is where it starts to go wrong ,although he had contacted work and gave the names of the colleagues who he had been in contact he sent an email (or so he thought) informing them that he was positive .It was not until he returned to work that he realised that the email was sitting in drafts. The app said that he had to isolate until 28th (he went to work on 28th) which he showed them when he got to work, however it does say that you have to isolate 10 days from the test or from when you start displaying symptoms so he had been isolating for 14/15 days. He was sent home as no one was aware of his test result and was told that the manager would contact him to arrange to speak to him but she was currently on holiday. He sent an email explaining all the time lines .He did not hear anything back until last week asking him what shifts he would be available for in the new year, all good we thought but then he received a letter yesterday stating  "After a thorough investigation relating to your conduct upon receiving a positive COVID-19 test result, the decision has been made not to offer you further employment " He replied saying that he did not know that there had been an investigation and requested the copies of the investigation. The reply was " "as you are not currently in the employ of ---------------there is no legal requirement for me to provide evidence for this. However in light of your request for information, the following informed the final decision:" The absence of communication with a manager upon confirmation of a positive COVID-19 result The absence of communication with a manager to arrange your return to work following a positive COVID-19 test result The high level of risk to people and business associated with the two points above The approach to communication with colleagues and management upon your return to work We have a duty of care to protect our employees and members of the public, and as we continue operating within this pandemic we must be able to fully trust our team to follow correct procedures at all times. Can anyone help please ? Do they not have to provide evidence especially he was not given the opportunity to defend himself.
    • Hey guys - I've read a fair few of the Hermes related posts but hoping you can guide me here.   I paid Parcel2Go to ship 2 speakers to me, via ParcelForce from an ebay seller (Value £170 + £33 shipping) I stated on the form it was 2 speakers, and having been told that these were protected for loss only, I took out their insurance (£9 cost) The seller packed them according to their packaging tips page - two layers of corrugated cardboard and some corrugated plastic cushioning (4 layers).    They arrived badly damaged - the base smashed on one, cracked on the other. Dents on both. Looks like they had been dropped several times from a reasonable height.   Parcel2Go are now saying that they class these as Musical Instruments and that they must be packed in a hard case.  As such they will not pay anything towards the damage. After searching through several pages, and buried links, I've have found this in their terms but its buried pretty deep, and wasn't at all clear in any correspondence, or during the booking process.   Do I have a leg to stand on in terms of making a claim in small claims court? Really disappointed in the terrible handling of both the parcels and the complaints process.   Thanks for any advice - its very much appreciated.    
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Travel lodge bristol central Soft top damage in scure carpark


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4611 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that there are signs displayed saying vehicles are parked at the owner's risk - is this the case? I don't think they have any responsibility, regardless of the lack of CCTV footage.

 

What damage has been caused exactly? £800 for repairs sounds excessive unless the whole thing needs replacing - I got mine repaired for less than a tenth of that.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 to travelodge.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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ? ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh berfore I forget, a resounding no, I have not and will not accept liability, I am holding them liable for damage caused and will not claim from my insurance company, I thought and correct me if I am wrong or have been miss informed, but if you operate a priate car park as in this case, i presume you must have some form of liability insurance???? can you help me on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the exact wording of the notice - in its entirety please?

 

All the notices in the world can not disclaim negligence anyway; they have been negligent in not informing you of the prior spate of vandalism (unless they genuinely believed that it would not be repeated)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am holding them liable for damage caused and will not claim from my insurance company,

 

But you must inform them.

 

I thought and correct me if I am wrong or have been miss informed, but if you operate a priate car park as in this case, i presume you must have some form of liability insurance???? can you help me on this one.

 

 

If the public have access to the car park, there should be public liability insurance. However, I would assume that a group like Travelodge will have a single corporate blanket policy covering all properties and the excess will be way above your £800 - which would come straight from the operating profit of the particular hotel.

 

What you have received so far is a standard 'fob off' letter. They will take you more seriously when they get court papers following your LBA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...