Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • 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 4614 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...