Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is response to CPR rules you sent me - my observations are   1)they havent stated under what law/legislation they make a claim, they have mentioned document they rely on but didnt serve it with application as above   2)they didnt serve application or evidence on me ever! court knows this    3)this is a telephone hearing where no oral evidence is to be given , do we do skeleton arguments or court bundle , when do we give to court - order is to only submit evidence in response 7 days before hearing   4) there are /is a document which gives complete defence to the claim, disclosable at trial , so they shouldnt have sought summary judgement a)i have an email from them ,  a deed of guarantee and indemnity (DOGI) was required for guarantee, pre condition to lending b)i have a docusign email sending request to sign this  DOGI document (not attached it was a docusign login) , c)they dont have a copy of it and havent provided under SAR or specific request.  d) anyone who does a DOGI, is not defined as a 'Guarantor' in the agreement, which is not signed in a personal capacity anyway, e)so in the application they rely on loan agreement having a self contained gurantor section, and the fact my name is next to word guarantor (but not signed personally, no statute of frauds anyways)   their definition of a guarantor-"person named in offer letter who enters into this loan agreement to provide a personal guarantee and indemnity. this definition excludes any third party guarantor who enters into a seperate DOGI"
    • Hi Anney.   Let's give this a bit longer. With the best will in the world, altosbestos hasn't been here very long and we don't know much about them. It would be good to know what forum regulars think about what altos is advising.   HB  
    • thanks for that very helpful, ill make some points on it in a minute just wanted to say they never served me application against CPR, i had to obtain off court a copy. They refer in wtiness st - marked as what they rely to support application a paginated bundle PR1 which apparently accompanies the statement, i can see from the references and amount of pages it should be the loan offer and loan agreement, as you would expect.   so i asked court can i have copy of PR1 so i can check, they just got back and said  claimant has never either in electronic database or in paper, served a bundle PR1 with the application,    there said it was claimants job to serve everyone and me- so ask them      i was about to and i had a thought, they havent submitted any evidence in support of their application why remind them !   in theory judge will get to hearing and go where is your evidence of this agreement?   and for the record they are very sloppy and do make major mistakes in their paperwork, so this isnt unusual
    • You can draft the letter before action yourself and send it against the individual that's not giving you clear responses. No need to involve solicitors at this stage.   I would recommend you do it today, start maintaining a paper trail. 
    • Obviously the real proof will come when the contract is revealed.   In the meantime you could write to the DVLA asking who applied for your data back in 2017. And show them the signage where both companies are listed and ask in view of who asked for your details, did the right one apply and what is their view on both companies showing on the sign.   Is this legal and explain that you are in the middle of a Court case and they may be called.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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

Travel lodge bristol central Soft top damage in scure carpark


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4619 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...