Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • like you dont reply at all what the debt looks like a loan  who was the oc? is it on your credit file? what is the defaulted date?   i will guess you've already sent a CCA request etc? why if it wasn't a letter of claim did you ever bother responding?   then we'll get this off to it's own topic as you quite rightly say its off topic and shouldn't be in this thread   dx  
    • Duty to mitigate loss isn't a 'general rule, but case law (precedent)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Westinghouse_Electric_and_Manufacturing_Co_Ltd_v_Underground_Electric_Rlys_Co_of_London_Ltd   https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2994&context=faculty_scholarship   highlights that you'll need to focus on the post-repudiation value, rather than any current value for the assets.
    • https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
    • I called my GP surgery and offered to jump in car and turn up at no notice if they got no shows and was told 'thats simply not happening' When I pointed out that the BBC had raised the issue I was quite bruskly interrupted (unusual at my surgery) and told the media is spouting rubbish which is helping no-one.   I do know that hospital/vaccination center staff are/have been given doses from failed attendances. presumably managed locally   We need to understand that patients can call again, but the vaccination doses are and will remain for some time limited and waste (including relying on others turning up after one failure to turn up) is to be avoided at all costs   There is also the issue of managing the second dose (errr) for those who are given one out of sequence. Let alone any questions regarding that being 'approved'     Personally I would be happy getting one dose early whatever happened later.  (one different vaccine, two matching, no other, whatever)  
    • A cross-party group of 70 MPs are pushing for buy-now-pay-later firms to be regulated within three months View the full article
  • 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 4610 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

Thanks Joncris, you help is fantastic will get the ball rolling, with def keep you informed of this one, but if ny knows of specific case files similar to my own please let me know.


Again appreciate all the advice and help

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Common Law requirement that we do not put each other's property or life & limb at risk & if we do, even by omission, then we fail in our 'Duty of Care' & are therefore deemed liable

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would issue them a letter before action, summarising your position, enclosing a copy of the invoice for the roof works and concluding by stating if you do not receive the sum in the next 14 days you will commence legal proceedings to recover the debt.


Those car park disclaimers are unlawful. You cannot lawfully provide a service and then exclude any liability for the same.


Then if you are no further forward in 14 days then file your claim at court.

  • Haha 1

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

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 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.


Well an update have had a chat with Norman Clark, there could be a case of negligence on Travel lodge even thought they put cctv in and barriers ( exit one was a roller door ) the front one a barrier so any can walk in off the streets, also they should have informed me of the spate of break inns which they did not, now this can be deemed as negligence on there side as measures although were put in place were inadequate to stop it from happening and the fact they knew it has been a problem, they again should have informed me and/or put signs up stating the fact there has been a problem with the car park.


So what to do next do i go the whole hog, i will write the letters and send quote from garage to them for a response ( all recorded delivery ) then would I go to the solicitors or do i go the way of a small claims court which is going to cost me alot more than i think it might

Link to post
Share on other sites

See my post 30 above, issue a LBA and then commence with a small claim.


You should have a go at drafting the letter yourself, post it up and then we will look at it here.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all,


here is the repsonse I have got after I sent the LBA this has all been done by email.


Mr Quinn

I am in receipt of your latest e mail to Customers Service and I note the comments therein.

I have the authority to make the decisions I have already made as per my previous correspondence. I will again reiterate them. Travelodge rely on the No Liability status, as displayed in all our car parks. This is common in most UK car parks. You are of course at liberty to challenge that fact in the small claims or civil court and we will defend those actions, as appropriate. I am not therefore persuaded to authorise any compensation.

Nothing in my correspondence to you was in any way intended as a threat. I apologise if it was construed as such. It was a statement of fact. Traditionally these incidents in car parks have been defended successfully. The level of Court action you may take, (i.e. small claims or civil court ) will dictate how Travelodge is represented.

I am sure this is not the response you would have wished for and I am sorry that your stay was spoiled, but that is my final decision.










Peter Gurney

Head of Security



office +44(0) 1844358619

fax +44(0) 184358585



mobile +44(0) 7776164494

before you go anywhere, go to travelodge.co.uk

Can you tell me your views on this as has only ever at all time only concered with the signs over and over again.

Thanks to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

have spoken at length to Trading standards and they have said the signs are neither lawful or unlawful however they did quote a better chance of using sale of goods and services act 1982

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading standards are not much use, if your LBA says you are going to commence legal proceedings then do so.


Their letter in post 37 is a fob off, what is he going on about 'small claims or civil court'!

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Travelodge say the rely on the No Liability - sure they rely on it to fob people off. However it cannot stand.


TS said that - what powers of logic they have. If the signs are neither lawful nor unlawful they are not signs - they are paintings ! or maybe just mirages..


The parking at your own risk sign/No liability sign is unlawful. It is an attempt by the landowner to limit their negligence including death and personal injury.


Get back to TS an speak to someone with a basic grasp of simple logic.



If I toss a coin and it comes up not head OR not tails then you pay me a tenner - see if the TS brain will take the bet.


If it was me I would write back to a senior person Travelodge with


at the top of the letter. this has meaning and makes liability assignable.


explain why their No Liability sign cannot stand and that unless they settle now and in full they should consider your letter a 'letter before action'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree TS are a waste of space


Rather than be technical re SGS your claim needs to be based on simple straight forward negligence/breach of the implied contract in that they have admitted they knew there was a problem & failed to tell you resulting directly in your loss


He states such claims have been successfully defended which may be correct up to a point but where there is negligence the operator has been found at fault


Issue your LBA & hopefully when it gets into the hands of someone who understands the law your claim might be resolved more sensibly

Link to post
Share on other sites

plus there is much law about exclusion clauses - notably Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking but many others. travelodge are just trying to fob you off. give them a chance and then nail them in Court. You need to give them a chance to succeed under CPR AIUI

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...