Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, Love this site and it's no nonsense advice, have dipped in and out of the consumer forums over the years, mostly to assure myself that what I was doing was the right thing when dealing with various businesses (almost 100% success rate, thanks in part to reading and more reading here.). Anyway, the time is almost approaching where I might need to ask for some specific help and I have a couple of queries that I can't see definitively answered. Due to financial mismanagement and severe anxiety issues I stopped paying all unsecured debt in December 2018 (one slipped to the first week in Jan 2019 when the last payment was made having rechecked my bank statement from that period - all my unsecured debt direct debits were cancelled in early Jan 2019). This has left half a dozen debts;  a couple of credit cards, a bank loan, Shop Direct and some Hitachi Finance stuff having been sold on and passing the rounds through the usual suspects, Lowells, Link, PRA Group, others related to them, and then back to them again. I have somehow successfully managed to maintain radio silence and avoided anything more worrying than their begging letters.  I have blocked their phone calls and texts, bumped all emails to the spambox and had a chuckle at their desperate letters.  I've never had anybody at the door.  I have been at the same address since before I defaulted and all correspondence comes to my current home address.  I have NEVER contacted them or admitted any debt. In anticipation of them perhaps ramping up action at the last minute I've had a look at my credit report on Credit Karma (rec'd from this very place) and I see that the default dates on these range from May 2019 to November 2019. Also in preperation I've been reading, reading and reading lots here as advised. Obviously being in Scotland there are a lot fewer posts relating to these matters and it's always quite annoying when OP's do not follow up with any outcome on their cases - how rude! This has also left me a bit confused of when I am able to finally breathe easy (although cancelling all the direct debits in Jan 2019 was the biggest sigh of relief as I knew it was all going to be unmanageable and, well, default one, default all.). I've been reading that defaults should be filed 3-6 months after the missed payment but one of my larger debts was defaulted on 27th August 2019 when the last payment I made was 10th December 2018, meaning the first missed payment was 10th Jan 2019.   My query for now is - when should I infer that these debts are prescribed?  From when the payment was missed, or taking the default date plus 5 years from the credit report? The three I have with the May date are moot anyway as either way they are gone  - some letters from Lowell offering me 90% off to settle is what got me thinking these must have been near SB status, however I have one big 10k+ with a July date and another 10k+ at the end of August I am feeling a bit anxious again, even though I know there is nothing to worry about with the begging letters.  Reading the various forums I am not sure why the OC's didn't take action against me when I read time and again the surprise that other posters haven't already been taken to court for lesser amounts - I'm also surprised I've avoided any action this long as there are plenty in this forum and sub forum who are whisked off to the court by the beggers minions after only a year or so after defaulting.  There are no CCJ/decrees listed on my credit report and I have not received any such judgements against me.  I still just regularly receive the begging emails to the spambox, the blocked phone calls and the letters from the they. I'm also reading that there is no need in Scotland to send an LBC so what should I be looking out for to know that the time has come to engage with CCA requests etc? I'm afraid in a fit I threw a lot of the paperwork out but I have a box of stuff I'm going to go through which may have the original letters from the OC's. Thanks in advance for any advice.  
    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
  • 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
      • 161 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 5036 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

Lets hope that you get a Judge who is a smoker ;)

 

If the allegation is that the company fabricated evidence to perpetrate a [problem], that is a case to be proved, not an assumption that a judge is entitled to make because he smokes.

 

If the story is supposed to be that somebody else had smoked in a room, that is a case to prove against a person who did, the chance of which I did not yet discern.

 

Otherwise, it is back to square one.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not unsympathetic, but the action for recovery must always be taken with the knowledge that the loss could be greater should you lose, plus the possibility of costs awarded against you simply to fight the injustice.

 

The facts will have been lost in the mists of time, but unless I had some proof as to how I found then ledt the room witness or photos, I'd be tempted just to never patronise their establishment again, in line with all others who overcharge me or rip me off!

 

 

If we followed your advice then no one would seek justice There's always been & there always will be a litigation risk & it's for them to prove he smoked not for him to prove he didn't

 

Also its a small claim so no costs are applied

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the allegation is that the company fabricated evidence to perpetrate a [problem], that is a case to be proved, not an assumption that a judge is entitled to make because he smokes.

 

If the story is supposed to be that somebody else had smoked in a room, that is a case to prove against a person who did, the chance of which I did not yet discern.

 

Otherwise, it is back to square one.

 

:eek:

 

Has it occurred to you that perhaps no one, not even the OP, smoked in the room

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your points;

 

(1) If we followed your advice, the costs of fighting it would be an additional burden. To not even mention the possibility of failure, when it is real, does the OP an injustice. Your stance is only viable if there is no risk, and be both know there is. So I think it reasonable to point these out, or do you believe he should be 'protected' from them in case it puts him off....?

 

(2) The loser pays. If you've never lost a Small Claims, you'll probably be shocked to know that the winner has a right to his costs being met in full. For SC this is capped at around £100, so please, no more fluff about 'no costs being applied'. It is for the winner to make an application for costs, and I do every time, along with interest for any delay in payment from the date of judgement. I'd suggest anyone who does not is either foolish, or ignorant of the process.

 

(3) Re Message '53 - What's that got to do with anything? It relies on credibility of testimony. Whether the OP did or did not is an irrelevance. If you fail to realise this - then your opinions are clearly compromised.

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

NO matter how good a case you might have there is ALWAYS a risk with litigation but if everyone took your stance then no one would issue proceedings. As seems to be usual for you your advising "don't bother" whilst I & some others are saying yes DO bother & its my opinion that the OP will in all probability win if only because of the way & WHEN the charge was applied

 

Of course it will be a question of creditability but the hotels is already compromised in the way they applied the charge

 

53 was & is meant to convey that no one here knows just who smoked in the room but if the OP claims he didn't I for one accept that. Also there is always the possibility that no one actually smoked in the room. Lets hope they have proof that it was the OP which I doubt

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you appreciate it. Perhaps in future you state this so as not to make it appear easier than it really is?

 

As far as the way way the charge was applied - they already state in their terms they will do this. It is up to the OP to highlight any anomaly or issues that are relvant as part of the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most 'good' (& sensible) hotels, those not on the make that is, inspect the room as soon as you vacate but before you check out. This enables them to check its condition & the mini bar should one exist & whether or not you have nicked any towels

 

JonCris,

 

I know we disagree on RLP. I have no desire to enter into an on-line war of words with you, everybody is entitled to their say, however, your hotel quote is utter tosh :).

 

In my professional capacity I spend around 70% of my time in hotels during the week, I'm a Platinum or Gold Card Member of most of the major hotel chains and in 19 years have NEVER heard of this. I've stayed in Hotels in the UK, EU and other areas of the rest of the world.

 

How would it work? Check out on a Friday Morning, walk the corridor to the lift, down 3 floors, short walk to reception to check out. How does the hotel check the room between vacation and checkout, just wouldn't, and doesn't happen.

 

As for the mini-bar, for three days, on a weeks stay, it is checked by the maid or whomever, on the 4th night, checkout asks if you've used the mini-bar, most business people are truthful...............unless they are shoplifters!!!!

 

I've never found it necessary to steal the towels.

 

Hammy :)

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to you that perhaps no one, not even the OP, smoked in the room

 

It occurs to me that what is missing here is an account of what became of a report to the Police, of the suspicion of crime.

 

You do of course realise that it is the duty of every honest citizen to report a suspicion of crime. You do of course realise that it is a crime, to deliberately charge a person on the strength of false evidence. You do of course realise that in the absence of a conviction for such an offence, the person is innocent, which is to infer that the testimony of a respectable person is valid as evidence (which hearsay is not) in so as far no proof appears to another effect.

 

Right?

 

:rolleyes:

Edited by perplexity
trivial
Link to post
Share on other sites

As smoking in the room is a contractural dispute, police involvement, even if a breach of the Anti-Smoking legislation is pursued by the council, not the police who take no responsibility for it. As such, there is a lesser burden of proof required, and only a witmess statemnent requred to secure a successful application of a COURT fine. For the contractural part, none of this is relevant. If they take the money then the 'miscreant' has to take action to get it back, and it is the success of this that is being discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not the enforcement of anti smoking legislation.

 

The point is that it is fraud, to dishonestly misrepresent in order to gain financially, which is to point out if the gist of the cause is an allegation to the effect that Travelodge fabricated false evidence, the appropriate action is the criminal prosecution of that.

 

I would then be so surprised if the judgement of a civil claim is reserved, pending the outcome of a Police investigation.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says the OP smoked in that room? Some individual has to have said so, there has to be a process for it to end up being charged. These members of staff will have to be witnesses - and be believed for the OP to lose the case.

 

The hotel trade being what it is they probably don't even work there anymore and if they do I don't suppose their employers will be too keen to pay them for a day off in court + travel. Any which way round it is going to cost them more money. Bang for buck, I'd risk filing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The customer Berwyn is about to take Travelodge to the small claims court, to claim against the company

 

And there are posters who seem to think the risk in doing so is too great. I was putting forward reasons why I think it's definitely worth it. I hardly think it would be worthwhile defending so Travelodge would be wise to pay the money back as soon as they realise the OP is serious. If they insist on defending they will have to produce the actual accusers and get them to the OPs local court. Financially it's a 'no brainer'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently I commenced a claim against a hotelier who claimed he was fully entitled to retain a £150 deposit as the terms stated "non refundable" - this being despite the fact I gave him 8 months notice and the weekend in question was one of a major event in the area meaning he would have absolutely NO problem re letting

 

When I wrote several times, he just stated that was his position and no further comment

 

Court claim started, no reply

 

Default judgment issued, no funds received, so threat of court baliff then the cheque magically appeared

 

 

The above was started after a LOT of people both here and on MSE told me I was being a fool and if I agreed to "non refundable" that was it

 

Research of trading standards cases (where in most cases the notice given to the hotel was weeks, not months) proved me right

 

 

Verdict: don't listen to the naysayers, do your research

 

In most cases if it seems contrary to good faith, you'll win

 

And even if the letter had been sent on time, how they would justify £150 for a smoking "fine" is quiye beyond me

 

I stay in travelodge twice a week, most weeks and with the quality of their rooms I feel one would struggle to tell the difference (although obviously they offer good value for the £19 you can pay!)

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back to basics, just what damage has been caused exactly? A smell of smoke in the room which can be minimised by opening the windows and spraying some febreeze or the likes on the carpets and furniture??

 

They cannot impose an a "fine" and I think that the copy of the internal email will stand the OP in good stead. They need to justify their actual losses. One cleaner, on mimimum wage no doubt, spending an extra 10 minutes in the room!!

 

What next?? Aftershave or perfume being too over-powering?????

 

I would try and avoid court though and get your money back through letter writing. Once you threaten court, you have to be prepared to go through with it.

 

By the way, I have never smoked, so am not biased in that regard!!

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

To go back to the basics, there is one claim to made for relief, not two, the return of the full charge because the person was wrongfully charged, plus a return of a part of that because they charged too much.

 

For as long as the claimant insists that the charge is invalid, the amount is beside the point, irrelevant.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say theres a 75% chance of a win by default ?:confused:

 

Well of course you can never be certain, but big companies rarely respond to a small claim.

 

You can understand why too - it makes no business sense to contest issues such as these whatsoever, unless there is a glut of them being issued at once or there is some publicity at stake.

 

Here's why:

 

In a big business an internal counsel team is a cost centre - and an expensive one too. Most companies therefore keep them small, and consequently pressurised. They're also there to deal with the big issues such as commercial transactions, legal compliance etc, and to instruct external counsel - not waste time defending small claims for £170.

 

And I'd be amazed if Travelodge instructed external counsel. the kind of lawyers a company llike Travelodge uses charge £250 - £1K/ hour depending on their seniority. They're unlikely to get any, let alone all, of this back even if they win.

 

I'd be amazed if they bothered their legal insurers - they rack up premiums for stuff like this, and they won't underwrite it if they think Travelodge have behaved improperly + most legal insurers won't underwrite small claims because they know costs are hardly ever awarded.

 

I'd go so far as to say it's unlikely they'll respond to Berwyn's claim within the 14 day time limit, in which case Berwyn wins by default, can get a warrant of execution and can send bailiffs around to their HQ.

 

People are talking a lot about the legal issues without appreciating that in a case such as this, the small claims system is stacked in Berwyn's favour, and without appreciating the way a big company "thinks".

 

Put succinctly, this fine is profit - they have made £150 out of Berwyn. If Berwyn contests the fine in a court, they lose that profit and some, even if they win, and if Berwyn wins this also becomes a matter of public record, encouraging others to do the same.

 

Therefore they won't do it. If thousands of people were taking them to court, they would contest it in the hope of getting a favourable judgement which would discourage such claims, but as far as I can tell, 99.9% of people take their fine on the chin and pay up. To be fair, most of them probably have smoked in their rooms.

 

So if Berwyn feels aggrieved and that she has a case, she should pursue it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see what there is to persuade Travelodge to add anything at all to their initial correspondence or to do anything more than stand by it.

 

Counsel would long since have advised in general terms. An unusually peculiar event may then be a cause for concern, but this is surely not of the sort.

 

At any rate, I would not be so sure of the chance to create a cause célèbre. The court will see it coming.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, your experience seems to be almost exactly the same as mine. I also didn't receive any notification when they deducted £150 from my account back in March. It took them almost two months to tell me which Travelodge ( I had stayed in more than one) and that they were charging me for smoking. I was also told that the room smelt of smoke and ash was found on the windowsill. Seems like we should be comparing notes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided not to proceed, unfortunately it was a very busy time at work.Unfortunately i think companies such as travelodge are able to to take advantage of this.Although i am completely certain in my own mind that i am innocent, and that they have effectively stolen £150 from my account i've had to accept it, my only recourse is to never book myself or anyone in my company into travelodge again.

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

 

post #21

 

 

I decided not to proceed, unfortunately it was a very busy time at work.Unfortunately i think companies such as travelodge are able to to take advantage of this.Although i am completely certain in my own mind that i am innocent, and that they have effectively stolen £150 from my account i've had to accept it, my only recourse is to never book myself or anyone in my company into travelodge again.

 

 

post #71

 

 

 

:-(:!: mmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!:!::sad:

 

 

:)

 

dk

 

 

ps: I think the OP could of thanked the Cag members who offered time and advice

Edited by dragonkeeper
adding ps:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...