travelodge smoking fine

[perplexity]

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.

 

[JonCris]

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

[JonCris]

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.

 

 

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

[buzby]

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 July 10, 2010 by buzby

[JonCris]

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 July 10, 2010 by JonCris

[buzby]

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.

[Hammy1962]

 

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

[perplexity]

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?

 

Edited July 11, 2010 by perplexity
trivial

[buzby]

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.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[hightail]

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.

[perplexity]

Travelodge are not about to make a claim against a customer.

 

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

 

[JonCris]

The hotel has ALREADY claimed against the OP & he wants it back

[hightail]

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'.

[ncf355]

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!)

[WelshMam2009]

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!!

[perplexity]

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.

 

[halifaxtan]

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

 

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.

[perplexity]

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.

 

[b_p]

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.

[berwyn]

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.

[dragonkeeper]

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!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

dk

 

 

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

Edited August 14, 2010 by dragonkeeper
adding ps:

[berwyn]

my apologies, of course i should have thanked everyone for their advice.