Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4041 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

Hi All

 

What seems strange to me on this is that CRS have invoiced the OP for £150 without providing any evidence to the OP that they had in fact smoked in the room.

 

Then the OP get a response back from CRS stating that the travelodge staff will provide witness statements if it goes to court - mmm surely these witness statement should have already been done before travelodge passed this over to CRS?

 

Just my thoughts.

This seems to be the usual routine. I suppose that many people are bank to rights - and they pay, but suppose that quite a few people pay or have money taken and do nothing because they are frightened. CAB are quite concerned about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Addition to this tread -

 

Around 3 years ago my wife and I were 'fined' 50 quid for allegedly smoking in our room by a hotel

on the Tettenhall road, Wolverhampton. They clearly spotted that she was a smoker when she went

outside to have a puff. We only realised what they'd been up to when the next barclaycard statement

arrived a couple of weeks later. Naturally we protested to the hotel but they simply refused to discuss

it and, in fact, put the phone down on us.

 

A subsequent call to barclaycard got us nowhere. According to them, the hotel were within their

rights in helping themselves to another tranche of our hard earned without being required to

substantiate their claim in any way. This shifty (my wife's word), crew had their story accepted

without demur while we, after 40 odd unblemished years with the same credit card outfit were

assumed to be guilty as charged.

 

The amount being too small to justify going to law, we put it down to experience, but have still in

a way extracted a small revenge on those we foolishly trusted.

 

After thinking about it for a while we acquired another credit card and split our outgoings between

the two. As our monthly spend through the odious barclaycard was usually £2000+ we have,

in the interim period 'fined' them 36 months X £1000 X 3% = over a grand of their profit down

the drain. Further, I cherish the true and earnest hope that before I die, I will have deprived them of

many thousands more.

 

Rodzo

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Right. To clear a few discrepancies.

 

You do NOT get interest on £150.

 

It depends on the Judge Lottery. I have issued claims. I have found two judges who basically fought the solicitor and barrister for me. I have found judges who were a pain in the backside and bent over backwards to accomodate the other party. One even overrode case law (a solicitor is not entitled to be paid if he abondons the client. Had the case law. Basically the solicitor wanted to enforce a high court order in a county court. This cannot be done unless it is attachment to earnings. A previous solicitor had tried it and the judge dismissed the application. Ironically it was the same judge. Refused to see the copy of the order he himself had made and went against me).

 

Costs. After that hearing I had another claim in front of the same judge same day. Cos I had challenged him (small claims track) within 5 minutes (guess he wanted to go for his dinner) he stopped the hearing, found against me and ordered I pay all their costs. Over £1,000. Ironically, this was a claim where the previous judge had said that he believed I was right but wanted a skeleton statement.

 

Be careful. As said. It is the judge lottery. Some are real sods.

 

How to answer:

 

Smoking. Yeah my wife smokes. They are called electronic cigarrettes and can be smoked in airports, bars, departure lounges and even on some airlines like Ryan air. So you saw me or my wife smoke. So what? Electronic cigarettes are not against the law. Can even smoke them in a supermarket.

 

alternatively:

 

Your cleaner smelt cigarrette smoke. There are many different brands of cigarettes. Can you please ask the cleaner to describe the smell?

 

If they say x say you smoke methol. It gives a different smell

 

If they say y say you smoke malboro. It gives a different smell

 

If they say z you smoke rolling tobacco. It gives a different smell

 

Have fun

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, one of my sons and his partner (they live abroad) came over for a week. As I only have a two bedroomed flat and I have his brother living in the spare bedroom I could not accomodate them so I booked them 2 nights in Premier Inn and 5 nights in the local Travelodge.

 

Premier in they hung a sock over the fire alarm. Stupid sods went out and forgot to take the sock off. They got a warning :oops:

 

Travelodge they were both seen with their heads sticking out of the window having a smoke. Got pulled up. "Sorry not smoking in the room. I was having a smoke outside" :oops::oops:

 

Have fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Addition to this tread -

 

Around 3 years ago my wife and I were 'fined' 50 quid for allegedly smoking in our room by a hotel

on the Tettenhall road, Wolverhampton. They clearly spotted that she was a smoker when she went

outside to have a puff. We only realised what they'd been up to when the next barclaycard statement

arrived a couple of weeks later. Naturally we protested to the hotel but they simply refused to discuss

it and, in fact, put the phone down on us.

 

A subsequent call to barclaycard got us nowhere. According to them, the hotel were within their

rights in helping themselves to another tranche of our hard earned without being required to

substantiate their claim in any way. This shifty (my wife's word), crew had their story accepted

without demur while we, after 40 odd unblemished years with the same credit card outfit were

assumed to be guilty as charged.

 

The amount being too small to justify going to law, we put it down to experience, but have still in

a way extracted a small revenge on those we foolishly trusted.

 

After thinking about it for a while we acquired another credit card and split our outgoings between

the two. As our monthly spend through the odious barclaycard was usually £2000+ we have,

in the interim period 'fined' them 36 months X £1000 X 3% = over a grand of their profit down

the drain. Further, I cherish the true and earnest hope that before I die, I will have deprived them of

many thousands more.

 

Rodzo

 

Connaught by any chance?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The amount being too small to justify going to law, we put it down to experience, but have still in

a way extracted a small revenge on those we foolishly trusted.

 

You should get that sort of attitude out of mind tosweet. Small claims are as low as a few quid and you get that back when you win, so should something like this happen again, have a look and a good think first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We stayed in a Travelodge on the coast. We discovered that the local social services department was using it as a half-way house for drug addicts and the mentally ill. Conversations in the lift with other 'guests', some long-stay, were eye-opening, to put it mildly.

 

When we checked in, the receptionist explicitly asked whether we were "smokers or non-smokers" ? (Truthful) reply: "We're both non-smokers, but why do you ask? Surely smoking is illegal inside the building anyway?" Her reply: "Yes it is illegal, but many of our guests smoke regardless, so we try to segregate them into different rooms" !

Edited by edwincluck
Link to post
Share on other sites

We stayed in a Travelodge on the coast. We discovered that the local social services department was using it as a half-way house for drugs addict and the mentally ill. Conversations in the lift with other 'guests', some long-stay, were eye-opening, to put it mildly.

 

When we checked in, the receptionist explicitly asked whether we were "smokers or non-smokers" ? (Truthful) reply: "We're both non-smokers, but why do you ask? Surely smoking is illegal inside the building anyway?" Her reply: "Yes it is illegal, but many of our guests smoke regardless, so we try to segregate them into different rooms" !

 

Could of been worse..Injecters or non-injecters ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

injectors, snorters, smokers, it matters not. Travelodge operates a strict anti-discrimination policy.

 

Just for the record, it wasn't the Travelodge in York..

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347839/Travelodge-killers-3-female-convicted-murderers-jobs-hotel.html

Edited by edwincluck
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's not illegal to smoke in hotel rooms. It's one of the exceptions to the "no smoking in public places" law. When using hotels with best mate, we choose a smoking room where possible as she then doesn't need to go outside in the cold/wet/whenever, but when I'm with DF, or on my own, non-smoking rooms are preferred.

 

(That's not to excuse hotels for charging erroneously)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 5 months later...

I just received a letter from Travelodge on Wednesday for the same thing(£150). I'm pretty sure it's a money making exercise to rip off their clients. The amount of people that are saying they are not going to book there again is rising fast....me for one will not go back. They must be losing a fortune, so by doing this to clients is counterproductive. Going to phone a solicitor in the morning. I'd do it now but am looking after littleuns!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have just received the letter, then don't waste money on a solicitor. The first thing to do is write back and deny yuo have smoked in the room and request a refund for the £150. Give them 7 days in which to make the refund and then go to your bank and make a chargeback. You can do this with both credit and debit cards and with a credit card, you also have S57 of the consumer credit act to use as it is over £100.

 

Make any letters recorded delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hav eyou actually be charged it then?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not payed the claim and don't intend to either. The solicitor I'm going to ring is a free service provided by the company I work for so I've got nothing to lose by ringing them. I'll let you guy's know what was said tomorrow!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I have smoked in Travelodges up and down the Country and as far away as New Zealand - the reason people get rumbled is normally stupidity.

 

All you have to do to avoid detection is close the bathroom door , turn the shower on full blast and smoke to your hearts content. Afterwards a quick spray of air freshener works wonders.

 

"Smoke Cloak" is the name I give to the system.

 

In addition to Travelodges I have worked the same [problem] in Premier Inn, Holiday Inn and numerous other Hotels.

 

Never been rumbled !!

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have smoked in Travelodges up and down the Country and as far away as New Zealand - the reason people get rumbled is normally stupidity.

 

All you have to do to avoid detection is close the bathroom door , turn the shower on full blast and smoke to your hearts content. Afterwards a quick spray of air freshener works wonders.

 

"Smoke Cloak" is the name I give to the system.

 

In addition to Travelodges I have worked the same [problem] in Premier Inn, Holiday Inn and numerous other Hotels.

 

Never been rumbled !!

I think that this is unhelpful.

Travelodge are entitled to object to smoking in their hotels. Their problem is the way they go about enforcing the ban.

 

Your comment merely undermines the position of decent people who are threatened and frightned by Travelodge when they have not broken any rules.

 

The fact that you decide to break the rules brings comfort to Travelodge and causes problems for most decent people.

 

Please don't brag about it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is unhelpful.

Travelodge are entitled to object to smoking in their hotels. Their problem is the way they go about enforcing the ban.

 

Your comment merely undermines the position of decent people who are threatened and frightned by Travelodge when they have not broken any rules.

 

The fact that you decide to break the rules brings comfort to Travelodge and causes problems for most decent people.

 

Please don't brag about it here.

 

Perhaps if they provided a choice (which by law they are entitled to do) I would not have to take such drastic measures - as it causes no harm to anyone else and has never been detected it is not bringing any comfort to Travelodge.

 

Are you suggesting smokers are not decent people ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am suggesting that people who break the law or who deliberately flout the rights of others - including hotel businesses - may not be decent people

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if they provided a choice (which by law they are entitled to do) I would not have to take such drastic measures - as it causes no harm to anyone else and has never been detected it is not bringing any comfort to Travelodge.

 

Are you suggesting smokers are not decent people ?

 

You could always pop outside to smoke ?, as most people do in other businesses, workplaces, etc. Failing that you could find a hotel chain that allows smoking and if one doesnt exist, then perhaps that is a perfect business opportunity :)

 

Smoking in a single room causes harm to the hotel as they would argue that rooms then need extra cleaning and even then the smell may put off future guests, not too mention there are various legal consideration including health and safety and employment law, etc

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am suggesting that people who break the law or who deliberately flout the rights of others - including hotel businesses - may not be decent people

 

Does that extend to breaking the speed limit which just about everyone does on a daily basis ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that extend to breaking the speed limit which just about everyone does on a daily basis ?

 

Clearly, yes !.

 

We work hard at CAG to help defend those who have been falsely accused of smoking in rooms and your comments do not help at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always pop outside to smoke ?, as most people do in other businesses, workplaces, etc. Failing that you could find a hotel chain that allows smoking and if one doesnt exist, then perhaps that is a perfect business opportunity :)

 

Smoking in a single room causes harm to the hotel as they would argue that rooms then need extra cleaning and even then the smell may put off future guests, not too mention there are various legal consideration including health and safety and employment law, etc

 

 

 

Andy

 

If you study the method I use no one is affected or any the wiser and it seems a sensible compromise !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...