Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Banned from pub after bad review


DiiiCE
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3874 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 everyone, its my first post on here and its going to be a pretty long one.

 

Basically I went to a hungry horse pub with some friends last month and the visit was pretty mixed overall. The food wasnt too bad and we didnt really have any complaints initially, apart from missing an item on a few of the meals. The service wasnt great to be honest, the table was dirty when we arrived, it took 45 minutes for our dirty plates to be moved and when we left the desert plates were still on the table. We then took part in a music quiz and we should have won this, but as we were round the other side of the bar the manager didn't hear us and by the time I had made my way round it was too late. His response to this wasnt great, he suggested that we just get closer to the bar when theres one song left on our card.

 

It was afterwards when we went to close the bill that we spotted that the cost of our deserts hadn't been taken off the bill, something we thought we were entitled to as part of an offer that is run by the pub on a thursday. I queried this with the manager and he was pretty unhelpful really, he wasn't willing to even agree that it should at least be stated more clearly on the menu that the meals we had were not included in the offer. Another member of staff did have a bit of an attitude problem and said we woudn't get the deserts knocked off because one of the group works there and they'd already give us a discount. we paid the bill and were willing to put it down to experience.

 

After this I posted a review on tripadvisor, giving it a 1 star overall and was pretty accurate with my description of the whole evening. It then became apparent that the manager had seen the review and left a response of the site that was pretty well fabricated by himself. Even after this I was still willing to let the whole thing go. It was when he apparently pulled my friend to one side in work and told him that I bas barred from the pub and basically threatened to hit me if he seen me again. This is what got me riled up more than anything. I have no reason to believe that my friend is not telling the truth in this situation, I think that he wouldnt make something like that up as surely it would affect his job security.

 

So after this I emailed greene king (owners of hungry horse) to inform them of the situation and told them everything, not leaving any details out. I have waited a few weeks for a response in the post as promised in a reply from them and have received one today in the post. To say I am disappointed with the response would be an understatement.

The letter says that they have spoken to the manager and investigated fully.

 

They have then stated 'that my behaviour on my day of the visit was inappropriate and was affecting the enjoyment of some of our other customers'.

It then goes on to say that ' I am therefore supporting the house managers legal right to ask you to leave on the day in question and to refuse you future entry to the establishment. This decision is final and not open to further discussion'.

 

Now this has really disappointed me. At no point did we behave inappropriately and I cant believe that a manager of a pub would fabricate this to justify banning me from the premises. Also at no point were we asked to leave the pub, again I am astonished by this claim.

 

Basically I am asking for help on where to go next. I have emailed greene king again to try and point out that what he has said is not true but I dont expect a response from them, especially when you consider how blunt they have been in the letter. Even though I have no desire to return there, I don't want the manager in the pub to feel that he can do something like this and effectively win.

 

Thanks in advance,

James

 

(hope I've been clear enough here, just a lot of information to get across)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always a sign behind the bar- you must've seen it at some point- 'The landlord reserves the right to refuse service without giving reason' or some such form of words. That's it, you can effectively be barred on a whim, enjoy. Admittedly that might get slightly more complicated if you are not a white male.

 

You might have a case re: the threatening behaviour; but it would almost certainly rely on your friend (the employee!!!) giving a sworn statement, which might also affect his job prospects?

 

Frankly getting barred from a **** hole with such dodgy attitudes is probably a cultural BONUS. Good health!

 

Basically I am asking for help on where to go next.

 

Wetherspoons?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You might have a case re: the threatening behaviour; but it would almost certainly rely on your friend (the employee!!!) giving a sworn statement, which might also affect his job prospects?

 

 

I have actually discussed this with my friend. He doesn't really want to get heavily involved in this because his job is at risk if we don't get the outcome that we want. So you think the best thing to do now is move on? I think the manager will be gone soon enough anyway, its only been open since april and the overall reviews are pretty poor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Greene King are backing him (on this occasion), if that illustrates his general behaviour it is guaranteed that he'll get a shedload of other complaints, and they won't back him then. Certainly no legal recourse, if consume you must, it's your choice where!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

dunno why you would want to go back. his performance is based on sales

 

 

I wouldn't want to go back, its more about clearing my name. I'm unhappy about his blatant lies and dont want him to get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's usually the aim of these type of pubs that they all convey the same "corporate style" throughout all of their establishments, even, I gather, to having the same "musak" grinding out the same piece of drivel, at the same instant, nationwide.

 

Having visited one of their places last summer, in the Stoke-On-Trent area, [never again], you appear to have confirmed that the company have achieved their aim!

 

I presume your reason for commencing this thread was not so much a complaint, but as a warning to those of us that expect decent catering standards, which, sadly, are almost non existent in the UK?

 

Sam

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's usually the aim of these type of pubs that they all convey the same "corporate style" throughout all of their establishments, even, I gather, to having the same "musak" grinding out the same piece of drivel, at the same instant, nationwide.

 

Having visited one of their places last summer, in the Stoke-On-Trent area, [never again], you appear to have confirmed that the company have achieved their aim!

 

I presume your reason for commencing this thread was not so much a complaint, but as a warning to those of us that expect decent catering standards, which, sadly, are almost non existent in the UK?

 

Sam

 

That could be a good idea. Use it to warn the people of the world (or at least this forum). I have no desire to really go back there now, or to any other hungry horse pub, I just want the manager to realise he can't lie so blatantly lie and get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A publican can bar anyone from their premises without having to give a reason so there is no need for the manager to make up storied just to bar you. However, the review is another matter and I would presume that they are trying to limit the damage done so would rather have a reson for their actions than not giving one. If you had tried to get some sense out of the brewery before the bad review they might have been more amenable but I can see an underlying problem with the Hungry Horse business model-people dont like it. I have heard of other bad reports and to be honest child friendly pubs are an oxymoron so they are bound to upset half of the people using them for the opposite reasons when trying to entertain children and adults separately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...