Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • have you written evidence it was hacked?    
    • well you see the thing is that document could have come from anywhere here on CAG their filing cabinet then all they do it type your details in....no they wouldn't do that would they....   its supposed to come from the original creditor, and a correct return typically does have a tick box with your typed name by it and the IP address used and the time of it etc etc.   sadly cabot are masters and have alot of filing cabinets..... lots of claimform threads here on cat debts   is the address the correct one for time of sign up?   dx    
    • OK got access to the SLC portal and there is absolutely nothing there for the 1996 loan that Shoosmiths are dealing with, only a subsequent loan I took out in 2002.   What does that mean, if anything?
    • My son is in his 30's and he is very gullible.   The letter from his bank states " that they have contacted the retailer's bank and they believe the transaction to be yours. If you do not recognise this payment contact the retailer as they will be able to provide you with a more detailed information. Should you be able to provide further evidence to support that the transaction was neither made nor authorised by you, please contact us."   The bank also provided the delivery address and the name of the retailer.   How do you provide further evidence to support a transaction that was not authorised by you when the account was hacked through scammers?
    • So they have to basically provide full proof that I checked a box in agreement to validate that CCA? And at the minute it's basically just a piece of paper with my name and (old} address on it?   Is it worth putting in another IA a little nearer the time demanding this again? Stating that? Giving them enough time to legally comply, but not too much time?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Misrepresentation of holiday and not fit for purpose storage


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1266 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

Hi This is my first post so please forgive me if its in the wrong place or irrelevant !!

I have had a holiday and reason for complaint as it was not what it said it was... there are two issues that i have summarised below. The holiday company, forest holidays, dont want to know about my complaint and say they will defend any court action, so i would like to ask what do people think ? do i have a reasonable chance of winning a case against them?

Details of claim -

 

Part one of claim – Noise and disruption

 

1. The defendant made the following statements on the forest holidays website –

“Our cabins at Sherwood Forest are dotted among the tall pine trees, blending harmoniously into the forest landscape. Sherwood Forest has our widest range of cabins, and whichever you choose, you will be rewarded with peaceful woodland views”

2. The claimant booked a holiday on September 4th 2016 with The claimant being induced by this representation of a PEACEFUL holiday, to enter into a contract. The claimant would otherwise not have entered into the contract—that is that the representation played a real and substantial part in the claimant's decision to enter into the contract.

3. Unknown to the claimant but with full Knowledge to the defendant at the time of booking, the forest live concerts were to take place for the entire duration of the claimants booking. These concerts are to take place in the same forest, on the same land, within 500 metres of the forest holidays cabins.

4. The concerts are big open air events that attract some 9000 + visitors over the duration of the holiday booking. There was continued loud sound checks throughout the duration of the stay and extreme decibel levels of live music in the evenings continuing beyond 11.00pm. The defendant knew that the holiday would not be Peaceful as in the representation at the time of booking.

5. The defendants silence, at the time of booking in September 2016, while knowing these concerts where to go ahead during the entire holiday period, gives rise to an actionable misrepresentation.

6. The forest holidays cabins are in the forestry commission Sherwood forest grounds. The concerts also take place in the forestry commissions Sherwood forest grounds. For forest holidays to say that the concerts are outside their area or control is misleading and untrue. The concerts are approx. 500 yards from the holiday accommodation. Although forest holidays may have no direct control over the concert dates, subsequent noise and disruption they do have control over the fact that they could have informed the claimant of this event prior to making a booking

7. By way of example forest holidays promote bike hire at their Sherwood forest facilities. Bike hire at Sherwood pines is actually not on the forest holidays site as they claim in this instance but is on the same site of the Sherwood forest live concerts, some 500 yards away from the cabins. Yet for the purposes of this claim the defendant states that part of the forest site is not the same part of the forest holidays area

8. The defendant claims they did not need to make the claimant aware of these concerts as it is outside of their control as stated in the terms and conditions.

9. The claimant claims that the noise and disruption was foreseeable and is so not outside of the control as detailed in the terms and conditions – “We are not responsible for anything which adversely affects your holiday which occur due to events which are outside of our control (i.e. that we could not, even with due care, have foreseen or avoided). Such circumstances include (amongst others) war, civil unrest, industrial action, terrorist activity, natural disaster, fire, adverse weather conditions, foot and mouth disease. We will endeavour to manage any problems caused as a result of such an event but shall not be liable to you for any losses caused by such event”.

10. The defendant made the claimant aware of these concerts on 6th June 2017 through an email which the claimant read.

11. The claimant was unable to cancel the holiday and receive a refund as the terms and conditions state ‘If we receive less than 12 weeks’ notice but not less than 2 weeks’ notice, you will be liable to pay the total cost of the holiday” and the claimant would have forfeited the value of the holiday

12. The claimant claims that the defendant had full knowledge of these concerts but did not report this to the claimant until after such a time that the claimant would have paid for the holiday in full and would forfeit the cost of the holiday should the claimant decide to cancel.

13. The claimant went ahead with the holiday after assurance from the defendant that there would be little or no disruption.

14. The claimant made a complaint of continued noise and disruption to the forest lodge holiday staff at the time of the holiday, they stated there was nothing they could do about this and dismissed the claimants complaint

15. The claimant went onto make a formal complaint to forest holidays head office by way of letter detailing the complaint and asking for a refund of the holiday

16. The defendant’s customer service representative then telephoned the claimant to discuss the complaint and get more details, the forest holidays customer service advisor said there would be a management meeting on what they could do and how to resolve the complaint

17. The defendant then responded by way of email, denying any liability and dismissed the claimant’s complaint in full.

18. The claimant refers to the following terms and conditions of the contract –

11. Responsibilities when on location

Noisy or disruptive behaviour, especially after 10pm, wilful damage to the Location or cabins or other behaviour considered by our staff to be inappropriate may result in us asking you or a member of your party to leave the Location immediately. No refunds or compensation will be given in these instances, and we reserve the right to claim compensation for damages or inconvenience caused.

15. Liability – Please read this section as it is important that you understand to what you are agreeing 


We are responsible to you for:

(a) any loss or damage that you suffer as and which is foreseeable result of our breach of these Terms or our failure to use reasonable skill and care; or

(b) death or personal injury caused by our negligence; or

© fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; or

(d) any other matter for which it would be illegal or unlawful for us to exclude or attempt to exclude our liability.

To respect the enjoyment of others, we ask that noise levels are kept to a minimum after 10:00pm

17 Other Information - Any photographs, descriptions or advertising we issue, and any descriptions or illustrations contained in our promotional material or on the website, are issued or published solely to provide you with an approximate idea of our Locations and the services. All due care and diligence is exercised in the production of such information, and information concerning our cabins and their facilities has been compiled as accurately as possible by our own staff and has been checked at the time of going to press

 

Part 2 of claim – Bike theft.

 

1. The claimant had two bicycles stolen from the cabins whilst on holiday and claims the defendant knew about, but did not highlight or inform the claimant of the continued problem of bike theft in the forest.

2. The claimant claims that the accommodation provided bike storage was used but was inadequate to secure the bikes considering the defendant’s knowledge of the high risk of bike theft in the forest

3. The defendant claims that they informed the claimant that they should keep bikes inside the cabin, in the kitchen area of the accommodation

4. The claimant claims that storing muddy bikes inside a luxury cabin kitchen area is not suitable or fit for purpose.

5. The claimant claims that by storing muddy bikes inside the cabin kitchen risks damaging the kitchen floors, risks safety to children in the accommodation and risks breaching the terms and conditions should the bikes cause any damage to the property to which the claimant would be liable

6. The claimant claims that the defendant knew about the risks associated with the current outside bike storage but has failed to upgrade these to secure outside storage.

7. By continuing to provide the current outside bike storage the claimant claims that the defendant is, by way of action, promoting this storage to be adequate and is to be used for bike storage

8. The defendant claims that they highlighted the risks of bike storage to the claimant by way of prior arrival email and upon check in

9. The claimant does not recall receiving or reading the above mentioned email and was not informed in anyway at the time of check in

10. The defendant claims that adequate warning signage is placed around the cabin and forest area

11. The claimant has since looked for these warning signs but has been unable to locate them, photos of main areas and bike storage do not show any warning signs

12. The claimant claims that the defendant has become liable for the loss of these bikes due to negligence, failure to disclose or display knowledge of foreseeable high risk of bike theft

13. The claimant claims that the defendant is liable for the loss due to failure to supply fit for purpose storage facilities outside the cabin accommodation

14. The claimant states that the defendants claim that bikes should be stored in the luxury accommodation kitchen is not a solution and is not stated in the terms and conditions of contract. It gives rise to significant risk and injury to children staying in the cabin.

 

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a bit long winded. In two short paragraphs, can you explain the very basic reason for wanting to issue a court claim e.g why is the holiday company legally responsible and how did you arrive at the amount of claim ? Only state aspects that you have evidence for, if it gets to a hearing. Remember the onus is on you to prove your claim and you should not state anything as fact, if you have no proof.

 

If you use MCOL to register the claim, the particulars of claim needed are just the basic case you want to make and it is only later in the process that you need to put more flesh on the bones.

 

Before you issue the court claim you need to send them a letter before claim setting out your basis of claim and the amount you are seeking. You need to warn them that unless they settle within say 14 days, you will issue the court claim.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply

 

I did indeed sum this up and used MCOL. But they have submitted a defence, saying they are not liable etc.

I just wondered if its worth pursuing?

Should i pay up another £170 quid for a hearing if i have no chance of winning?

 

I can prove so much, ie that they didnt inform me of the concerts until after i had paid in full and couldnt cancel, and that they knew of the concerts at the time of booking.

I can prove that they knew of the bike theft problem and didn't highlight this, and can prove that putting bikes in the kitchen is a dangerous solution

 

Part of me want to take it all the way to court, if only so as they dont do this again to other guests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a bit long winded. In two short paragraphs, can you explain the very basic reason for wanting to issue a court claim e.g why is the holiday company legally responsible and how did you arrive at the amount of claim ? Only state aspects that you have evidence for, if it gets to a hearing. Remember the onus is on you to prove your claim and you should not state anything as fact, if you have no proof.

 

If you use MCOL to register the claim, the particulars of claim needed are just the basic case you want to make and it is only later in the process that you need to put more flesh on the bones.

 

Before you issue the court claim you need to send them a letter before claim setting out your basis of claim and the amount you are seeking. You need to warn them that unless they settle within say 14 days, you will issue the court claim.

 

Claim has already been submitted UB

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Claim has already been submitted UB

 

 

Andy

 

Yep know that now. But a quick scan read through does not make it clear. First paragraph indicates a claim to be made, rather than already issued.

 

On the substance of the claim, i think it would be tricky. On the noise issue, the forestry commission hold these concerts around the same time every year and they are advertised in advance. Some staying at the venue might actually be people who enjoyed the nearby concerts. On the bike theft issue, not sure the site owners can be held liable.

 

What do you think ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it holds great prospects IMHO

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...