Hotel Charged Cancellation Fee That Was Never Stated

System

*Bargain_Hunter* wrote: »

As i've said discussion over if it's going to turn nasty! You seem to just want to argue with people. You could have just given your opinion, like others have and which i am grateful for.

Now go and argue with someone else!

I've stopped arguing with you as its obviously pointless. I hope your campaign to avoid paying your obligations is successful.......

I am now answering the other poster whose posed me a question. If it annoys you then just click ignore on my userid and it won't affect you.

System

somethingcorporate wrote: »

If the terms and conditions are poorly drafted / not given at the time etc. why should they pay? If contracts are not properly constructed it is not a loophole is it?? It is a shop being useless / lazy / ignorant of the law.

It's hardly a loophole using a companies own poorly written contracts against them!

!

This is what I think is wrong with this country these days. Everyone needs to have watertight contracts to protect themselves from consumers like the OP. You get all these ridiculous complaints and lawsuits because people like to blame someone else when things go wrong and they don't take personal responsibility. The OP has had an unfortunate chain of events where they have had to cancel a hotel, its not the OP's fault and its not the hotels fault. However the hotel should not lose out on the £40 they are owed because of the OP's personal situation!

*Bargain_Hunter*

goater78 wrote: »

This is what I think is wrong with this country these days. Everyone needs to have watertight contracts to protect themselves from consumers like the OP. You get all these ridiculous complaints and lawsuits because people like to blame someone else when things go wrong and they don't take personal responsibility. The OP has had an unfortunate chain of events where they have had to cancel a hotel, its not the OP's fault and its not the hotels fault. However the hotel should not lose out on the £40 they are owed because of the OP's personal situation!

This is a fair comment....which would have been appreciated if it was expressed like this in the first place.

I will leave it there and sign off now. Didn't want to start a war .

somethingcorporate

goater78 wrote: »

This is what I think is wrong with this country these days. Everyone needs to have watertight contracts to protect themselves from consumers like the OP. You get all these ridiculous complaints and lawsuits because people like to blame someone else when things go wrong and they don't take personal responsibility. The OP has had an unfortunate chain of events where they have had to cancel a hotel, its not the OP's fault and its not the hotels fault. However the hotel should not lose out on the £40 they are owed because of the OP's personal situation!

It's a rediculous comment, how would you have us governed if not by written rules?

System

somethingcorporate wrote: »

It's a rediculous comment, how would you have us governed if not by written rules?

I have no problem with written rules. Rules are what define a civillised country and allow everyone to co-exist without us all resorting to anarchy.

My problem is with people who don't employ their own common sense and then try and blame someone else because they weren't specifically warned against it. For instance its an old example but Macdonalds coffee has to now have a "warning hot" logo on it because someone successfully sued when they got burnt on a cup of coffee.

This week a girl sued (and thankfully lost) a man for £6 million. I don't know the whole story but it appears she got drunk in a pub, invited herself back to some girls house and jumped into their private swimming pool then broke her neck. She sued the owner of the house (who wasn't there) for £6 million. One of the main arguments was there wasn't proper signage around the private pool. Obviously its tragic for the girl involved but I don't see (and thankfully the courts didn't) that the owner is responsible because some girl got drunk and dived in the pool!

somethingcorporate

Hardly a fair comparison though is it? We're talking about a contract between a hotel and a member of the public.

The hotel are the business so the court would expect them to be 'au fait' with the contracts they provide the members of the public. If they are too lazy / stupid to take their business serious enough to get a proper contract drafted (cost a few hundred quid) that would enable them to be "watertight" then that is their lookout.

Plenty of businesses do take it seriously and get proper contracts drawn up. Some just make it up and those that do get everything they deserve!

zzzLazyDaisy

goater78 wrote: »

For instance its an old example but Macdonalds coffee has to now have a "warning hot" logo on it because someone successfully sued when they got burnt on a cup of coffee.

And this precise example just shows that people are happy to condemn others without knowing the facts or the law.

In that case McDonalds persistently handed out coffee that was not just hot, but scalding hot. They had been warned by the authorities on numerous occasions about this but ignored the warnings. On this occasion an old lady suffered 3rd degree burns, and ended up in hospital having skin grafts, after spilling coffee. In court, MacDonald's expert referred to the incident as 'trivial'.

I cannot for the life of me see why people think MacDonald's actions in that case were acceptable!

Similarly, I can't understand why anyone would condemn OP (much less call her a bad person!) simply for asking for advice on what is an ambiguous wording (corporate organisations have T&C's that are drafted by lawyers - surely it is not unreasonable to expect them to say what they mean?)