We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Small claim against large hotel chain
Comments
-
By corporate details, do you mean the name of the manager and hotel details/address etc? If so, we already had the name of the manager from dealing with him and the hotel information from the correspondence we had and their website.
A registered company name and/or number.
Or did you sue the manager at the hotels address?0 -
Takecareofthepennies wrote: »From my understanding of post #1, the OP already has a judgment since the defendant did not dispute the claim.
It should therefore be immaterial whether they sued the right entity. If the hotel operator had felt that their chain head office should be the ones to be sued rather than the hotel themselves, their chance to say so was when they received the paperwork from the small claims court.
Having to enforce the judgment may be a bit of a pain, but I'd like to see the hotel's manager allowing equipment or furnishings to be taken away by the bailiffs simply because he does not want to pay up.
If you are still on speaking terms with them, I would suggest a calm phone call to ask precisely that question before you request execution (which, ultimately, will only add further to the hotel's costs). If not, well, just send the bailiffs in.shaun_from_Africa wrote: »Preferably on a day when they have a function of some sort at the hotel so there will be plenty of people milling about.
This might just prompt them to pay up in cash rather than having guests see the baliffs taking some of the furniture.
We're not on speaking terms at all. One, he never takes calls when you phone to speak to him. This is fine for us because it means we have everything documented! And two, the relationship broke down when he told us that we were making a mountain out of a molehill and that our concerns were nonsense. I don't know many couples who would appreciate their venue asking them to change their booking so they could make way for a bigger party. And also being asked every other day to remind them what it was we'd actually booked. If they can't make a note of that then how can they be trusted to organise a wedding!0 -
Takecareofthepennies wrote: »From my understanding of post #1, the OP already has a judgment since the defendant did not dispute the claim.
It should therefore be immaterial whether they sued the right entity. If the hotel operator had felt that their chain head office should be the ones to be sued rather than the hotel themselves, their chance to say so was when they received the paperwork from the small claims court.
Having to enforce the judgment may be a bit of a pain, but I'd like to see the hotel's manager allowing equipment or furnishings to be taken away by the bailiffs simply because he does not want to pay up.
It's completely material who op sued! Otherwise op would be spending another £100 to send to bailiffs to XYZ Ltd to collect a debt in the name of ABC Ltd. The bailiffs would leave with nothing and op would be left out of pocket.If you are still on speaking terms with them, I would suggest a calm phone call to ask precisely that question before you request execution (which, ultimately, will only add further to the hotel's costs). If not, well, just send the bailiffs in.
Even if they are not on speaking terms, I think a phone call would give them a wake up call. One along the lines off 'we are sending some bailiffs on Saturday the xx if you don't pay the court judgement' would get their attention.0 -
It's completely material who op sued! Otherwise op would be spending another £100 to send to bailiffs to XYZ Ltd to collect a debt in the name of ABC Ltd. The bailiffs would leave with nothing and op would be left out of pocket.
Why would you enforce a judgment against a different name / address?
The OP has a judgment against the hotel, so that's where he sends the bailiffs.
If it were against the chain, they would have to be sent to the chain's HQ.
The "immaterial" bit clearly referred to whether they sued the right entity to begin with. Once they have a judgment against one or the other, it no longer matters whether they sued the right defendant.0 -
Takecareofthepennies wrote: »Why would you enforce a judgment against a different name / address?
The OP has a judgment against the hotel, so that's where he sends the bailiffs.
If it were against the chain, they would have to be sent to the chain's HQ.
The "immaterial" bit clearly referred to whether they sued the right entity to begin with. Once they have a judgment against one or the other, it no longer matters whether they sued the right defendant.
It makes a huge amount of difference. If a non-existent entity has been sued (e.g. Fred Blogs at XYZ Hotels, Birmingham) then there is absolutely no need for the hotel to do anything.
Hence the question.
And if a proper entity has been sued but it isn't the correct Defendant for the purposes of the claim, then it can and will apply to set aside the judgment.0 -
Equaliser123 wrote: »It makes a huge amount of difference. If a non-existent entity has been sued (e.g. Fred Blogs at XYZ Hotels, Birmingham) then there is absolutely no need for the hotel to do anything.
Hence the question.somethingcorporate wrote: »What address did you use for the claim? the hotel one or the HQ?We went directly to the hotel, not the HQ.
Sounds clear enough to me.
0 -
Takecareofthepennies wrote: »Sounds clear enough to me.
Not to me - "We went directly to the hotel, not the HQ"
If the company owns the hotel or took the booking, then it is they that should have been named as the Defendant.0 -
But the OP has already stated that they paid their money directly to the hotel concerned, and that when the contacted the head office, they were told that all dealings had to be done directly with the hotel.0
-
shaun_from_Africa wrote: »But the OP has already stated that they paid their money directly to the hotel concerned, and that when the contacted the head office, they were told that all dealings had to be done directly with the hotel.
But that doesn't confirm who the corporate entity is to be sued.
If the HQ had said - "You need to sue XYZ Limited as they are the owner of the hotel and that is who your contract is with" - then fine.
OP - can you clarify?0 -
Equaliser123 wrote: »But that doesn't confirm who the corporate entity is to be sued.
If the HQ had said - "You need to sue XYZ Limited as they are the owner of the hotel and that is who your contract is with" - then fine.
OP - can you clarify?
Are you actually a solicitor? :think:
Only asking because you seem to be trying hard to find complications where there aren't any ...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards