Cancelling a booking less than 24 hours after it was made.

unholyangel

tomtontom wrote: »

My OED defines statutory as 'required, permitted, or enacted by statute', which would make steveLMS correct.

Just saying

Thats strange. In my oxford english dictionary it has more than one definition.

The one i'm referring to was required/having to be done.

stebiz

LilElvis wrote: »

A bit rich from someone who SHOUTED at me a week ago. How friendly are you?

Don't know how old your children are but £100 would get a handful of children and a couple of adults into soft play now, and with no food or drinks.

Not where I live. £8 a head including meals x 12 = £96, assuming the whole class wan't going.

I can't remember what was said but you must have been wrong. ;):D

stebiz

But if they are a separate company then surely that shouldn't preclude the OP from making a claim against them, as they are jointly liable? Their connection to Very doesn't remove this obligation.

Oh yes, there's the wrong bit. Not understanding what a group of companies was within Shop Direct.

LilElvis

stebiz wrote: »

Not where I live. £8 a head including meals x 12 = £96, assuming the whole class wan't going.

I can't remember what was said but you must have been wrong. ;):D

I wasn't 'wrong', but you were rude.

Definitely more expensive where I live.

Back to eating my sea bass with roasted new potatoes, fennel and orange before you put a foul taste in my mouth.

stebiz

LilElvis wrote: »

Back to eating my sea bass with roasted new potatoes, fennel and orange before you put a foul taste in my mouth.

Enjoy...............

LilElvis

stebiz wrote: »

Oh yes, there's the wrong bit. Not understanding what a group of companies was within Shop Direct.

I totally understand what a group of companies means - my last full time employment was as a direct board report for a FTSE 100 company with a group 'tree' which ran to hundreds of subsidiaries. Can you please show me where a company gets to duck out of its legal obligations to its customers because it has the same ultimate parent company as the one the customer has a problem with?

The sea bass was lovely, thank you. Now going to nibble a few cherries and decide whether to make an espresso martini or just have another glass of wine.

Ps - I also consider gurning at me with multiple 'smilies' to be rude.

stebiz

LilElvis wrote: »

I totally understand what a group of companies means - my last full time employment was as a direct board report for a FTSE 100 company with a group 'tree' which ran to hundreds of subsidiaries. Can you please show me where a company gets to duck out of its legal obligations to its customers because it has the same ultimate parent company as the one the customer has a problem with?

The sea bass was lovely, thank you. Now going to nibble a few cherries and decide whether to make an espresso martini or just have another glass of wine.

Ps - I also consider gurning at me with multiple 'smilies' to be rude.

So you think a company with a finance arm and a trading arm - under the umbrella of a parent company, should both be held accountable in a court of law? Exactly what would this achieve please?

Just one smiley this time as I finish my Macallan Gold.

Money_maker

stebiz wrote: »

Not where I live. £8 a head including meals x 12 = £96, assuming the whole class wan't going. ;):D

This sounds about right, wonder what the OP was getting for £350 :eek:

harrys_dad

@LilElvis and @stebiz, is it possible you could have your little spats in Private Message so they do not clog up a thread that some others were trying to follow please?

LilElvis

harrys_dad wrote: »

@LilElvis and @stebiz, is it possible you could have your little spats in Private Message so they do not clog up a thread that some others were trying to follow please?

Apologies. You are quite correct, it is unfair on the OP. As are the comments questioning the price she is prepared to pay as it irrelevant to the question 're the deposit.