Section 75 claim rejected

phillw

Ben8282 wrote: »

I am not impressed by your anti-smoking rhetoric

You are perfectly entitled to smoke, but you are not entitled to inflict that upon others. I always book non smoking rooms & would refuse to stay in a room that someone had smoked in.

Not because of any moral judgement on smokers but because there are chemicals in the stale smoke that make me ill.

I would not stay in a room exposed to mustard or sarin gas in either.

I'm not impressed by your pro smoking rhetoric.

Belenus

Ben8282 wrote: »

[Have found and read the other thread...

You may have read it but you don't appear to have understood it. A non smoking apartment was a specific part of the booking contract.

Ben8282 wrote: »

...Firstly, as I am a smoker, I am not impressed by your anti-smoking rhetoric and my honest answer about your having been accommodated in an apartment where the previous occupants had smoked is SO WHAT. You were not required to smoke. You could have opened the windows and sprayed a bit of air freshener around if it bothered you so much....

SO WHAT?

Wow, what a ridiculous attitude to take.

As a smoker maybe you don't properly understand how I and many others find your habit disgusting and offensive and don't wish to share the stink and pollution that you leave behind you. The smell of smoke permeates the fabric and furnishing of a building and cannot be eliminated by opening a window and spraying air freshener around.

Why do you think there is so much legislation about smoking and why do you think that the overwhelming majority of hotels and rental apartments etc are non smoking places.

Why do you think the majority book non smoking accommodation when on holiday. See Phillw's post above.

No matter, this thread is about legal issues and not your outdated pro smoking rhetoric.

Belenus

phillw wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to smoke, but you are not entitled to inflict that upon others. I always book non smoking rooms & would refuse to stay in a room that someone had smoked in.

Not because of any moral judgement on smokers but because there are chemicals in the stale smoke that make me ill.

I would not stay in a room exposed to mustard or sarin gas in either.

I'm not impressed by your pro smoking rhetoric.

Thanks Phillw.

I was amazed when I read that post. I though such attitudes had been consigned to the dustbin of history.

phillw

Belenus wrote: »

Thanks Phillw.

I was amazed when I read that post. I though such attitudes had been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Yeah, I am amazed there are still people that think it's acceptable to smoke in an area that would impact on others health. That includes going outside for a cigarette at home and then coming back to a house where children live.

Ben8282

Obviously there is a demand for smoking apartments in Amsterdam or Amsterdam Apartments wouldn't provide them, would they?
At least now I know who to get in touch with should I ever decide to rent an apartment in Amsterdam. Thanks for the info.

To return to the original subject of the thread, I believe that Santander were wrong to reject the s75 claim on these grounds. The deposit and balance were paid to Amsterdam Apartments, not Expedia, and there was therefore no break in the.debtor-creditor-supplier chain. The extract from Expedia's T&C's would appear to confirm this.

However, this does not mean that I believe the claim to be valid. Concerning the condition of the apartment (furnishing etc). In what way were you led to believe that the apartment would be of a higher standard than it actually was? Were you, for example, shown photographs of the interior of the apartment which did not correspond to the actual interior of the apartment (i.e. they were photographs of a different apartment or the furnishings had been replaced by other inferior furnishings)? Pease be specific here. Is it possible that once you discovered the apartment was not non-smoking that you became prejudiced against it and began to find fault?
In order to claim compensation you will have to prove that there was misrepresentation of the interior condition of the apartment by Amsterdam Apartments.

On the subject of the smoking situation, and irrespective of our differing opinions on this matter, you will have to prove breach of contract in that Amsterdam Apartments contractually agreed and guaranteed the provision of a non-smoking apartment. By your own admission Amsterdam Apartments originally sent an e-mail to you stating that it was a smoker friendly apartment and it was Expedia. NOT Amsterdam Apartments, who then contradicted this by saying that they had received an e-mail from Amsterdam Apartments stating that the apartment was non-smoking. You therefore only have the word of a third party not party to the contract that the apartment would be non-smoking while the e-mail received from Amsterdam Apartments clearly stated that it was smoker friendly.

Belenus

Ben8282 wrote: »

Obviously there is a demand for smoking apartments in Amsterdam or Amsterdam Apartments wouldn't provide them, would they?
At least now I know who to get in touch with should I ever decide to rent an apartment in Amsterdam. Thanks for the info...

I'm very happy to provide you with that information. :beer:

Every time you stay in a smoking apartment you aren't polluting the clean apartments that me and most others choose to rent.

PixelPound

From the other thread, I assume Expedia is the "UK company". So you booked a non-smoking apartment, received info the next day stating smoking was permitted, contacted Expedia who then got back saying they'd confirmed a non smoking apartment. It is probably this you need to focus on rather than whether it was shabby and 4 stars or not, which is much more subjective (a 4 star rating in holland is not the same as a 4 star UK rating). It could all be a communication breakdown and dependent what Expedia said to Amsterdam Apartments. Did Expedia copy you that email, can you ask for them to forward you the email?

Terry_Towelling

If Expedia has offered recompense, that suggests they are accepting some sort of liability for having confirmed it was a non-smoking apartment and that, possibly, the apartment provider has not actually done anything wrong. Much may depend on who put the information on the Expedia website; some of these booking sites are run by a booking-facilitation company but the information provided on the site is added and maintained by the end-supplier - another check of the T&Cs may reveal whether this is true or not.

On the subject of smoking (which will always be emotive, as will any debate on addiction) it is true (in my opinion) that you cannot easily get the smell of smoke out of a room. It really does stick in the fabric, the wallpaper, the paint, the carpet. For that reason, it really is critical that these companies who offer a choice of smoking/non-smoking do get it right.

eco_warrior

How did this thread get so long

You can’t claim for standard of service through your credit card, not through chargeback or S75s.

DSC chain doesn’t matter.

Ben8282

eco_warrior wrote: »

You can’t claim for standard of service through your credit card, not through chargeback or S75s.
.

Completely agree with you on this one