Travelodge Smoking fine

Fosterdog

Can you be 100% sure that they didn't smoke hanging out of the window while you took a shower? Or if you went out anywhere without them even if it was just for a few minutes?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If the hotel uses an outside company to perform this special clean they'll presumably have a bill for it.

If they use their own staff and the OP left after 2 hours they could have cleaned the room during that booking time and so not lose out on any further bookings. 

The hotel would presumably have to show bookings were cancelled or the room taken off the available booking list. 

Their letter mentions consequential damages without stating what they are. 

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g186338-i17-k3772539-Travelodge_Smoking_Surcharge-London_England.html#:~:text=Be aware that Travelodge can,in one of their rooms!

Suggests they have charged £150 for at least 10 years and it comes across as a penalty rather than a loss. 

OP I'd start by asking them for proof of their losses and their proof you smoked in the room. 

Worth a read:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/310845-travelodge-smoking-fine-this-is-how-to-make-it-go-away/

MattMattMattUK

Oddly I worked in hotels many years ago (15+ years) and we used to charge a cleaning fee for smoking in a non-smoking room, it was either £150, or one nights room rate, whichever was higher in relation to the offending party. The cost was in theory that we had to totally strip the room, the duvet and pillows (rather than just the cover and cases) had to be washed, the carpets were cleaned etc. so it generally took the room out of use for a day whilst the carpet dried. Of course some places will just change the bedding and not bother with the rest.

user1977

I would be sceptical about any budget hotel claiming that they diligently clean areas outside the bedroom window between guests - I've certainly seen accumulations of fag ends outside the window before.

nyermen

One comment on this - I see comments about "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but this appears to be a civil claim?  So its not a fine, but a "charge", and if it's in the terms & conditions and fair under contract law, then assuming they have evidence to satisfy a court, they may win.  Civil claims afaik are always balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt?
Not taking any sides, just seeing it how a court might.

ThisnotThat

nyermen said:

One comment on this - I see comments about "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but this appears to be a civil claim?  So its not a fine, but a "charge", and if it's in the terms & conditions and fair under contract law, then assuming they have evidence to satisfy a court, they may win.  Civil claims afaik are always balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt?
Not taking any sides, just seeing it how a court might.

Whilst the standard of proof is lower in a civil case, it is still up to the accuser to provide proof that someone was smoking in the room, rather than for the OP to prove they were not.

Jenni_D

ThisnotThat said:

nyermen said:

One comment on this - I see comments about "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but this appears to be a civil claim?  So its not a fine, but a "charge", and if it's in the terms & conditions and fair under contract law, then assuming they have evidence to satisfy a court, they may win.  Civil claims afaik are always balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt?
Not taking any sides, just seeing it how a court might.

Whilst the standard of proof is lower in a civil case, it is still up to the accuser to provide proof that someone was smoking in the room, rather than for the OP to prove they were not.

Is the correct answer.

And on the subject of the T&Cs ... just because it is mentioned, that does not necessarily make the term fair.

user1977

In relation to the amount claimed, the "loss of rental" only makes sense if they actually had to turn away a guest because the room was being cleaned. It doesn't seem likely that they were operating at full capacity during lockdown in January. I can't see it being pursued to court anyway.

Undervalued

green6house said:

bris said:

CCTV of someone smoking outside is no defence, do you have CCTV in the room of no one smoking all night? No. so really the higher chances are if the court papers arrive you sill lose.

You don't seem to get the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
They wouldn't need CCTV in their room to prove they hadn't been smoking. Travelodge would need CCTV in the room to prove they HAD. 

Well you clearly don't as this is a civil claim and not a criminal prosecution!

The claimant does not have to prove "guilt" beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be the case if it were a criminal matter.

They only have to convince a judge "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e 51%) that the OP is responsible for their losses.

Undervalued

visidigi said:

joseph1972 said:

I work away a lot and use travelodge quite a lot..anyway 1 night a few months ago I was awoken by a security goon and a travelodge employee as my workmate had just come back to the room after being stood outside for an hour talking and smoking...they accused him of smoking in the room.after a short discussion of me refusing to give over £150 I told them to ring the police..police came and asked me to leave after only been in room a few hours ..then I got this letter through the door...apparently the goons mate found Ash on the window sill and told us it was ours...I don't need stress but I'm thinking of saying ok take me to court but make sure the cctv is available of my mate being outside smoking..
BTW I'm a non smoker
Sorryfor grammar but I'm not so clever

You're liable, smoker or not, as the claim is against you as the payor/booker of the room.

Calling people 'goon's' in the way you have doesn't exactly present a good image of someone claiming to be completely innocent of the situation.

Remember, don't put anything on the internet if you don't want people to find it (e.g. the name (Removed by Forum Team) at the top of the letter).

Quite!

Particularly coupled with the OP's username makes it a better than even chance he is (Removed by Forum Team).

Or maybe it is all an elaborate smoke screen?