Bed bugs? It was the hotel that bit us Jill Insley March 17 2019 The Sunday Times BUY PRINTS OR SIGNED COPIES OF ROB MURRAY S CARTOONS FROM OUR PRINT GALLERY AT TIMESCARTOONS.CO.UK I booked a hotel in Amsterdam for three nights in January. As I wanted somewhere central, the Hotel Vijaya seemed ideal. I used booking.com and the reviews seemed reasonable, so I booked with my Lloyds American Express credit card. When my wife and I arrived and inspected the hotel and the rooms offered, it was clear the Vijaya was a dump. It was also clear the reviews on booking.com and other websites had grossly overstated the quality of the hotel.
Having subsequently searched through the reviews on TripAdvisor, I found reports that the hotel was literally a fleapit. We immediately rejected the hotel and refused to stay there. I complained to the manager, telling him the place was not fit for purpose. I instructed him not to debit my card and left to find somewhere more suitable. The hotel immediately took 322 from my card and has refused a refund. I have been treated as a no-show rather than as a guest who did turn up but rejected the hotel as totally unsuitable. I have taken this up with booking.com and the relevant Amsterdam authorities and got nowhere. I have also sought help from Lloyds, but it has failed to respond to me despite several calls, copies of reviews and photographs. Choice of hotels is a subjective thing. One man s fleapit is another man s bargain abode. However, the reviews for Hotel Vijaya were very mixed indeed on all the booking websites I visited. Some guests complained about bloodstained sheets, mould, dirt, disruption caused by renovation and, yes, an unspecified bug problem. Others praised the hotel for its breakfasts and central location. Unfortunately, I could not get hold of the Vijaya directly, and booking.com would not put me in touch with the hotel to give it a chance to comment. You made a claim for a refund of the 322 under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, but Lloyds rejected this shortly after you contacted me. I asked it to reconsider, pointing out that, while you had not had time to take your own photos, there was plenty of evidence of the hotel s shabbiness online. Lloyds again rejected your claim, saying that the evidence provided unfortunately hasn t shown any breach of contract or misrepresentation and we are unable to assist in reclaiming losses incurred.
I invited booking.com to read the reviews on its own and other websites, and reconsider your request for a refund. The next day it offered you the full amount. Booking.com told me the Vijaya had more than 400 reviews resulting in an average rating of 6.3 out of 10, with a cleanliness rating of 5.6. The website recognises that the hotel is not up to everyone s standards when it comes to cleanliness, but said that for some people it made up for this by being in the right place at the right price. The only category in which the property does not have a low review score is location, booking.com said. The whole premise [of our website] is to offer choice, but customers do need to check the reviews before they book. Debt collector just won t let me go I am having problems with a debt collection company called Lowell. It seems to have bought a debt to the mobile phone operator O 2 for 90 that was built up by a person with my name. Because of the time that has passed, Lowell says the debt is now 913. Since last October Lowell has been threatening me in letters and telephone calls in an attempt to get me to pay the debt, and trying to get me to reveal personal data such as my date of birth. I kept telling the company that I had never done business with O 2 and did not owe anything to anyone. When I sent a legal letter in December protesting against this harassment, Lowell accepted it had been wrong because the debtor s address was in east London and I have never lived there. Despite this, however, it started sending me threatening letters again last month. Although you have never lived in London, Companies House has you registered at a London address for business purposes in 2012, which is perhaps why Lowell became confused. The company had already admitted it had been mistaken in thinking you owed the money, so I asked it to stop sending letters and sort out the problem once and for all.
Lowell said: We make every effort to deal with disputes quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, on this occasion a mistake meant a further letter was issued. We have updated our records and no further contact will be made beyond our written apology. The company has offered you 150 as a gesture of goodwill. Letters are a painful reminder of my wife My dear wife died suddenly and unexpectedly in March 2017 and matters relating to her estate have been handled very well by my solicitors. However, there is one item still to be resolved. As part of her contract with Clinique Cosmetics, which is owned by the Estée Lauder group, my wife was given a bonus of shares in Estée Lauder. At the start of each month I receive a letter, still addressed to my late wife, giving the value of the shares, currently $12,000 ( 9,100). My solicitors appointed stockbrokers to sell the shares. The stockbrokers bought a medallion signature guarantee certificate, which is required to sell the shares on the US stock market. So far, so good. In September 2017, I was told that I would receive in 10 to 14 days an authorisation form from Computershare, Estée Lauder s registrar in America, to enable the shares to be transferred to me and then sold. It is now June 2018 and I have received no communication whatever with regard to any authorisation form, and I know that the stockbrokers have made numerous attempts to progress the transaction. I do not know if your influence extends across the pond, but I would be grateful if you could help. It is the final item remaining on my wife s estate and I would like it finalised to stop the monthly letter, which is a continual reminder of her untimely death. I contacted Estée Lauder to find out what was causing the delay with the authorisation form. It told me that Computershare had sent an information pack and the transfer forms to your solicitor when he asked for them in April 2017. At my request, via Estée Lauder, Computershare agreed
to email the forms to you directly. You completed the forms on July 3 last year and passed them on to your solicitor. By October, nothing had happened, so I contacted Computershare again. It had heard nothing from your solicitor, despite calling and writing to him. When it eventually managed to talk to him, he admitted he had not yet posted the paperwork. Still nothing happened, and in December your solicitor promised he would post the paperwork before Christmas. On January 8, he told me that everything was ready to be sent off. Last week you told me the shares had finally been transferred and sold, raising $11,857. I think you have been badly let down by your solicitor. His slowness has prevented you from grieving in peace. You say his bill is less than you would have expected, that he has apologised for the time this has taken and he is still blaming Computershare for the delay. You have asked me not to name him, but I think he has got off lightly. Readers can learn about how the Legal Ombudsman deals with poor service by going to http://bit.ly/ombudsmanguide. Hacked company can demand full payment Our business was recently hacked and a fraudster sent amended invoices and bank details to one of our clients. The client did not check the authenticity of the details and made two payments totalling 200,000 to an HSBC account. We bank with RBS. The fraud was reported but it looks as though the funds will not be retrieved. The money was part-payment on a contract, and the remaining contract costs have now been paid by the client. The client has offered a settlement of 100,000, as the data breach was at my end. Should I insist on full payment or take the settlement? The client is a business we have dealt with on a regular basis for four years, but my company would struggle with a 100,000 loss.
Julie Hunter, a solicitor specialising in commercial litigation at the law firm Stephensons, says that your business has not received full payment for the work or services it completed. You have the right to receive full payment and can pursue your client for the unpaid sum. Although you admit the data breach involved your systems rather than those of your client, she said: The customer in this case was at fault. Before sending any monies, they should check with the recipient of the funds that they have the correct bank account details. This is particularly so when they have made payments in the past and then are given new bank details. A simple phone call to confirm the bank details would have prevented the fraud. If you do not want to risk damaging your relationship with the client, Hunter suggests a settlement on the basis that if they subsequently recover all the cash, you receive payment of the balance. Consumers lost 145.4m to this type of scam, known as authorised push payment fraud, in the first six months of last year, according to the trade body UK Finance, and only 31m was returned to victims. In May, a new code of conduct will be introduced that could result in victims being reimbursed if banks or other payment services are found to be at fault. However, the code is voluntary and to qualify for a refund a victim must prove they took reasonable care to ensure their money went to the right account. If readers are ever emailed change-of-account details, ring the company or individual involved to check the information is genuine, and use a phone number you have looked up yourself not one provided by the emailer.