e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Details of upcoming UK events, please provide working links if possible.
Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Mike Truran » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:50 pm

Here's the De Vere clause:
3. In the unlikely event that we have to change or cancel your booking, we reserve the right to do so. If this does arise you can either:
• 1) accept the changed arrangements as notified
• 2) make an alternative arrangement with us or,
• 3) cancel your booking and receive a full refund of any monies paid.
We regret we cannot pay compensation or any reimbursement of any expenses or costs you may incur as result of any such cancellation or change.
I wonder who copied whose words?

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Sean Hewitt » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:11 pm

Colours for round 1 will be determined by the total number of games played in the Djokovic v Stepanek tennis match at Wimbledon on Friday. Should an even number of games be played then the top seed in each section will be white. If an odd number of games are played, the top seed will be black. A tie break will count as one game.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:14 pm

Mike Truran wrote:Here's the De Vere clause:
We regret we cannot pay compensation or any reimbursement of any expenses or costs you may incur as result of any such cancellation or change.
The obvious question this condition raises is "Is it a fair and enforceable term, or an unfair and unenforceable term?" I'm not a lawyer, but I would say it's unlikely to be an enforceable term, and certainly worth challenging.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:03 am

"The obvious question this condition raises is "Is it a fair and enforceable term, or an unfair and unenforceable term?" I'm not a lawyer, but I would say it's unlikely to be an enforceable term, and certainly worth challenging."

I agree
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:42 am

Ian Thompson wrote:The obvious question this condition raises is "Is it a fair and enforceable term, or an unfair and unenforceable term?" I'm not a lawyer, but I would say it's unlikely to be an enforceable term, and certainly worth challenging.
It's perfectly enforceable, for three reasons.

Firstly, there is a trade off in that the customer also has the right to cancel without penalty before a prescribed time. The fact that both parties have this right negates any unfairness.

Secondly, you are contracting for a room, not a specific room (or even, a specific hotel). Switching a guest to another hotel of equal or higher standard fulfils the contractual obligation entered into.

Thirdly, the Regulations state that there may be a need only for the supplier to have a 'valid reason' for cancellation without notice, and to inform the consumer of the decision to cancel as soon as possible. Such a contractual term should, however, not be drafted in such a way that it could in practice be used arbitrarily to suit the interests of the supplier. It is no coincidence that both clauses talk of 'in the unlikely event of needing to cancel'. In other words, the clause is enforceable as long as the hotel is not doing it regularly and it really is an unlikely event.

Challenge away, but this is all established stuff in the travel and leisure industry, as agreed with the OFT.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18209
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:18 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: Secondly, you are contracting for a room, not a specific room (or even, a specific hotel). Switching a guest to another hotel of equal or higher standard fulfils the contractual obligation entered into.
This implies the need for a risk warning when a package is specifically advertised as being a combination of a stay at the hotel and an event at the hotel. The point being that the specific hotel is booked because of the event taking place in it. The phrase "implied term" has sometimes been used to give such guests a higher priority in the event of over booking. Hotels in the residential conference business such as De Vere should be aware of this and avoid double booking. If you were running a residential training conference at Uplands House and half your delegates were shunted off to Denham Grove at short notice, you wouldn't be most pleased.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:56 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote: Secondly, you are contracting for a room, not a specific room (or even, a specific hotel). Switching a guest to another hotel of equal or higher standard fulfils the contractual obligation entered into.
This implies the need for a risk warning when a package is specifically advertised as being a combination of a stay at the hotel and an event at the hotel. The point being that the specific hotel is booked because of the event taking place in it. The phrase "implied term" has sometimes been used to give such guests a higher priority in the event of over booking. Hotels in the residential conference business such as De Vere should be aware of this and avoid double booking. If you were running a residential training conference at Uplands House and half your delegates were shunted off to Denham Grove at short notice, you wouldn't be most pleased.
Roger - I was commenting in relation to a private booking made between an individual and a hotel under their standard t&c's. It was those terms that were being discussed. A group contract may well have separate terms unique to that group - the 4NCL is a good example of a group having different t&c's.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18209
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:00 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: Roger - I was commenting in relation to a private booking made between an individual and a hotel under their standard t&c's. It was those terms that were being discussed. A group contract may well have separate terms unique to that group - the 4NCL is a good example of a group having different t&c's.
It illustrates that entrants may be better protected if they book through the event organiser, rather than directly with the hotel. Usually it doesn't make any difference of course.

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Peter D Williams » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:10 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Peter D Williams wrote:I can confrim that Anthony has wrote to us and said "i have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" he sent this to us on 27th of June at 10.36 AM yet you claim you knew nothing about it until it was posted on the forum? i think this email needs to be put up on here from Anthony so that every one can see that he did write to us saying this at that time of the day so he must have spoken to you before 10 36 AM on 27 June? i printed off a copy of the email for carol to scan in when she gets time.

Sean says -If you read my post you will see that I did not say that. Sadly, quoting things that I did not say seems to run in your family.
but you did say this on the forum Sean "The first I knew of this matter was when I read your post on the ECForum".
But Anthony was clear in his email at 10 36 Am on 27 June he says this "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" it did not go up onto the forum until after 7 PM on 27 June so if Anthony spoke to you it must have been before he sent his email to us at 10 36 AM on 27 June you must have been aware of the problem? or are you saying that Anthony did not speak to you as he claims in his email to us.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1249
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:18 am

Peter D Williams wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Peter D Williams wrote:I can confrim that Anthony has wrote to us and said "i have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" he sent this to us on 27th of June at 10.36 AM yet you claim you knew nothing about it until it was posted on the forum? i think this email needs to be put up on here from Anthony so that every one can see that he did write to us saying this at that time of the day so he must have spoken to you before 10 36 AM on 27 June? i printed off a copy of the email for carol to scan in when she gets time.

Sean says -If you read my post you will see that I did not say that. Sadly, quoting things that I did not say seems to run in your family.
but you did say this on the forum Sean "The first I knew of this matter was when I read your post on the ECForum".
But Anthony was clear in his email at 10 36 Am on 27 June he says this "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" it did not go up onto the forum until after 7 PM on 27 June so if Anthony spoke to you it must have been before he sent his email to us at 10 36 AM on 27 June you must have been aware of the problem? or are you saying that Anthony did not speak to you as he claims in his email to us.
When I got the same email as yourselves, it also mentioned Sean's name, but when I connected Sean straight away, he was unaware of the problem, so I would doubt the accuracy of the words "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt"

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Peter D Williams » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:42 am

[quote="Alan Walton"



Alan says -When I got the same email as yourselves, it also mentioned Sean's name, but when I connected Sean straight away, he was unaware of the problem, so I would doubt the accuracy of the words "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt"[/quote]

so are you saying that Anthony did not speak to Sean? I will get to the bottom of it and will be contacting Anthony as i would be amazed if Anthony has wrote something on behalf of the hotel he works for that is not correct when cancelling a booking we had made well in advance in May with the hotel this would effect the hotel.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1249
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:52 am

A couple of general points

1) I am only making a assumption on what I have experienced
2) If there was a discussion between Sean and Andrew, it seems to me it was around e2e4 reservations through the website only

So my assumption is that Sean had no record of any booking you have made, and therefore has no responsibility for your booking, and most likely had no discussion regarding your booking

Also Andrew thought because you are on a discounted rate (which you could argue you were lucky to get), automatically put "I will speak with Sean" in his mail by mistake

One thing everybody can learn from this is to book accom through the website/Sean, and at least you are covered by unforseen problems in some way

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:59 am

Peter D Williams wrote: but you did say this on the forum Sean "The first I knew of this matter was when I read your post on the ECForum".
That is correct. The matter in question being that your room had been cancelled.
Peter D Williams wrote:But Anthony was clear in his email at 10 36 Am on 27 June he says this "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" .
I'm not party to private correspondence between you and the hotel that you booked with, but this seems to be a selective quote. I have a copy of the email that was sent to all those who booked through e2e4. That says
Anthony Cleckner wrote:I am very sorry that this is short notice however I needed to discuss the option available with Sean Hewitt.
Of course, you did not book through e2e4.

You seem to want this played out in public, so let's sort the chronology out here once and for all because I am sick and tired of you and your wife not taking responsibility for your own actions.

(1) At no point have you ever told me that you had booked direct with the hotel.
(2) We contracted a certain number of rooms and had sold all these rooms by 28 May. At that moment I sent in our rooming list to the hotel, and asking for more rooms.
(3) The hotel responded that no more rooms were available and they were full. They also identified that they had 2 bookings, one in the name of Williams and one in another name, had been booked direct with the hotel. These bookings had been allocated the chess rate, and allocated a chess room. I was asked by the hotel if these people were part of the chess event as if they were, I would have to cancel two of my bookings as I would sold more than my allocation.
(4) I checked the entries and confirmed that we did not have an entry from a player called Williams (nor did we have one in the other name).
(5) Peter A Williams entered the chess event online on 13 June. The entry said no to the hotel, and the entry fee paid did not take the discount for hotel guests.
(6) Peter D Williams entered the chess event online on 24 June. The entry said no to the hotel, and the entry fee paid did not take the discount for hotel guests.
(7) I was made aware last week that the hotel was massively overbooked due to a glitch that allowed the same block of rooms to be sold twice. As a result, remedial action would be needed. I pointed to the terms of my contract with the hotel and they agreed that they would accommodate all chess players who had booked through us as per our contract. They would do this by moving other guests to their sister hotel and by cancelling some private bookings - which as we have established they are entitled to do.
(8) The hotel then contacted me again and said that, even after (7) they did not think that it was not possible to accommodate all of our bookers at the hotel and suggested moving some required a move to another hotel. I said that they would need to offer something to compensate for this. They offered a bottle of wine, I suggested free dinner and taxi where required and they agreed. This was Anthony and I discussing the options that he refers to in his email.
(9) We did not discuss which players may have to move hotels. I volunteered that all guests I was paying for (including me) would move voluntarily to reduce disruption to others. The hotel made the decision which players to move to Shrigley.
(10) The first I knew that you had booked a room direct with the hotel was when you posted it on the forum.
(11) The first I knew that they had cancelled your booking was when you posted it on the forum.
(12) The first I knew that they had offered to move you to Shrigley was when you posted it on the forum.
(13) The last time I received an email or other communication from you (apart from the entries referred to above) was on 16th April 2012.

To conclude, and sum up

1 - You did not book through e2e4
2 - You entered into a private booking with Puma Hotels
3 - You were not aware of the terms and conditions of the booking that you made
4 - You did not notify e2e4 of this private booking
5 - The hotel acted within the terms of your contract
6 - Anthony and I spoke regularly, practically daily, to ensure that this was resolved with minimum inconvenience to those who had booked through e2e4.

Quite frankly, I've been more than patient with you and spent more than enough time on this. I'm sorry that you had your room cancelled, but frankly you are looking in the wrong place to apportion blame.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:14 am

Some people get their bedroom reservations cancelled. Get over it!
:lol:

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: e2e4 Buxton Congress : 29 June - 1 July 2012

Post by Peter D Williams » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:39 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Peter D Williams wrote: but you did say this on the forum Sean "The first I knew of this matter was when I read your post on the ECForum".
That is correct. The matter in question being that your room had been cancelled.
Peter D Williams wrote:But Anthony was clear in his email at 10 36 Am on 27 June he says this "I have spoken to Mr Hewitt in regards to your rooms" .
I'm not party to private correspondence between you and the hotel that you booked with, but this seems to be a selective quote. I have a copy of the email that was sent to all those who booked through e2e4. That says
Anthony Cleckner wrote:I am very sorry that this is short notice however I needed to discuss the option available with Sean Hewitt.
Of course, you did not book through e2e4.

You seem to want this played out in public, so let's sort the chronology out here once and for all because I am sick and tired of you and your wife not taking responsibility for your own actions.


That is not the email we have from Anthony
(1) At no point have you ever told me that you had booked direct with the hotel.
(2) We contracted a certain number of rooms and had sold all these rooms by 28 May. At that moment I sent in our rooming list to the hotel, and asking for more rooms.
(3) The hotel responded that no more rooms were available and they were full. They also identified that they had 2 bookings, one in the name of Williams and one in another name, had been booked direct with the hotel. These bookings had been allocated the chess rate, and allocated a chess room. I was asked by the hotel if these people were part of the chess event as if they were, I would have to cancel two of my bookings as I would sold more than my allocation.
(4) I checked the entries and confirmed that we did not have an entry from a player called Williams (nor did we have one in the other name).
(5) Peter A Williams entered the chess event online on 13 June. The entry said no to the hotel, and the entry fee paid did not take the discount for hotel guests.
(6) Peter D Williams entered the chess event online on 24 June. The entry said no to the hotel, and the entry fee paid did not take the discount for hotel guests.
(7) I was made aware last week that the hotel was massively overbooked due to a glitch that allowed the same block of rooms to be sold twice. As a result, remedial action would be needed. I pointed to the terms of my contract with the hotel and they agreed that they would accommodate all chess players who had booked through us as per our contract. They would do this by moving other guests to their sister hotel and by cancelling some private bookings - which as we have established they are entitled to do.
(8) The hotel then contacted me again and said that, even after (7) they did not think that it was not possible to accommodate all of our bookers at the hotel and suggested moving some required a move to another hotel. I said that they would need to offer something to compensate for this. They offered a bottle of wine, I suggested free dinner and taxi where required and they agreed. This was Anthony and I discussing the options that he refers to in his email.
(9) We did not discuss which players may have to move hotels. I volunteered that all guests I was paying for (including me) would move voluntarily to reduce disruption to others. The hotel made the decision which players to move to Shrigley.
(10) The first I knew that you had booked a room direct with the hotel was when you posted it on the forum.
(11) The first I knew that they had cancelled your booking was when you posted it on the forum.
(12) The first I knew that they had offered to move you to Shrigley was when you posted it on the forum.
(13) The last time I received an email or other communication from you (apart from the entries referred to above) was on 16th April 2012.

To conclude, and sum up

1 - You did not book through e2e4
2 - You entered into a private booking with Puma Hotels
3 - You were not aware of the terms and conditions of the booking that you made
4 - You did not notify e2e4 of this private booking
5 - The hotel acted within the terms of your contract
6 - Anthony and I spoke regularly, practically daily, to ensure that this was resolved with minimum inconvenience to those who had booked through e2e4.

Quite frankly, I've been more than patient with you and spent more than enough time on this. I'm sorry that you had your room cancelled, but frankly you are looking in the wrong place to apportion blame.
That is not the same email we have from Anthony that you appear to have so if your claiming you did not speak to him about our rooms on the 27 June that is very helpful as we can now prove that Anthony has wrote something that appears not to be true.

try and keep calm we are trying to find out what happend and will be in contact with Anthony now that you have said you did not know until after 7 PM.

One other point no bottle of wine or dinner was offered to us by any one from the hotel not that we would want this as we prefer to pay our own way in anything to do with Peter chess.
also if your room was cancelled 2 days before you went away what would you say? do not worry about it?
any way good luck with the chess tournament

Im bit nervous about booking our hoilday for next year now LOL.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

Post Reply