Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right - I agree that it isn't something I'd use in a court of law, or to argue with the valet company. It's not a matter of having more money - though one reason why we have excellent credit is because we are very RESPONSIBLE about our lives in general, our obligations, etc. It's just where my mind was going - who is the more responsible party, the party more likely to be honest - the party who could pay for this and be fine, or the party who may lose their job over it?
I feel bad you had this mess. But I will be honest with you. Upon taking possession of your truck you did NOT fulfill your own responsibility of checking your own property for damage. So no, as much as these words may hurt you -- you did not act in a responsible way. You may say to the judge all you want, you can jump thru hoops, but the basic fact is that you failed your own responsibility.
Your only recourse is to find facts and evidence. Unless video cameras show the smack or eye witnesses come forward, you need to be fair and honest with yourself. You made a mistake. And you will pay for it.
Going around blemishing another name (Hilton), while yourself are also at fault -- that is unfair IMO.
Going around blemishing another name (Hilton), while yourself are also at fault -- that is unfair IMO.
I am not sure if you are serious about this. She is at fault because the guy tried to hide it and was successful so that means OP is at fault?? I remember I had my corolla once for a recall. Came back home and realized there was a scratch that I didn't like somewhere on the dash. My dealer used to be close to my work place (not where I live) and I had two day leave so I went back to dealer 3 days later and told them about the scratch. They didn't say "I was at fault" because I couldn't catch it right after. They did something that made me happy and I continued to go there.
She is at fault because the guy tried to hide it and was successful so that means OP is at fault??
OP did not even take 5 seconds to walk around her truck to check. Maybe "at fault" are the wrong choice words. But yes. But people are supposed to check their property when it has been in another entity's possession. That's the fault I was talking about, which you took out of context.
OP did not even take 5 seconds to walk around her truck to check. Maybe "at fault" are the wrong choice words. But yes. But people are supposed to check their property when it has been in another entity's possession. That's the fault I was talking about, which you took out of context.
Whether one is "supposed to" check their property upon being returned does nothing to absolve the bailee of responsibility for damage done to the property while in their care. It only makes the case more difficult to prove.
I feel bad you had this mess. But I will be honest with you. Upon taking possession of your truck you did NOT fulfill your own responsibility of checking your own property for damage. So no, as much as these words may hurt you -- you did not act in a responsible way. You may say to the judge all you want, you can jump thru hoops, but the basic fact is that you failed your own responsibility.
Your only recourse is to find facts and evidence. Unless video cameras show the smack or eye witnesses come forward, you need to be fair and honest with yourself. You made a mistake. And you will pay for it.
Going around blemishing another name (Hilton), while yourself are also at fault -- that is unfair IMO.
Sorry you see it that way.
When we went back, I took photos of the damage, in the very dim light of the parking garage, and even though I know it's there, I still could hardly see it under those lights - and this is evident in the photos as well.
Yes, we should have checked it from stem to stern, and we didn't. But that PALES IN COMPARISON to the $2000 in damage that the valet company subcontracted by Hilton (and operating on Hilton property) did to our truck - not to mention that they then lied about it when asked. (Someone is lying and it's not us.)
I am not blemishing Hilton's name - what I am trying to do is alert them that they have a dishonest subcontractor representing THEM on their property. I think they need to know that. Then they need to put some pressure on that subcontractor, who represents THEM, to make things right with us.
Let me put it this way. Say I buy a house from a builder, and after I move in, after the inspection in fact, I find out that a critical piece of my gas fireplace is missing. No, I didn't notice this during the walk thru. And no, my builder didn't actually build the fireplace - he had a subcontractor do that work. But his name is still on it, and that subcontractor represents the builder when the builder uses him. So - I don't care who replaces or repairs the part - the builder or the subcontractor - but it doesn't need to be ME. One or the other, and I expect the builder to put pressure on the subcontractor to get over here and get it done.
Let me put it this way. Say I buy a house from a builder, and after I move in, after the inspection in fact, I find out that a critical piece of my gas fireplace is missing. No, I didn't notice this during the walk thru. And no, my builder didn't actually build the fireplace - he had a subcontractor do that work. But his name is still on it, and that subcontractor represents the builder when the builder uses him. So - I don't care who replaces or repairs the part - the builder or the subcontractor - but it doesn't need to be ME. One or the other, and I expect the builder to put pressure on the subcontractor to get over here and get it done.
Correct. If a defect is discovered later, although reasonable due diligence was performed prior to occupancy -- yes that builder is responsible to repair.
The key is -- reasonable due diligence, inspection, checking.
Like I said, Hilton owes you to investigate the matter, perform that "reasonable due diligence" and I even said "good faith" viewing of the camera recording. They should also interview attendant's co-workers, or other staff who could know anything. Yes, Hilton owes that to you.
Their loyalty is to you, not their subcontractor. You were their patron. But if you antagonize them right off the batt, they will become defensive, understandably.
The key is -- reasonable due diligence, inspection, checking.
Like I said, Hilton owes you to investigate the matter, perform that "reasonable due diligence" and I even said "good faith" viewing of the camera recording. They should also interview attendant's co-workers, or other staff who could know anything. Yes, Hilton owes that to you.
Their loyalty is to you, not their subcontractor. You were their patron. But if you antagonize them right off the batt, they will become defensive, understandably.
Which is precisely why, when I called them today, I was as sweet as peaches. But I did make it very clear that I considered Towne Park to be a representative of the Hilton, and that I wanted them to be sure they knew that their subcontractor had allowed our vehicle to be damaged on Hilton property -and then would not take responsibility for it. I took the angle of "I am sure the Hilton would want to know of something that your subcontractor did and what is likely to cost your customer. I am sure you want to look into this for us - right?" They said yes, so we shall see.
I would rather have the Hilton and our insurance company working FOR us against the valet company. I only want to fight the valet company - with reinforcements!
Oh, and Hilton is telling us that they don't have cameras in the parking garage. Interesting.
By the way, you said this:
Quote:
Correct. If a defect is discovered later, although reasonable due diligence was performed prior to occupancy -- yes that builder is responsible to repair.
Whether or not the builder is responsible for repairs has really nothing to do with whether or not the buyer "did due diligence" (ie, made a walk thru or had an inspection or even both -or neither, for that matter). A builder is supposed to deliver a functioning product free of flaws or damage. That burden is on the builder.
A valet company's duty is to safely park and house vehicles. Their duty to do so doesn't hinge on whether or not we do a detailed inspection of the vehicle upon delivery. They are not absolved of responsibility simply because we didn't catch the damage in a dimly lit parking garage - though I freely admit that it would have been better for our case if we had noticed the damage while we were there.
However, they aren't claiming that we damaged the vehicle after we left. They aren't claiming that it was damaged when we got there, either. They are simply claiming that they aren't responsible for the damage. If we had pointed it out while we were standing there, what would have stopped them from claiming that they had no idea how it got there, or that it was already there when we checked the vehicle in? I mean, they are liars. They're lying now - what would have stopped them then?
I guess from here on out, the best bet is to walk around the entire vehicle with a camera and time stamped images upon drop off, and then do another walk around when we pick it up. I don't see how any other approach would safeguard us. But to be honest, I don't know of anyone who does this when they valet park.
Which is precisely why, when I called them today, I was as sweet as peaches. But I did make it very clear that I considered Towne Park to be a representative of the Hilton, and that I wanted them to be sure they knew that their subcontractor had allowed our vehicle to be damaged on Hilton property -and then would not take responsibility for it. I took the angle of "I am sure the Hilton would want to know of something that your subcontractor did and what is likely to cost your customer. I am sure you want to look into this for us - right?" They said yes, so we shall see.
I would rather have the Hilton and our insurance company working FOR us against the valet company. I only want to fight the valet company - with reinforcements!
Absolutely. After all, you were a patron, you have a complaint for something that happened in their property, while you were a guest there.
We also got some valet monkeys who damage guests' cars. Hotel management knows, they're costly, and a headache. Hotel probably hates those bad apples as much as guests. I don't even trust them with my rental, and I wouldn't even have to pay for damages on the rental.
If Hilton's on-site management is dragging their feet, ask to speak with the General Manager.
Absolutely. After all, you were a patron, you have a complaint for something that happened in their property, while you were a guest there.
We also got some valet monkeys who damage guests' cars. Hotel management knows, they're costly, and a headache. Hotel probably hates those bad apples as much as guests. I don't even trust them with my rental, and I wouldn't even have to pay for damages on the rental.
If Hilton's on-site management is dragging their feet, ask to speak with the General Manager.
You bet I will! I am giving the Hilton and our insurance company a couple of days' grace and then by Friday morning if there's not a satisfactory resolution, I'm going to lower the boom.
In our hotels, GMs are instructed to deal with these complaints, before you post on TripAdvisor. GMs are also instructed to respond to all negative posts on TripAdvisor, and Rankings do get affected by negative reviews. Your negative review will also trigger someone else's. So GMs are sensitive to that. And bosses use TripAdvisor's rankings quite seriously to judge GM's performance.
Veiled threats are good business, and it helps you when the hotel knows that you know.
Knowing your weaknesses and your weapons / strengths is crucial, because you'll know which fights to pick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I did make it very clear that I considered Towne Park to be a representative of the Hilton, and that I wanted them to be sure they knew that their subcontractor had allowed our vehicle to be damaged on Hilton property -and then would not take responsibility for it. I took the angle of "I am sure the Hilton would want to know of something that your subcontractor did and what is likely to cost your customer. I am sure you want to look into this for us - right?" They said yes, so we shall see. 
