As I understand it, the restaurateur is only liable if it is proven that he was negligent, and not otherwise; and the owner of the hotel is liable in the same way after the passage of this law only if he has been negligent 1092. There will be no strict liability for him as it is not the case for the owner of the restaurant. Today, I ask your Lordships to make a demonstration in favor of elegance. Many noble lords have told me that they agree with me that “a hotel” and “a hotelier” are preferable to the “h” in “hotel” as is customary and as seems to be a modern practice today. I find it common to hear the word “humor” with an aspiring “h” and dread the day when we will hear “honor” pronounced as such. I would like to ask your Lordships to join me in demonstrating elegance. I suggest that the use of “an” instead of 1068 of “a”, if ever justified, is justified before the word “hotel”. Please do not be very reluctant to discuss this point of law with the noble and learned Earl, and I would be very inclined to accept it if he told me that I was wrong. But I should have thought the answer would be that if a man books a room in a hotel, it doesn`t matter how far he goes to do so. If I am wrong, where is the line? Is it ten thousand, is it a hundred miles? I should have thought that the only logical rule was that if a man books a night in a hotel, it doesn`t matter how far he travels.
If I am wrong, I will give in immediately. It follows that an early legal contribution in the event of planned changes in a hotelier`s business composition, business plan or target market could avoid unintended and potentially costly consequences. According to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, hotels fall under use class C1. However, outbreaks are explicitly excluded in Article 3(6)(i) and thus sui generis. As an employer, it is your responsibility to check whether someone you hire is authorised to work in the UK. This can be particularly important for employers in the restaurant and hospitality sectors, which often employ large numbers of seasonal, temporary and casual workers. Employers who employ illegal workers are fined for failing to carry out the necessary checks. For more information on preventing illegal work, visit the Gov.uk website. I really find it difficult to understand the purpose of this amendment. We need to set limits on the owner`s liability. Rightly or wrongly, the bill attempts to define those limits in clause 2(1) of the bill.
Important words begin on line 3: . The owner of a hotel is not responsible. Otherwise. and then: (b) the loss or damage occurred during the period beginning at midnight immediately before and ending at midnight immediately thereafter, during which time the traveler was a guest at the hotel and had the right to use the accommodation so incurred. Where the bill says “and authorized to use,” the noble gentleman means “or authorized to use,” and he mentioned the case in which a man can send his luggage in advance, perhaps three or four days before his arrival, and proposes that the innkeeper be held responsible for the loss or damage of that luggage for perhaps three or four days before the customer arrives. Again, the noble gentleman also suggested a case in which the guest books a room and perhaps sends his luggage a few hours before, and then does not use the room. It`s just a matter of degree. I accept that we could extend the period of responsibility. We could extend it in both directions, both before the client arrives (if he arrives one day) and after his departure.
It`s true. All I am saying is that it is necessary to define the duration of responsibility. That is what I am basing myself on. The bill contains a specific time limit and states in as many words: Under the Hotel Owners Act 1956, a hotel owner may be liable in certain circumstances to compensate for loss or damage to a guest`s property, although this is not due to a fault of the hotel owner or staff. However, this responsibility: THPT comment: This is the first of several articles on UK law and how it might affect hoteliers. would welcome similar contributions on this topic from other European and non-European countries. However, under the Hotel Owners Act 1956, the hotel may limit its liability to £50 per item or £100 in aggregate (£750 or £1,500 in London) if it gives notice. The hotel is not responsible if the loss or damage was caused by your negligence or force majeure. On the Trading Standards Business Companion website, you will find advice on various topics relevant to accommodation establishments such as hotel establishments.
Information can also be obtained from your local authority`s business standards department. The honourable Member was right to say that I have not yet been able to accept any of his amendments. I was all the more disappointed that the noble Lord did not add Amendment No 7a to Marshalled`s list of amendments, because if he had done so, I would have intended to accept it. This brings us to an amendment of considerable importance, which raises a brief but rather critical point in our deliberations. The question is, as the noble gentleman said: should the owner of the hotel be able to enter into contracts for his liability for negligence? Although I admit that this is a controversial point. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, we should say that he should be able to leave. In support of this view, I would like to quote this consideration. Why the owner of the hotel, regarding the item; What do we look at, i.e. motor vehicles, etc., in a different position than the shop owner? We know that under the current law – and the situation will not be affected by this law – the mechanic can release his legal liability for negligence by simply posting an appropriate notice in an appropriate place on his premises. If this is right and desirable, why should the hotel owner be placed in a different position? I can say that I do not agree that it should be, and that is why I oppose this amendment.
That`s the goal. It is simply a matter of opinion as to whether or not there should be that distinction, and I think there should not be. I am rather confused by what Lord Merthyr is saying. I confess that I share the view of my noble friend Lord Silkin on this issue. I did not agree with him on the last amendment, which he withdrew, but I support the attitude in this regard. If I book a room in a hotel, and I don`t use that room on the day I`m expected, but I pay for it anyway, and if I transferred my luggage and the owner sent the luggage to the room, then I should have thought that his responsibility is related to renting the room, whether I`m here or not. If I send my luggage and just hope for the best without booking a room, then I can understand that the hotel owner has no responsibility. But if I did book and pay for a room, the hotel owner should definitely take responsibility. I should be inclined to think that he was a guest in this matter. I would like to pass this on to the noble gentleman, Lord Silkin. We are trying to follow the recommendations of the Legal Reform Committee.
The noble Lord makes us go far beyond that and extend strict liability in case a man has not become a guest, in the sense that we treat him – he has not arrived at the hotel. This is a new and difficult point. The noble gentleman will understand that there is a difference between trying to give effect to a law of the Law Reform Committee and trying to legislate in the ordinary way. I suggest that we look at this without prejudice. I cannot do anything for my noble friend Lord Merthyr, but I am making this proposal to the committee as a member of the committee. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, or any of us can get involved, but I think it is something worth considering. I hope that your Lordships will find this reasonable and will not insist that a decision be made today, if my noble friend agrees. Some high-end hostels allow groups (or even couples and individuals) to book entire rooms and offer hotel-like services such as housekeeping, restaurants, and bars. Similarly, most hotels like to provide their guests with alcohol and food. Therefore, hotels must comply with the Licensing Act of 1964. Assuming a license has been granted, most hotels are free to source alcoholic beverages from any source they deem appropriate.
However, the law prescribes all aspects of serving alcohol, such as the cleanliness of optics, pipes and glasses, as well as the units of measurement by which you can advertise and sell. You will need a “public space” that will be converted into a bar to serve alcoholic beverages. If you plan to serve alcohol during meals, you will need a residential and restaurant license, sometimes called a functional license. If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, maybe I can help. He will see that this appears only in the context of the definition. The rights of the noble gentleman and his friends, or even of an unfortunate grammarian long since expelled from his house, are clearly covered by Article 2, so that they would have no difficulty in this matter. Bottom line: Not all hostels are created equal, and many are a world away from hotels, but in the window of time when the two overlap, owners need to be careful that their eye for business doesn`t lead them into a trap. I want to understand that. Do I understand the noble Lord Merthyr correctly when I imagine that he said, if I go to a hotel in my coat and put my coat, hat and cane in the cloakroom, in the place designated by the hotelier, and that I go to lunch – or perhaps if I leave the valuables I wear in the place designated by the hotelier and go to lunch – and I suffer a loss, The hotelier is not responsible to me, unless I booked a room for the night as a precaution? It seems to me that is what he argued.
