Plans to evict failed asylum seekers

[Cyclone]

Hotels aren't required to uphold your reservation and accommodate you either, if you choose to opt out of their T&Cs.

 

I'm saying that not all hotels require you to do it.

 

Walk in, book a room, pay cash with no room or bar service and they won't even ask for a CC imprint, they have no need.

[El Cid]

I'm saying that not all hotels require you to do it.

 

Walk in, book a room, pay cash with no room or bar service and they won't even ask for a CC imprint, they have no need.

 

A news item the other day was pointing to the view that the UK lack police and ID permits, how would this be enforced, is this perception of lack of enforcement wrong.

[L00b]

I'm saying that not all hotels require you to do it.

I heard you the first time around. I'm saying that not all hotels will allow you to walk in, book a room, pay cash with no room or bar service. If you don't want to/can't provide a CC imprint, they'll politely decline your business instead.

[Cyclone]

That's a strawman though, I didn't claim that ALL hotels would allow that.

 

I only claimed that they aren't legally obliged to take a CC and that some don't.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 15:47 ----------

 

A news item the other day was pointing to the view that the UK lack police and ID permits, how would this be enforced, is this perception of lack of enforcement wrong.

 

Not sure I understand? Police permits? ID permits?

[milquetoast1]

I heard you the first time around. I'm saying that not all hotels will allow you to walk in, book a room, pay cash with no room or bar service. If you don't want to/can't provide a CC imprint, they'll politely decline your business instead.

 

Ditto for car hire companies.

 

No credit card, no ID, no business.

[L00b]

That's a strawman though, I didn't claim that ALL hotels would allow that.

No strawman, my good man: neither did I.

 

At the most, you may infer from my posts that most hotels require a CC imprint. Which they do indeed, in the UK and elsewhere, from a very long date. Bog common credit risk/loss mitigating measure embedded in the T&Cs (including the online versions in font size 1).

 

If anything, to ensure esteemed guests don't accidentally forget to mention any minibar borrowings when checking out, after paying for their stay in cash the day before

 

Nothing new about it at all.

Edited August 3, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

And they're entitled to do that. I didn't say they weren't or that you could hire a car without a credit card and ID...

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 15:51 ----------

 

Hotels aren't required to uphold your reservation and accommodate you either, if you choose to opt out of their T&Cs.

 

Okay, well, thanks for stating the obvious, I guess.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 15:53 ----------

 

But they do after a fashion, when they require you to leave a CC print when checking in. Can't see many illegal holding a CC, somehow.

 

Going back to this though.

 

Hotels are NOT obliged to do this by law, which is the equivalent of what is being suggested for landlords.

 

And whilst SOME hotels do do this. Not ALL do it. Which was my point.

 

Landlords will be policing the legal status of people renting from them, whilst hotels do not. And indeed whilst supermarkets do not, and taxi companies do not, and service providers of all other kinds do not.

 

It's the job of the government, which they are foisting off on to people running a business (I think they already did something similar to the NHS as well).

[L00b]

Okay, well, thanks for stating the obvious, I guess.

Poor form for you.

 

My point wasn't that hotels are OBLIGED to check ID or take CC imprints, but that hotels do perform ID check "after a fashion" (my words in the post, check them) when they do take such an imprint (since payment cards are an accepted way of confirming ID in this country, for some unfathomable reason).

Going back to this though.

 

Hotels are NOT obliged to do this by law, which is the equivalent of what is being suggested for landlords.

 

And whilst SOME hotels do do this. Not ALL do it. Which was my point.

 

Landlords will be policing the legal status of people renting from them, whilst hotels do not.

There is a small difference between transient accommodation services catering for short stays typically provided to visiting domestic and foreign non-residents, and residential accommodation catering for long-term stays, don't you think?

 

Now who's lobbing strawmen around?

Edited August 3, 2015 by L00b

[Margarita Ma]

How many Landlords have been consulted on the the new requirement to evict illegal immigrants.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 19:22 ----------

 

Just read through all the documents that can be used to prove right to rent in the current code of practice. I will have a lot of extra work to do when I re-let. This will be a good excuse for Letting Agents to charge more for document checks, as if it is not hard enough for tenants on low income already.

Yes Cyclone a great exersize in laying off responsability on to others and herding smaller landlords into the hands of agents and Landlord associations and therefore driving up rents.

[Cyclone]

Poor form for you.

 

My point wasn't that hotels are OBLIGED to check ID or take CC imprints, but that hotels do perform ID check "after a fashion" (my words in the post, check them) when they do take such an imprint (since payment cards are an accepted way of confirming ID in this country, for some unfathomable reason).

SOME do. Not all. You keep missing the word 'some' out and making an incorrect blanket statement about what hotels do.

There is a small difference between transient accommodation services catering for short stays typically provided to visiting domestic and foreign non-residents, and residential accommodation catering for long-term stays, don't you think?

 

There is some difference yes. I never claimed that they were identical.

 

Landlords don't work for UKBC or HMRC or any other government department and they shouldn't be having the work of those departments foisted onto them on pain of prosecution.