© 2021. All rights reserved by Rainbow-Themes.
Demand Letter
Managing Director
Ozen Bolifushi Reserve
Bolifushi Island,
Kaafu Atoll, 20222
Maldives
Via email: Hannah Shatalova (hanna@ozenreserve-bolifushi.com)
Via email: Iresha Kumbalathara (iresha@ozenreserve-bolifushi.com)
Via email: Irshaad Mohideen (irshaad@theozencollection.com)
Via email: Sasika Vitharama (sasika@atmospherehotelsandresorts.com)
RE: Notice of Violation of Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Dear Sir or Madam:
This firm represents Gregory Patrick d/b/a The House of DreamMaker (“HODM”). HODM is a luxury travel design boutique specializing in designing custom once in a lifetime vacation experiences for high-net-worth clients. HODM has been operating in the luxury travel industry for over thirty years and has a hard-earned reputation of providing unmatched travel experiences.
HODM recently booked accommodations for an important client at your Ozen Reserve Bolifushi (“ORB”) resort in Bolifushi Island Kaafu Atoll. The client, John Young and family, stayed at OBR from January 3-8, 2021. In deciding to book accommodations at ORB, HODM relied on information provided by your website concerning the size and nature of the accommodations being offered by ORB. As explained in more detail herein, the information provided on your website was false. The false representations on your website caused HODM monetary and reputational damage.
OBR falsely represented that your Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was 6566 ft² / 610 m² when it was in fact only approximately 3,470.19 sq ft. HODM relied on this materially false misrepresentation when choosing to book your Private Ocean with Slide for its client. People care about the size of their villa as they want room for the kids to spread out and give them peace. HODM booked the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide specifically because its client was a family with kids that needed ample space. OBR failed to deliver on this important aspect. OBR’s false representation regarding the size of the Private Ocean Reserve forced a member of HODM’s client’s party to sleep in a closet due to lack of space. Enclosed with this letter is a presentation detailing screen captures of this false representation.
OBR also falsely represented that your Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was freestanding and not connected to other accommodations. In reality, the Ocean Reserve with Slide is not freestanding but rather connected via jetty to several other buildings. HODM relied on this materially false misrepresentation when choosing to book your Private Ocean Reserve with Slide.
OBR’s materially false misrepresentations about the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide are a violation of, inter alia, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other applicable laws protecting consumers from deceptive trade practices laws.
OBR’s false representations financially damaged HODM’s by inducing HODM to pay more for OBR’s accommodations than the accommodations were truly worth. OBR’s false representations further damaged HODM’s reputation with a prominent client. A client with significant influence on organizations from which HODM has derived the bulk of its business over the last two decades. HODM estimates its lost business revenue caused by OBR’s false representation to be no less than $3,135,000 USD.
Further, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and related consumer protection laws provide for triple damages when the deceptive trade practice is committed willfully. Here, there can be no doubt the false representation regarding the size and nature of OBR’s accommodations was done willfully. The drastic difference in the size represented by OBR and actual size of the accommodations could not have been by accident. Accordingly, HODM is entitled to treble the amount of its damages. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and related consumer protection laws also provide for the recording of attorney fees and court costs.
HODM and HODM’s client also experienced poor service and customer service during the client’s stay at OBR. The services provided by OBR were not equivalent in value to the premium price charged by OBR. Moreover, OBR explicitly charged HODM for services that were not provided. More specifically, OBR charged HODM via credit card for boat service between the Mali airport and OBR. This boat service was timely cancelled by HODM and never provided by OBR. Yet, OBR charged HODM’s credit card for the expense. My client intends to request a charge back on the overcharges OBR made on HODM’s credit card.
HODM is prepared to seek legal recourse in the United States and/or the Maldives. Both jurisdictions have powerful consumer protection laws prohibiting deceptional trade practices. That said, my client would prefer to resolve this situation without litigation. To that end, I am authorized to convey the following proposal:
- OBR will pay HODM $125,000 by July 30, 2021, close of business. This payment compensates HODM for client reimbursement expenses, lost revenue caused by reputation damages, and its attorney’s fees and costs incurred dealing with this situation.
- OBR will provide six (6) two-bedroom properties for four nights exactly like the accommodations booked by HODM for its client (with the same all-inclusive food and beverage package) + a suitable accommodation for two of HODM’s corporate butlers. This will allow an opportunity for HODM and OBR to potentially salvage a future business relationship. The timing of these accommodations must allow for favorable weather with a reasonable effort by HODM to minimize any offset to your revenue.
- In exchange for the cash payment and accommodations described above, HODM will:
A. Agree to a global release of any and all causes of action based on our HODM’s customer’s recent stay at OBR; and
B. Agree to a confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement.
I believe this settlement proposal is fair to both sides and emphasize again that my client would prefer to resolve this situation amicably with the possibility of a future business relationship with OBR.
However, if you ignore and/or refuse my client’s offer, HODM is prepared to seek all available legal remedies, including but not limited to, lawsuits in the United States and/or the Maldives seeking recovering of the monetary damages caused by OBR’s false representation and attorney’s fees and cost incurred therein.
My client is also prepared to tell its side of the story to preserve its own reputation. More specifically, my client is prepared to publish the factual information it gathered during its investigation of this matter so that HODM’s potential customers and other innocent travelers know what to expect when viewing false information on your website.
I appreciate your prompt and serious attention to this matter. If necessary, please forward this letter to appropriate point of contact within your organization. Please call my office if you have any questions or would like to discuss. If I do not receive a response to this letter by July 30, 2021, I will assume you intend to force my client into taking legal action to protect its rights.
Sincerely,
Brandon T. Cook
Fraud
Principle Complaints for Dispute
-
Grossly Misleading claims on the 6,566 square feet of their top over-the-water "RESERVE" Bolifushi with slide renting for almost $11,000 per night - instead we received what appears to be no more than 1,850 square feet of living space, another 220 square feet of pool and outside lounging area (per their own claims) and at the very least only 2/3 of the advertised size, also based on their many claims on various sites and collaterals - whatever they feel fits the purpose on each site.
-
Advertising and verbal confirmations assured us one of "three" freestanding villas with a shuttle boat (to fetch the family when needed) yet in reality there are were seven villas on arrival, some still under construction and disturbing guests’ vacations and to boot, a connecting Jetty and golf carts zipping up and back all day (in stead of the photos and confirmed communication as to each villa being freestanding - exactly what we wanted and what differentiated this resort)
-
A disgusting landfill plant burning in full view with billows of smoldering smoke and odor, all day. Not exactly the eco retreat that promised tranquility and beauty, especially as the sight had you focus on it from your tableside window while dining.
-
Just terrible service across the board - disorganized and operating in the 1940's. They claimed they could not ever confirm any reservations for any of their restaurants without the approval of the never present reservations manager, who managed to only make her self known when she would wipe out all of your confirmations. We were told this kept happening because, and I quote... "My manager is Russian and she saves the best dinner slots for the Russian guests - I am so sorry but she just deleted the table and hour you booked.... I am trying to get it back".
-
We were made to have the butler (we brought with us and with whom the young children adore) work "through" an incompetent “butler”. It was a rarity when he could preform the most basic of tasks - a tea strainer took 14 hours of constant reminders. And due to the deceptive square footage, our butler was forced to sleep in the closet!
Evidence
Previous
Next
Lawsuits
8/18/2021 1:54 PM
Marilyn Burgess – District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 56427022
By: Brianna Denmon
Filed: 8/18/2021 1:54 PM
Cause No.
Gregory Patrick Plaintiff, v.
Atmosphere Hotels & Resorts. Defendant.
Atmosphere Hotels & Resorts. Defendant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ______ DISTRICT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiff Gregory Patrick d/b/a The House of DreamMaker and files this Plaintiff’s Original Petition and respectfully shows the Court the following:
DISCOVERY PLAN
1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief over $1,000,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Gregory Patrick d/b/a The House of DreamMaker is a sole proprietorship with a principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
4. Defendant Atmosphere Hotels & Resorts is a company with corporate offices at 5th Floor H. Aage Building, Boduthakurufaanu Magu, Male 20094, The Maldives, and 3rd Floor H. Aage Building, Boduthakurufaanu Magu, Male 20094.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this case because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
6. Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in this county. Venue is alternatively proper in Harris County under Section 15.002(4) because Plaintiff resided in Harris County at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
7. All conditions precedent to filing this suit have occurred or taken place.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff is a luxury travel boutique specializing in designing custom once in a lifetime vacation experiences for high net worth clients.
9. Defendant operates the Ozen Reserve Boilfushi (“ORB”) resort in Bolifushi Isaland Kaafu Atoll, 20222, Madlives.
10. Defendant advertises, promotes, and sells accommodation at ORB to Harris County residents and Harris County based luxury travel boutiques.
Misrepresentation of Square Footage
11. Plaintiff, on behalf of a client, visited the ORB website to consider booking accommodations for his client at ORB.
12. Defendant, via the ORB website, fraudulently misrepresented the square footage of its Private Ocean Reserve over-the-water villas.
13. Square footage is a key consideration when Plaintiff selects accommodations for its clients. Plaintiff’s average client lives in a 7,500 to 15,000 sq. ft. house and this number, when represented, gives them a benchmark they can relate to.
14. Defendant represented on its website that the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was 6566 ft² / 610 m² as shown below:
15. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representation that the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was 6566 ft² / 610 m² and booked accommodations for his client at OBR in the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide.
16. Plaintiff’s client stayed at OBR from January 3-8, 2021.
17. When Plaintiff’s client arrived at their accommodations, they discovered the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was not the advertised 6566 ft².
18. Plaintiff’s client physically measured the Private Ocean Reserve and concluded it was far less than 6566 ft².
19. As of February 2, 2021, Defendant continued to misrepresent on its OBR website that the Private Ocean Reserve was 6566 ft².
20. Defendant’s OBR website now admits the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide is not 6566 ft².
21. Plaintiff’s client was upset that the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was significantly smaller than advertised.
22. Plaintiff would not have booked the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide if he had known the villa was not 6566 ft².
23. Plaintiff’s client was unable to fit its entire party within the small confines of the Private Ocean Reserve with Slide.
24. Defendant’s misrepresentation has caused Plaintiff financial and reputational damage.
Free Standing Villa Misrepresentation
25. Defendant intentionally misrepresented the presence of private boat transfers from the shore to the villas, thus representing that the villas were free standing and exclusive.
26. Exclusivity is a key feature Plaintiff considers when selecting accommodations for clients.
27. Defendant’s virtual tour available online also misrepresented the OBR Private Ocean Reserve villas were freestanding with no interconnecting jetty.
28. Defendant’s OBR website also mispresented that the Private Ocean Reserve villas were freestanding.
29. As of August 16, 2021, Defendant’s Ozen Collection YouTube channel continued to misrepresent the Private Ocean Reserve villas is freestanding without an interconnecting jetty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mXwZXlV0Y.
30. Defendant’s Private Ocean Reserve villas are not freestanding. Defendant’s Private Ocean Reserve villas are connected by a boardwalk.
31. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s misrepresentation that the Private Ocean Reserve villas were free standing when he booked the accommodation for his client.
32. Plaintiff would not have booked accommodations for his client in OBR Private Ocean Reserve if Defendant had not misrepresented the exclusivity and freestanding nature of the villas.
33. Plaintiff’s client was upset that Defendant’s Private Ocean Reserve were not freestanding as advertised, causing Defendant financial and reputational damage.
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
34. The allegations preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein.
35. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.45(4).
36. Defendant is guilty of deceptive trade practices as outlined in Section 17.46 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code by: (1) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which the person does not; and/or (2) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.
37. Defendant falsely represented that its OBR Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was 6566 ft² when it was in fact much smaller than 6566 ft².
38. Defendant falsely represented that its OBR Private Ocean Reserve with Slide was a free-standing structure when it was in fact connected to other accommodations via a physical board walk.
39. The deceptive trade practices conducted by Defendant are producing causes of financial and reputation damages to Plaintiff.
40. Based on information and belief, Defendant committed these deceptive trade practices willingly with the intent to deceive consumers.
41. Plaintiff has been financially damaged in the amount of the difference in value between the accommodations as deceptively advertised by Defendant and the value of the accommodations actually provided by Defendant.
42. Plaintiff has been financially damaged in an amount yet to be determined due to the reputational damaged caused by Defendant’s deceptive trade practices. More specifically, Plaintiff derives significant business from referrals within the Houston chapter of the YPO. The client Plaintiff placed in Defendant’s deceptively advertised accommodations were members of the Houston YPO. Defendant’s misrepresentations caused Plaintiff’s reputation to be damaged within the members of the YPO, therefore, damaging Plaintiff’s reputation with his primary source of business. Because of Defendant’s deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff is losing and will continue to lose business revenue and profits.
43. Because Defendant’s deceptive trade practices were committed willfully, intentionally, and knowingly, Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced treble damages.
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
44. Plaintiff seeks an award of its reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with this action pursuant to Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
45. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
NOTICE TO PRESERVE ELECTRONIC OR MAGNETIC DATA
46. Notwithstanding Defendant’s prior notice of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant is advised herein of their duty to preserve written and electronic evidence. In particular, the following written, electronic or magnetic evidence may be relevant to the issues in this lawsuit, including such evidence that may have been created on personal or business devices.
47. Defendant is notified and demand is made by Plaintiff that this evidence be preserved:
A. Any and all e-mail communications on any computer used by any party to this lawsuit, including business computers and personal computers used by Defendant, his agents, employees and representatives;
B. Any and all text messages and other written communications sent on any computer, cell telephone or cell phone used by any party to this lawsuit, including business computers, telephones and cell phones and personal computers, telephones and cell phones used by Defendant, their agents, employees and representatives, related to the subject matter of this lawsuit;
C. Any and all social networking accounts on any computer used by Defendant including its business computers and personal computers used by Defendant’s agents, employees and representatives related to the subject matter of this lawsuit in any way; and
D. All photographs, videos, audio records, diagrams, sketches, or other written material of any kind relating in any way to the subject matter of this lawsuit.
48. Defendant has a duty to preserve written, photographic and electronic evidence described above shall also extend to those individuals and entities in privity of contract with Defendant or otherwise subject to Defendant’s control relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Should Defendant fail to preserve or destroy any of the above-referenced evidence relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit and which may be in Defendant’s possession or subject to their control after receiving notice of Plaintiff’s claims or the foregoing notice (which ever occurred earlier), Plaintiff will seek relief from the Court for spoliation remedies, sanctions and any other relief available to Plaintiff against Defendant and/or individuals or entities who receive notice of Plaintiff’s claims and file to preserve evidence.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.7 NOTICE
49. Plaintiff notifies Defendant pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.7 of its intent to use all items and discovery responses produced Defendant in any pretrial proceeding and/or at trial as self-authenticated by the party or parties in producing same during the pendency of this case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendant Atmosphere Hotels & Resorts be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon trial hereof, recover such sums as would reasonably and justly compensate it in accordance with the rules of law and procedure. In addition, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and for any other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which it is justly entitled.
Dated: August 18, 2021
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Brandon T. Cook
Brandon T. Cook
Texas State Bar No. 24084166
bcook@gunn-lee.com
GUNN, LEE & CAVE, P.C.
8023 Vantage Drive, Suite 1500
San Antonio, TX 78230
(210) 886-9500
(210) 886-9883 Fax
ATTORNEYS PLAINTIFF GREGORY PATRICK D/B/A EXPERIENTIALITY
Reviews & Testimonials
Horrible service, decent property but not worth your while Time wasted, money spent, returned home with a bad experience. Ocean villa 4 days of back to back dissatisfaction. Poor service quality, bad attitude of housekeeping staff, butlers with no knowledge of the hotel.. disturbing attitude difference towards hotel guests from different origins.. my expectations were very high and rightfully so because it was bustling with tourists and boated of exquisite food and experiences. But they forget that people experience the service quality and it can either make u ask whether you will come back or not and I won’t !!
Depressing views of Thilafushi landfill, Unethical and unwilling to refund This place has some real issues, but most concerning is that of credibility. We booked an overwater villa that was advertised as being: "Secluded, 6,556 sq. ft.over-water retreat with stunning ocean views. Situated a heartbeat away from the main island, these villas are accessed by 24-hour boat service. A 35m² private infinity pool and deck, over-water hammocks, a private beach, and a 23-metre water slide invites you to immerse yourself in the joys of island living." This was accompanied by a photograph of a free standing (not connected by dock/jetty) over-water villa.
1) The villa, even including outdoor space is not half this size. I actually took the time to measure the outer perimeter of the deck and made some forgiving measurements of the second floor and I don't believe its greater than 3,100 square feet with probably 1,500 of interior square feet. 2) the room is connected by jetty - it is not free standing. We were shocked when we arrived that a golf cart was taking us to out room when we were expecting to have a boat transfer us to the room, and 3) of course as mentioned there is not boat to take you to the room. Over the course of our stay we repeatedly asked for the room measurements and they were never provided. However, after requesting through our travel agent (a whole other story) a partial refund, the hotel changed their website to reflect a 4,521 sqft room. I look now as of writing and its back to 6,566 square feet. We booked the room based on size, exclusivity and the uniqueness of having private boat access and received none of them - and as of yet we do not have a refund. Also, nowhere are you warned when booking that most of the resort views the non-stop-smoldering Male landfill ( research Thilafushi ). It's an environmental nightmare. We had multiple issues and because of the dishonesty I simply cannot recommend Ozen Reserve Bolifushi. My travel agent should have screened this properly but, unfortunately they didn't and that's another story. I will say one good thing, the water sports staff were great as were most of the restaurant staff. Lastly, and this is just informational, it felt to my wife and me that the resort caters mostly to Russian guests.
Contact Us
