LOCAL STANDARDS – Another One Bites The Dust

In this article, Conor Askins analyses a recent County Court decision (Lamia Rami EP Tirouche (1) Hamza Tirouche (2) -v- We Love Holidays Ltd, unreported, DDJ Lyons, Sheffield County Court, 24/07/2026) concerning a bed bug claim brought by two Claimants following a package holiday in Turkey, and explores the evidential and procedural strategies required to robustly defend such claims.

This is Travlaw’s 5th instalment on the topic of local standards. If you would like to binge the first 4 episodes please click the links below:

Background

The Claimants travelled to Turkey on a package holiday in June 2023. During their stay, they alleged that they saw multiple bed bugs and suffered numerous bites caused by these bugs in their hotel room. They had photographed an insect in their room and subsequently sought medical attention.

The claim was defended on the basis that there was no reliable evidence of bed bugs, an infestation or a breach of the applicable local standards.

To succeed, the Claimants needed to prove:

That bed bugs were present in the hotel;
They had been bitten by bed bugs;
The presence of bed bugs resulted from a breach of the applicable local standards; and
The alleged breach caused their injuries.

The claim failed at each hurdle.

Assumptions Make A Bed Bug of You And Me

The Claimants relied heavily upon photographs of an insect found in the room and medical evidence recording their reports of bed bug bites.

The First Claimant accepted she was not an expert in insects. Her evidence also revealed that the insect shown in the photographs had not been found in the double bed where the Claimants slept, but rather on a separate single bed by the window.

The Second Claimant similarly accepted that he was not an expert in insect identification.

The Court was therefore left with a relatively straightforward question: how could it be satisfied that the insect in the photographs was actually a bed bug?

The answer was that it could not. No entomologist had been instructed. No pest control expert had identified the insect. The photographs themselves were described by the Court as ‘poor quality’ and ‘indeterminate’.

As the Judge observed, there is nothing inherently wrong with drawing inferences. Courts do so every day. However, an inference ‘must be grounded in evidence’.

Other Insects Bite

The Claimants also relied heavily on medical records which supported the proposition that the Claimants had suffered bites. Indeed, the Judge accepted that they had suffered unpleasant irritation and discomfort. However, the medical evidence did not establish ‘what had bitten them’.

The GP records largely reflected the history provided by the First Claimant rather than any clinical diagnosis of bed bug bites. Likewise, the medical expert was not an entomologist and accepted that bed bugs could be found even in five-star hotels and their presence is not determined by the cleanliness of the living conditions where they are found.

The Defendant highlighted that this issue was raised from the outset in the defence, therefore the Claimants had been put on notice that the source of the bites was disputed. Indeed, it is common to be bitten by other insects (such as mosquitos) when on holiday.

The Court concluded that the medical evidence assisted in proving that the Claimants had been bitten by something. It did not assist in proving what that something was.

Where Is The Infestation?

The Defendant called evidence from hotel staff responsible for management, housekeeping and guest services.

Their evidence was that:

Rooms were cleaned daily;
Pest control attended monthly and when required;
Complaints were investigated;
There was no evidence of an infestation; and
None of the witnesses had previously encountered a bed bug complaint during their respective periods of employment.

The Judge was careful to note that the absence of previous complaints does not prove the absence of bed bugs. It does, however, form part of the wider evidential picture.

If there had been a significant infestation or systemic problem, one might ordinarily expect some wider evidential trace. There was none.

The high point of the Claimants’ case came down to a single insect photographed in a bed that they were not sleeping in.

Local Standards Importance

The Court rejected the allegation that the Claimants had established a breach of the applicable Turkish local standards.

The Claimants relied on a report from Turkish lawyers that tried to create a ‘strict liability’ for bed bugs. The Turkish standard the hotel had to meet in respect of pest control was to ensure pest control was conducted ‘periodically’.

The hotel’s evidence demonstrated daily cleaning, regular pest control attendance (on a monthly basis) and a system for responding to complaints.

Importantly, the Judge found that the Claimants produced no persuasive evidence establishing how the hotel had fallen below those standards.

What About The Hotel’s Own Procedures?

A significant portion of the cross-examination of the hotel’s witnesses focused upon the hotel’s internal procedure for dealing with suspected pest issues.

The Claimants argued that the hotel either lacked a sufficient policy relating to soft furnishings or failed to follow its own procedures after the complaint was raised.

This argument encountered a familiar obstacle for practitioners dealing with accidents abroad. As confirmed in Lougheed, the relevant question is whether the hotel breached the applicable local standards. A failure to comply with an internal policy does not establish a breach of local standards.

In any event, the Court was not persuaded that there had been any material failure in the hotel’s response. Pest control attended, the issue was investigated and the evidence did not establish that any alleged deficiencies in the response had caused the bites complained of.

After all, by the time the response became relevant, the alleged bites had already occurred.

Judgment

The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The Court found that the Claimants had proved they found one insect in their hotel room and that they suffered bites. However, they failed to prove:

That the insect was a bed bug;
That there was a bed bug infestation;
Any bites were caused by bed bugs;
There had a been a breach of local standards in relation to ‘pest control’, or
Their bites were caused as a result of a breach

In dismissing the case the Judge concluded that “the question for the Court is not whether something unpleasant happened but whether the Defendant is legally responsible for it?” The Judge found that the tour operator was not responsible for the bites in this case.

Key Takeaways

Identification matters. The courts should not assume any photos of insects are bed bugs. This is a matter of expert evidence.
It is not usual for travellers to be bitten on holiday. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that bites are caused by bed bugs rather than other insects such as mosquitos.
Hotels are not judged by their own policies and standards. A claimant must identify the local standards at the destination in relation to ‘pest control’, and show that the hotel fell below that standard.
Bed bugs can exist even in well-maintained hotels. It cannot be assumed that the presence of bed bugs was caused due to a breach of the local standards

Of course, the Claimant has the burden of proof in respect of all of the above!

If you are dealing with any bed bug claims or similar, please feel free to contact our litigation team at litigation@travlaw.co.uk or on 0113 258 0033.

This article was originally published on: 31 July 2026