talk talk court court

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...10#post3253210

"¬Stephen Hammond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ehneoe$42s$1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...10#post3253210

With a bit of luck that'll open the flood gates.
Chances are, Sky will be next
)

On 25-Oct-2006, "Gizmo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> With a bit of luck that'll open the flood gates.
> Chances are, Sky will be next
> )

As I've also found to my advantage, Small Claims sets
time limits on how long the defendent has to reply and
how long things can run for.
You avoid all the national rate call centres, "You are
29th in the queue, thank you for waiting, an operative
will be with you shortly"
Even if you ever reach an English call centre, with a
person who speaks plain English, they usually work to
a script, deny everything, it's the customers equipment,
and they don't call back.
Sue them, it works.
If you stop paying, next step is "You are in breach of
contract" and a debt collection agency.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> You avoid all the national rate call centres, "You are
> 29th in the queue, thank you for waiting, an operative
> will be with you shortly"
> Even if you ever reach an English call centre, with a
> person who speaks plain English, they usually work to
> a script, deny everything, it's the customers equipment,
> and they don't call back.
> Sue them, it works.
> If you stop paying, next step is "You are in breach of
> contract" and a debt collection agency.

Unfortunately, you still have to endeavour to try to contact the supplier.
The court doesnt look favourably on those who skip the procedures in place
and rush straight to court.

However, you can claim expenses back as part of your claim. Furthermore,
they communication difficulties are a further indication of a failure to
honour the agreements...

But, I agree that a few more of these cases will quickly change these
companies attitudes.

CJM

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:11:54 +0100, "CJM"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Unfortunately, you still have to endeavour to try to contact the supplier.
>The court doesnt look favourably on those who skip the procedures in place
>and rush straight to court.

Not true. The small claims court is well aware that most companies
fail to respond to a customer filing a claim, never mind what went on
before. Any small claims court that isn't aware of this damn well
should be.

What I find disappointing is that if the company is ordered to pay the
claimant, then if they do so within 14 days the record of the CCJ is
expunged. The same rules should apply to companies as well as
indivduals IMHO.

>But, I agree that a few more of these cases will quickly change these
>companies attitudes.

Ahahahaha! Do you really think so? I don't. See above for why.
--
John Naismith

"John Naismith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:11:54 +0100, "CJM"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, you still have to endeavour to try to contact the supplier.
>>The court doesnt look favourably on those who skip the procedures in place
>>and rush straight to court.
>
> Not true. The small claims court is well aware that most companies
> fail to respond to a customer filing a claim, never mind what went on
> before. Any small claims court that isn't aware of this damn well
> should be.
>

The court will certainly be aware of typical behaviour, but it still doesnt
remove the claimant responsibility to offer the company the chance to
resolve the issue. This is why it is better to write or email the company so
you have a record of your communications to them and their response to you.
It is also recommened that you give them a courtesy notification of your
intention to sue/to submit a claim in tthe SCC.

> What I find disappointing is that if the company is ordered to pay the
> claimant, then if they do so within 14 days the record of the CCJ is
> expunged. The same rules should apply to companies as well as
> indivduals IMHO.
>

I didnt know that was the case, but I agree it does sound unfair. And yes,
it probably encourages such behaviour.

>>But, I agree that a few more of these cases will quickly change these
>>companies attitudes.
>
> Ahahahaha! Do you really think so? I don't. See above for why.
> --

I know so. An example in point is bank charges; the vast majority of the
banks I deal with have reduced their charges to £12 from £20+ as a
consequence of the thousands of small claims that arose out of the campaign
against unfair charges. When the banking ombudsman stated that £12 was the
fair maximum charge for these fees, a campaign was started to
retrospectively sue any provider who exceeded these charges.

Without exception, the banks tried to wriggle off the hook and *always*
settled out of court, but when they realised that there was an active
campaign to sue for refunds they reduced their fees to £12...

Mass action like this always works. If CPW are sued a few more times,
they'll start sorting out their infrastructure, they'll stop making reckless
claims when advertising, and they'll stop massively over-selling.

On 26-Oct-2006, John Naismith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >Unfortunately, you still have to endeavour to try to contact the supplier.
> >The court doesnt look favourably on those who skip the procedures in place
> >and rush straight to court.

When you file your claim include the costs of trying to contact the company,
all the hours of national rate "You are 49th in the queue, all our operatives are
busy, thank you for your patience, an operative will be with you shortly",
more "Dancing Queen" until about 2 hours later you get through to a
Mumbai call centre, with a script.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:51:49 +0100, "CJM"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"John Naismith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:11:54 +0100, "CJM"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunately, you still have to endeavour to try to contact the supplier.
>>>The court doesnt look favourably on those who skip the procedures in place
>>>and rush straight to court.
>>
>> Not true. The small claims court is well aware that most companies
>> fail to respond to a customer filing a claim, never mind what went on
>> before. Any small claims court that isn't aware of this damn well
>> should be.
>>
>
>The court will certainly be aware of typical behaviour, but it still doesnt
>remove the claimant responsibility to offer the company the chance to
>resolve the issue. This is why it is better to write or email the company so
>you have a record of your communications to them and their response to you.
>It is also recommened that you give them a courtesy notification of your
>intention to sue/to submit a claim in tthe SCC.
>
>> What I find disappointing is that if the company is ordered to pay the
>> claimant, then if they do so within 14 days the record of the CCJ is
>> expunged. The same rules should apply to companies as well as
>> indivduals IMHO.
>>
>
>I didnt know that was the case, but I agree it does sound unfair. And yes,
>it probably encourages such behaviour.
>
>>>But, I agree that a few more of these cases will quickly change these
>>>companies attitudes.
>>
>> Ahahahaha! Do you really think so? I don't. See above for why.
>> --
>
>I know so. An example in point is bank charges; the vast majority of the
>banks I deal with have reduced their charges to £12 from £20+ as a
>consequence of the thousands of small claims that arose out of the campaign
>against unfair charges. When the banking ombudsman stated that £12 was the
>fair maximum charge for these fees, a campaign was started to
>retrospectively sue any provider who exceeded these charges.
>
>Without exception, the banks tried to wriggle off the hook and *always*
>settled out of court, but when they realised that there was an active
>campaign to sue for refunds they reduced their fees to £12...
>
>Mass action like this always works. If CPW are sued a few more times,
>they'll start sorting out their infrastructure, they'll stop making reckless
>claims when advertising, and they'll stop massively over-selling.
>

The Office of Fair Trading's ruling only applies to credit cards.
While the credit card companies reduced their charges for late payment
etc, they have now increased their interest rates to compensate for
the loss of profit.

The OFT have not yet ruled on bank charges, in fact Natwest have put
up their charges.

So although the consumer may have a short term success, the companies
still make sure they are on the winning side

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:51:49 +0100, "CJM"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The court will certainly be aware of typical behaviour, but it still doesnt
>remove the claimant responsibility to offer the company the chance to
>resolve the issue. This is why it is better to write or email the company so
>you have a record of your communications to them and their response to you.
>It is also recommened that you give them a courtesy notification of your
>intention to sue/to submit a claim in tthe SCC.

Yes I'd agree with that but the court will be looking at BOTH parties
behaviour. That's why I said its not essential. Obviously if you've
never given a company a chance to sort things out you'll lose but that
patently isn't the case here.

>I know so. An example in point is bank charges; the vast majority of the
>banks I deal with have reduced their charges to ñ2 from ò0+ as a
>consequence of the thousands of small claims that arose out of the campaign
>against unfair charges. When the banking ombudsman stated that ñ2 was the
>fair maximum charge for these fees, a campaign was started to
>retrospectively sue any provider who exceeded these charges.

You are confused. As someone else pointed out this was for credit card
charges and the OFT was already involved. Whole different ball game.
eg - the average OFT investigation lasts for YEARS and companies know
this. It also takes thousands of complaints for the OFT to consider
doing anything at all. On any subject. Hells bells they try to farm
out the unfair contract stuff to Trading Standards - as if their plate
wasn't overflowing already.

>Without exception, the banks tried to wriggle off the hook and *always*
>settled out of court,

Yes of course they did as it could have been considered precedent.
Different ball game again.
--
John Naismith