I Am Going To Sue ORANGE!

Tozer

donnykebab wrote: »

Wooooooooooow - a superb victory for the consumer -
So not even half of what bozo thought was a fair claim to make !

I thought you were our champion, taking on faceless big business and showing them you are not to be messed with. :rotfl::rotfl:

In fairness what Bozo thought he could claim and what the law would permit him to claim are two, wildly different, things.

boozercruiser

sparky7 wrote: »

I'm all for the OP, well done, I get the feeling you could have gone the whole way and won but as learnt from watching 'deal or not deal' sometime its best to deal

... and this thread isn't useless, its useful for anyone else in the same situation previously, now or in the future.

:T I would sooner listen to you than the Company Lovers anyday!:A

... "and this thread isn't useless, its useful for anyone else in the same situation previously, now or in the future.".

My thoughts exactly!:T

boozercruiser

bumpoowee;21704327]"Well done Boozer. Hopefully Orange will learn something and this will happen less to other people in future".

:T This was one of the reasons I did this anyway.

Me being an ex Works Convener and Shop Steward for 30 years I actually care about people and have always tried to help them.

Unlike some:mad:

boozercruiser

cobra wrote: »

:T BRAVO and well done.
If I had my way I would like all big companies to act sensibly and to stop bullying customers.

:T:A:beer::D

boozercruiser

donnykebab wrote: »

Wooooooooooow - a superb victory for the consumer -
So not even half of what bozo thought was a fair claim to make !

I thought you were our champion, taking on faceless big business and showing them you are not to be messed with. :rotfl::rotfl:

Ah! its my old mate Donkeykebab:rolleyes:

I never would eat a Kebab. They also are not to be trusted as they also can make one throw up:rotfl:

I will not be answering anything further from you:mad: or your mate !!!!!!:mad:

Frankly my adversary, I don't give a dam what either of you have to say.:(:tongue:

Tozer

boozercruiser wrote: »

Ah! its my old mate Donkeykebab:rolleyes:

I never would eat a Kebab. They also are not to be trusted as they also can make one throw up:rotfl:

I will not be answering anything further from you:mad: or your mate !!!!!!:mad:

Frankly my adversary, I don't give a dam what either of you have to say.:(:tongue:

Thank Heavens for that.:rotfl:

Happychappy

Tozer wrote: »

I would have escalated this in an appropriate manner rather than trying to pursue a hopeless claim.

If the debt was not due, surely being "harrassed" by debt collectors is a non-issue.

Oh, learn to read - your spelling of my name is wrong - or were you trying to be witty? :rotfl::rotfl:

Tozer

You have as expected NOT answered how YOU would have dealt with it

Just a bland "I would have escalated this in an appropriate manner" ? so Booze cruiser what happened when you tried to escalate it ? maybe you should have tried to "escalate it" then you would not have been harrassed.

So back to you Tozer how would you have dealt with it other than your reply of I rolled over and let them tickle my tummy :rolleyes: so any answer to how you would have dealt with it ? nope ? didnt think so.

Tozer

Happychappy wrote: »

Tozer

You have as expected NOT answered how YOU would have dealt with it

Just a bland "I would have escalated this in an appropriate manner" ? so Booze cruiser what happened when you tried to escalate it ? maybe you should have tried to "escalate it" then you would not have been harrassed.

So back to you Tozer how would you have dealt with it other than your reply of I rolled over and let them tickle my tummy :rolleyes: so any answer to how you would have dealt with it ? nope ? didnt think so.

I did explain it.

I would have escalated it. IF they had persisted with threats of taking me to court, I would have told them that their claim was not valid. I would draw their attention to Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires parties to avoid litigation. I would then ignore it.

If they persisted, I would defend the action on the basis that no debt is owed. I would ask the judge to make a costs order against them.

What I would not have done is rush off to claim something which is not due to me thereby risking the very same cost consequences against myself and looking a bit of a fool in the process.

And just for the avoidance of doubt, I don't like my tummy being tickled.

Happy now?

Happychappy

Do you not think that BC did attempt to escalate this ? and how much time do you spend receiving correspondence and contact from Debt collectors before you take action?

To have these type of leeches chipping away at you with letters, but yet not taking court action against you in order that you can defend yourself is very wearing, just threats of action and the continual letters which you say ignore is very difficult, the letters do need responding too, as if or when any action is taken against you, questions will be asked as to why you did not reply.

Eventually as in BC case he clearly felt enough was enough and I can understand the frustration in taking an action designed to attract their attention as clearly responding to them in the past with the approach of I owe you nothing has not worked, therefore a need to respond and counter claim to ensure the other party actually examines their case as they did in this situation which led to a settlement which gave some satifaction to BC who had been on the receiving end of a faceless and clearly unstoppable system.

The financial claim and the monetry values and how these were reached, really has no bearing and were questionable to say the least, however, it was the counter claim and positive action which stopped Orange and made them examine the facts and finally stop their own system? otherwise this could have rumbled on and on.

County court judges would not consider BC to be foolish with his claim, they do understand the frustrations of the man in the street and claims such as this and are generally supportive, I think it is the monetry value which makes you negative? but at the end of the day, was it not this claim which made them examine their own files where clearly prior to the claim and despite correspondence from BC to them and the Debt collecting agency, nobody had been listening.

boozercruiser

Happychappy wrote: »

Do you not think that BC did attempt to escalate this ? and how much time do you spend receiving correspondence and contact from Debt collectors before you take action?

To have these type of leeches chipping away at you with letters, but yet not taking court action against you in order that you can defend yourself is very wearing, just threats of action and the continual letters which you say ignore is very difficult, the letters do need responding too, as if or when any action is taken against you, questions will be asked as to why you did not reply.

Eventually as in BC case he clearly felt enough was enough and I can understand the frustration in taking an action designed to attract their attention as clearly responding to them in the past with the approach of I owe you nothing has not worked, therefore a need to respond and counter claim to ensure the other party actually examines their case as they did in this situation which led to a settlement which gave some satifaction to BC who had been on the receiving end of a faceless and clearly unstoppable system.

The financial claim and the monetry values and how these were reached, really has no bearing and were questionable to say the least, however, it was the counter claim and positive action which stopped Orange and made them examine the facts and finally stop their own system? otherwise this could have rumbled on and on.

County court judges would not consider BC to be foolish with his claim, they do understand the frustrations of the man in the street and claims such as this and are generally supportive, I think it is the monetry value which makes you negative? but at the end of the day, was it not this claim which made them examine their own files where clearly prior to the claim and despite correspondence from BC to them and the Debt collecting agency, nobody had been listening.

:T for your usual kind and thought through support Happychappy:A

But trying to get through to !!!!!! and his Bosses/Company orientated ilk is like trying to get an MP to stop saying

"Everything I claimed was within the Rules Guv".

This bloke is a waste of internet space and I thank God he doesn't live around me:rolleyes:

I prefer him out in Cyberspace where he belongs:rotfl: