I Am Going To Sue ORANGE!

boozercruiser

normanmark wrote: »

It's a genuine question, I'm intrigued as how you've come to that figure & how its appropriate.

O.K. Sorry I missread you.:o

Obviously it is difficult to quantify something like this but for two years now I have been writing down my time spent writing numerous letters, E. Mails and various telephone calls held online on an 0870 telephone number.

15 Hours at £15 an hour =£225
Costs of Telephone calls, Recorded Delivery Letters,
Stamps, Printer Paper and Ink, around £25

Then how do you compensate for all of the worry, stress etc. that this has caused my Wife and I? £200 seems rather inadequate, but that will do it.

I reckon just claiming £450 I am being rather soft.:cool:

The thing is now, Orange have now admitted liability in apologising and offering me £50. Counterclaiming against me is not an option for them.

My Wife and I have been through Hell with this Company, and now I want Cosumer Revenge (To quote Martin Lewis's Logo).

jamespir

boozercruiser wrote: »

O.K. Sorry I missread you.:o

Obviously it is difficult to quantify something like this but for two years now I have been writing down my time spent writing numerous letters, E. Mails and various telephone calls held online on an 0870 telephone number.

15 Hours at £15 an hour =£225
Costs of Telephone calls, Recorded Delivery Letters,
Stamps, Printer Paper and Ink, around £25

Then how do you compensate for all of the worry, stress etc. that this has caused my Wife and I? £200 seems rather inadequate, but that will do it.

I reckon just claiming £450 I am being rather soft.:cool:

The thing is now, Orange have now admitted liability in apologising and offering me £50. Counterclaiming against me is not an option for them.

My Wife and I have been through Hell with this Company, and now I want Cosumer Revenge (To quote Martin Lewis's Logo).

how did you get those figures for telephoning jobs youd get paid 6.50 an hour so times by you 15 get 92 pounds

macman

I think he's costing his own labour at £15 an hour, on the basis that he could have been doing something more productive with that time than complaining to Orange.

sporedude

What if the case is lost?

boozercruiser

macman wrote: »

I think he's costing his own labour at £15 an hour, on the basis that he could have been doing something more productive with that time than complaining to Orange.

Thank you Macman:T

You have got it spot on:beer:

boozercruiser

sporedude wrote: »

What if the case is lost?

I lose £50 Application Fee. That is it.:D

But I am as confident as I can be, and if I lose, I will just get on with the wonderfull Happy Life which my lovely supportive, (unlike one or two here) Wife and I have living in a lovely property here in Rural Wales.

Right now I am just trying to make Orange pay for Dumping on us;)

fairydiamond

:Tboozercruiser, good on you!!! I hope you win, and I am sure you will, because Orange won't even turn up!

Good on you for having the guts to do it.:beer:

boozercruiser

fairydiamond wrote: »

:Tboozercruiser, good on you!!! I hope you win, and I am sure you will, because Orange won't even turn up!

Good on you for having the guts to do it.:beer:

Thank you for your kind supporting words Fairy Diamond:T Your name suits you:D
Incidentaly, I just found this with a google search........

Mobile phone customers who can't get reception could sue after landmark case

Mobile phone customers who can't get reception could sue companies after an Orange user from London won a payout for breach of contract.



By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:54PM GMT 19 Feb 2009


In a court ruling the customer was awarded £500 after he took the company to court following poor phone service.
Tom Prescott, 32, took Orange to court after they refused to cancel his 18 month contract, even though he could get a signal neither at his Richmond home or in his office.
The reception was so poor that he often could not make or receive calls.
Mr Prescott argued that having been sold an 18-month contract by the mobile phone operators there ought to be a reasonable expectation of service.
He won his case at Brentford county court and was awarded £500.
"As soon as I realised I could not get a signal, I tried to cancel it. But the phone networks ... would not let me off the contract," he said.
The biochemist who represented himself in court said: "I would ring them up and it would take 15 minutes to get through and then my phone would cut off and I would have to ring them again but at the back of the queue".
"Dealing with Orange was awful. I hope people who have the same problem now realise they can do something about it," he said.
A spokesman from Orange said the company provides high quality coverage to 99 per cent of the UK population and continues to invest in its network.
" As with all mobile operators, it is worth noting that continuous network coverage cannot be guaranteed and network coverage can be affected by factors outside of our control.
"The award granted to Dr Prescott was due to exceptional circumstances. We are disappointed with the outcome as our records show that Dr Prescott had good use of his phone. "The Brentford County Court judgement in no way sets a precedent as claims made in the small claims court are decided on a case-by-case basis. Dr Prescott's case does not change our liability for any future claims of this nature."

AND THIS................

Sue them, judge tells woman who took on might of British Gas


By Vanessa Allen and Nick Mcdermott
Last updated at 1:19 PM on 11th February 2009

• Comments (60)
• Add to My Stories

Lord Justice Jacob: Praise for Lisa Ferguson

A judge yesterday praised a woman for fighting back against British Gas after the company deluged her with bills and threatening letters for money she did not owe.

Lisa Ferguson was also told she could pursue her David and Goliath-style legal campaign and sue the energy giant for harassment.

She is seeking £10,000 in damages for distress, anxiety and financial loss.

British Gas sent 47-year-old Mrs Ferguson a stream of bills for eight months after she switched her account to another supplier.

The firm threatened to disconnect her supply, send in debt collectors, take her to court and have her credit rating blacklisted.

But the self-employed property investor, whose business would have faced ruin if she had been blacklisted, refused to lie down and has risked at least £70,000 of her own money to pursue the case in court.

She has already run up legal bills of £35,000. Three Appeal Court judges backed her two year legal campaign yesterday, ruling that British Gas could not stop her from trying to sue for harassment.

They dismissed an appeal by the firm against a High Court decision last year that she could bring a case.

Lord Justice Jacob said: 'It is one of the glories of this country that every now and then one of its citizens is prepared to take a stand against the big battalions of government or industry. Such a person is Lisa Ferguson.'



More...

• HARRY PHIBBS: Let's join these heroic women fighting the faceless corporations

Mrs Ferguson, from Bromley, South-East London, told the court that a simple decision to change gas suppliers in May 2006 had led to months of harassment from British Gas.

She switched to German-owned npower but was sent a string of incorrect bills from British Gas asking for hundreds of pounds that she did not owe.

When the businesswoman refused to pay and sent proof she had changed supplier, the energy giant repeatedly threatened to cut off her supply, start legal proceedings against her and report her to the credit rating agencies.

It even sent one letter out on Christmas Day.


Harassment claim: Lisa Ferguson is claiming £10,000 damages from British Gas after she was threatened over gas bills
It took five months for the supplier to say sorry for its actions, but then five days after receiving its apology Mrs Ferguson was sent another wrong bill, for £253.

Lord Justice Jacob said the months of problems had left the businesswoman in 'a state of considerable anxiety'.

He told the Civil Appeal Court in London: 'British Gas sent Ms Ferguson bill after bill and threatening letter after threatening letter. She wrote letter after letter pointing out that she had no account with British Gas. She made phone calls, with all the difficulty of getting through, but to no avail.

'Mainly her letters received no response. Sometimes she received apologies and assurances that the matter would be dealt with. But then the bills and threats continued.

'She complained to (consumer watchdog) Energy-Watch. She wrote to the chairman (of British Gas) twice with no response.

'She says she wasted many hours and, more importantly, was brought to a state of considerable anxiety, not knowing whether the gasman would come at any time to cut her off, whether she would have legal proceedings served upon her or whether she would be, or already had been, reported to a credit rating agency.'
British Gas denies its actions amounted to harassment. It claims that - because its bills and letters of demand were computer-generated - Mrs Ferguson cannot prove that the company knew she was suffering harassment.

Lord Justice Jacob, sitting with two other judges, ruled Mrs Ferguson was entitled to take the case to a civil court trial. He said she had pledged to give a large part of any damages to charity.

'Ms Ferguson's principal object is to bring British Gas to book,' he said. 'In her words, they should "not simply blame information technology. They should instead start taking responsibility for the running of their company in a competent, honest and ethical manner".'

He added: 'Real people are responsible for programming and entering material into the computer.

'Moreover, the threats and demands were to be read by a real person, not by a computer. A real person is likely to suffer real anxiety and distress if threatened in the way which Ms Ferguson was.'

Outside court, Mrs Ferguson refused to discuss the case for fear of prejudicing the harassment trial, which will be heard at a later date. But earlier she said: 'It's about principle. It's blighted my life for two years. They can't go around treating people like this.'

I have even more confidence now!:rotfl:

jamespir

boozercruiser wrote: »

Mobile phone customers who can't get reception could sue after landmark case

Mobile phone customers who can't get reception could sue companies after an Orange user from London won a payout for breach of contract.

ok orange and all mobile phone customers have a 14 day grace period in place where you can check your signal strength in your area and if its crap you take the phone back YOU OBVVIOUSLY DIDNT DO THIS SO YOU DONT DESERVE TO WIN A PENNY

Kingsd316

jamespir wrote: »

ok orange and all mobile phone customers have a 14 day grace period in place where you can check your signal strength in your area and if its crap you take the phone back YOU OBVVIOUSLY DIDNT DO THIS SO YOU DONT DESERVE TO WIN A PENNY

This isnt why the OP is claiming! :rolleyes: