Fos ruled in eggs favour over charges help grealty appreciated on what to do next

BigCraigJohn

I guess the amount of charges you are after makes a difference. Would they really defend say £80?. Would cost them that to get there lawyer to start his engine and drive to court.
I understand the FOS is a waste of time for the £16 but surely in court they would have to prove the amount was accurate to the amount being charged, which i'd imagine they would not want to do, after all I was reading that in Ireland(rep) they charge £3 for the exact same thing.

Premier_2

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

I guess the amount of charges you are after makes a difference. Would they really defend say £80?. Would cost them that to get there lawyer to start his engine and drive to court.
...

Oh right, on that basis we should all make claims for £80 against all large companies we can think of. It doesn't matter the reason, they won't defend it will they? It'll cost more than that for their lawyers to start their engines and drive to court!

Heck, you'd only need to file one or two a day. Beats working for a living. Tax free too!:beer:

BigCraigJohn

Well i'm not saying sit there and sue every company you can think of, but if you think they took unlawful charges off you and are not willing to play ball then why not. After all theres no doubting that any charge over a few quid is totally unreasonable so imo you should get everything back.

Banks have the customers in court in no time if you dare go slightly off track, and the fact banks are unable to defend themselves is not my fault, why not send the local branch manager to represent if they have a case?.

Premier_2

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

Well i'm not saying sit there and sue every company you can think of,...

Why not?

"Would they really defend say £80?. Would cost them that to get there lawyer to start his engine and drive to court."

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

...Banks have the customers in court in no time if you dare go slightly off track,...

Why do they do that? Doesn't that cost their lawyer more than the "slightly off track" amount they are claiming "to start his engine and drive to court"?

Is it because the banks want to see justice and fair play for all their customers? In which case, wouldn't they take a similar approach towards anyone trying to scam them out of £80 and defend an unwarranted claim against them, no matter what the value?

Same argument goes for those who wrongly believe the £400 charge (or whatever it is) means anyone can claim less than this, threaten the bank with the FOS, and the bank will roll over; it doesn't happen.

dunstonh

Same argument goes for those who wrongly believe the £400 charge (or whatever it is) means anyone can claim less than this, threaten the bank with the FOS, and the bank will roll over; it doesn't happen.

Its £500 currently and levied once an adjudicator is allocated.

Normally, I am against people blackmailing companies into paying out. You get this absurd situation where there has been no wrong doing that a company has to pay up to £500 for doing nothing wrong just because someone threatens to go to the FOS. However, in this case, its a different matter.