Vodafone and dispute

sniggings

firehawk wrote: »

easily.
eventually got through to disconnections. they gave me a PAC code and that was it.

so even though I got treated poorly and their services dont work or partially work... i still have to pay?

wow. a new low for britian. how can such companies STILL continue to operate, then they go on and on about customer not having a choice and have to put up with bullying

:rotfl: a new low for Britain! maybe your attitude has a lot to do with the service you receive, how is Britain having enforceable contract law "a new low for Britain"! or would you prefer Britain to be a lawless state?

Emy1501

Ann_S wrote: »

There was a queue and he had to take his turn. The OP had a choice, wait on the line or use call back where he would have been called back. Alternatively, use web chat with an online adviser.

Vodafone would still have been providing a service for using his phone in the UK.

He was only asked to pay a small returnable deposit to cover any large bill to use his phone on a roaming network.

I very much doubt that there would be able reasonable excuse the OP could argue that the contract should be terminated without cost.

When you have been involved in claims where people have been successful in claiming 4k against businesses in the SCC without anything other than their oral evidence you come to realise that anything is possible in the SCC.

Judges bend over backwards to give the small person the best chance to prove their claim and therefore would not surprise me at all if a judge decided in the OP's favour if it took the matter to court.

Annie._2

Emy1501 wrote: »

When you have been involved in claims where people have been successful in claiming 4k against businesses in the SCC without anything other than their oral evidence you come to realise that anything is possible in the SCC.

Judges bend over backwards to give the small person the best chance to prove their claim and therefore would not surprise me at all if a judge decided in the OP's favour if it took the matter to court.

That is absolute rubbish. The OP had a contract which was legally binding, do you honestly believe any judge would even give that the time of day.

It would be laughed out and kicked out before it even started.

I take it the OP would go to Court pleading with the judge to let him of his contract because he considered it unreasonable to be asked for a deposit.

Herongull

In order to get to the small claims court, OP would have to pay the termination fee upfront. Then go to court to try to get it back.

I suspect he will not want to pay hundreds of £ upfront, so he will never get to the SCC.

The alternative is not pay and go though the disputes procedure and if it finds your favour you are off the hook and if it finds against you have to pay.

The other alternative is ignore it and hope it will go away. This is not advisable. If he does this, it will be recorded as a default, his credit rating will be adversely affected, and he will get debt collectors on his back etc.

Emy1501

Ann_S wrote: »

That is absolute rubbish. The OP had a contract which was legally binding, do you honestly believe any judge would even give that the time of day.

It would be laughed out and kicked out before it even started.

I take it the OP would go to Court pleading with the judge to let him of his contract because he considered it unreasonable to be asked for a deposit.

You clearly have little understanding of the small claims court if you believe that the claimant would be laughed out of court or an application to strick the matter out would be successful.

The small claims court is very unpredictable and who knows what decision a judge would come to. Yes contracts are legally binding but you normally have in there something about the service provided.

I'm with O2 and it says something like they agree to provide a level of service expected of a competent mobile phone provider.

Who knows but a judge may feel that 30 mins wait time on a regular basis is not a acceptable level of service and allow the claimant to terminate the contract.

Annie._2

Emy1501 wrote: »

You clearly have little understanding of the small claims court if you believe that the claimant would be laughed out of court or an application to strick the matter out would be successful.

The small claims court is very unpredictable and who knows what decision a judge would come to. Yes contracts are legally binding but you normally have in there something about the service provided.

I'm with O2 and it says something like they agree to provide a level of service expected of a competent mobile phone provider.

Who knows but a judge may feel that 30 mins wait time on a regular basis is not a acceptable level of service and allow the claimant to terminate the contract.

As I said there was a queue at the time he was calling, he didnt have to wait on the line, Vodafone offer the call back service

The Small Claims Court is there is people who have an honest claim, not for helping someone get out of a mobile phone contract.

The only problem was the deposit which Vodafone were having a problem getting the OP to agree to.

Emy1501

Ann_S wrote: »

The Small Claims Court is there is people who have an honest claim, not for helping someone get out of a mobile phone contract.

Like I said before your knowledge of the small claims court is lacking if you believe that only honest people are successful claiming.

Annie._2

Emy1501 wrote: »

Like I said before your knowledge of the small claims court is lacking if you believe that only honest people are successful claiming.

Its for people who have an honest genuine claim, I am sure there are polenty of dishonest people who think they can try and get some money back through the Small Claims.

There are things which the Small Claims Court cannot help with, and getting out of a mobile phone contract is one of them.

If you consider 30 minutes a long time to be speaking to a Customer Services advisor, I suggest you do a Google, O2 the longest time 4 and a half hours, but with the recent launch of a new phone, Customer Services and stores are always busier than usual.

The OP would have had 7 working days to cancel the contract, he should have been more reasonable any paid the refundable deposit.

Emy1501

Ann_S wrote: »

Its for people who have an honest genuine claim, I am sure there are polenty of dishonest people who think they can try and get some money back through the Small Claims.

There are things which the Small Claims Court cannot help with, and getting out of a mobile phone contract is one of them.

If you consider 30 minutes a long time to be speaking to a Customer Services advisor, I suggest you do a Google, O2 the longest time 4 and a half hours, but with the recent launch of a new phone, Customer Services and stores are always busier than usual.

The OP would have had 7 working days to cancel the contract, he should have been more reasonable any paid the refundable deposit.

Can you explain to me which court would deal with a breach of contract argument where amount claimed would be less than a few hundred pound?

Whether me or you feel that 30 mins is an unreasonable time is here nor there as is accepting poor service because O2 also offer it.

It down to a judge to make the decision and how you know the thinking of a judge is beyond me.

Annie._2

Emy1501 wrote: »

Can you explain to me which court would deal with a breach of contract argument where amount claimed would be less than a few hundred pound?

Whether me or you feel that 30 mins is an unreasonable time is here nor there as is accepting poor service because O2 also offer it.

It down to a judge to make the decision and how you know the thinking of a judge is beyond me.

There is no breach of contract in the OPs case Emy by Vodafone,the OP agreed the contract, Vodafone supplied the service to the SIM card, all was working on the network as it should have been here in the UK.

Considering there has been a new phone launched, 30 mins on hold is reasonable time, but he could have used the call back service.

No judge is going to look at this as a breach of contract, because there simply isnt one, but if the OP does not make repayments for the agreement, he will be in default of contract.