Vodafone and dispute

Emy1501

Ann_S wrote: »

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.

No in your opinion there is no breach of contract. The fact that you believe that does not mean a judge will agree with you.

This where your understanding of the small claims court is lacking.

No solicitor or even a Barrister would say that that the OP would have no chance in a court.

You are offering no more than an opinion.

Annie._2

Emy1501 wrote: »

No in your opinion there is no breach of contract. The fact that you believe that does not mean a judge will agree with you.

This where your understanding of the small claims court is lacking.

No solicitor or even a Barrister would say that that the OP would have no chance in a court.

Your are offering no more than an opinion.

It not an opinion, its a fact. Vodafone provided the service, the SIM was up an working on the network as it should have been.

You understanding of the Small Claims Court is limited. The OP would have no chance of getting out of the contract, he is in a legally binding commitment.

thatsean

Ann, with respect - whilst I am more than on your side with this - Emy has a point. I know of cases myself where the judge sees the case as the big guy trying to pick on the little guy and has found in favour of the defendant when you'd put money on it - from a contract point of view that they would not.

Some of what the OP has described is poor service, I'd be raging if I was kept in a call queue for 30 minutes - fair enough they were busy, but I don't accept that's good service.

Overall though - unless he's going to pay the 24months upfront then us talking about court is moot. If you've no losses, then you've no law suit.

Emy1501

thatsean wrote: »

Ann, with respect - whilst I am more than on your side with this - Emy has a point. I know of cases myself where the judge sees the case as the big guy trying to pick on the little guy and has found in favour of the defendant when you'd put money on it - from a contract point of view that they would not.

Some of what the OP has described is poor service, I'd be raging if I was kept in a call queue for 30 minutes - fair enough they were busy, but I don't accept that's good service.

Overall though - unless he's going to pay the 24months upfront then us talking about court is moot. If you've no losses, then you've no law suit.

You can issue for past and future losses in SCC. Therefore potentially could issue for for amount the rest of contract is worth. You could also throw in a bit inconvenience etc.

To be honest the main reason this would likely not get to court is because the costs to defend the matter would make it not worth it.

Probably £500-£1500 for Vodafone regardless of whether they won.

You would also have to factor in the potential publicity if they lost.

Main reason why people got away with getting back bank charges for so long.

Ady87

I don't know if it's been explained yet but i just wanted to touch upon the "loss of earnings" documented in the OP.

I used to work for Vodafone and since then, other Telecoms providers. Always in the residential side of things. The amount of customers coming through using residential mobiles for business work, or trying to claim loss of earnings without a business contract was phenomenal.

It would be much easier for you to take out a Business contract and use it for both sides of your life rather than taking a domestic contract and running the risk.