Yet another Vodafone Issue

mobilejunkie

Lack of knowledge plainly isn't rare. Court almost invariably costs to the winner; the only difference in the small claims court is that it is mainly limited to court fees, basic loss of earnings, statutory interest and minor incidental costs. Of course, I suppose you need to have actually BEEN there a few times to know that unless you actually do some basic research.

Silk

PJB wrote: »

And what makes you think this is one of the extremely rare cases where the Court would grant costs?

Quite simple my friend
If you lose and are thought to have been unreasonable the Court will quite often allow costs to the defendants.
Being as how your case is based on no service and yet
a/ you use 900 minutes a month
b/ you have accepted a free signal box
c/ you have moved 3 times from your primary location at the time of contract.

You have no case I'm afraid and so would be deemed unreasonable to issue on Vodafone.
I'm quite certain that Voda will have a decent Brief pressing for costs to be allowed.
The Courts are not there to be used by some jack the lad who wants to try his luck and don't take well to having their time wasted

PJB

Silk wrote: »

Quite simple my friend
If you lose and are thought to have been unreasonable the Court will quite often allow costs to the defendants.
Being as how your case is based on no service and yet
a/ you use 900 minutes a month
b/ you have accepted a free signal box
c/ you have moved 3 times from your primary location at the time of contract.

You have no case I'm afraid and so would be deemed unreasonable to issue on Vodafone.
I'm quite certain that Voda will have a decent Brief pressing for costs to be allowed.
The Courts are not there to be used by some jack the lad who wants to try his luck and don't take well to having their time wasted

Right I wanted to ignore you but, I ashamedly have bitten and will retort.

a) Used 900 when had a working suresignal for 4-5 months, used less than 300 last 2 months. Proof I would say of the lack of service, suspect the Court would agree with that.
b) I did and would accept one that works again. Proof that I am willing to make the effort, by that I mean installing it and letting some of my broadband allowance be sacrificed so as to gain full service. Again I think the Court will see this as me making an effort to resolve this issue.
c) My contract does not mention moving etc, it does however say that they have a duty to provide me with a service, which they are not.

Regarding the costs issue, if you had half a clue about what you spout so freely about, you would know this is extremely rare and is normally only used where the case brought is completely false and proven to be so not where it is unreasonable.

I am no Jack the lad trying their luck, and have both brought and defended cases in the County, Magistrates and even the High Court, ALL successfully to date.

To finish I would just like to say that you Sir are a fool, in fact you are a repetitive fool. Good day to you.

chanz4

PJB wrote: »

Right I wanted to ignore you but, I ashamedly have bitten and will retort.

a) Used 900 when had a working suresignal for 4-5 months, used less than 300 last 2 months. Proof I would say of the lack of service, suspect the Court would agree with that.
b) I did and would accept one that works again. Proof that I am willing to make the effort, by that I mean installing it and letting some of my broadband allowance be sacrificed so as to gain full service. Again I think the Court will see this as me making an effort to resolve this issue.
c) My contract does not mention moving etc, it does however say that they have a duty to provide me with a service, which they are not.

Regarding the costs issue, if you had half a clue about what you spout so freely about, you would know this is extremely rare and is normally only used where the case brought is completely false and proven to be so not where it is unreasonable.

I am no Jack the lad trying their luck, and have both brought and defended cases in the County, Magistrates and even the High Court, ALL successfully to date.

To finish I would just like to say that you Sir are a fool, in fact you are a repetitive fool. Good day to you.

This is so funny to read, op thing todo is ignore these and buy a fish from morrisons and slap yourself with it.

Mobile providers even say in their contracts they dont have a 100% coverage and indoor coverage. Just because you have only used 300 min for the last 2 months means zip, sometimes I use more for example a 3 hour call to a customer which I wouldnt normaly.


If you have defended in the high court before, you dont need this site or advice but dont be crying when the judge orders you pay the defendants sols costs which will be about £150 an hour plus

PJB

chanz4 wrote: »

This is so funny to read, op thing todo is ignore these and buy a fish from morrisons and slap yourself with it.

Mobile providers even say in their contracts they dont have a 100% coverage and indoor coverage. Just because you have only used 300 min for the last 2 months means zip, sometimes I use more for example a 3 hour call to a customer which I wouldnt normaly.


If you have defended in the high court before, you dont need this site or advice but dont be crying when the judge orders you pay the defendants sols costs which will be about £150 an hour plus

Morrisons, you insult me. I shall go to Waitrose at worst or preferably M&S.

Silk

PJB wrote: »

Regarding the costs issue, if you had half a clue about what you spout so freely about, you would know this is extremely rare and is normally only used where the case brought is completely false and proven to be so not where it is unreasonable.

I suggest you try to stick to talking about what you know about rather than trying to act the fool on here

Try starting with Civil Procedure Rules CPR 27.14

"27.14
(1)This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.

(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)

(2)The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

(a)the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

(i)are payable under Part 45; or

(ii)would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

(b)in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

(c) any court fees paid by that other party;

(d)expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(e)a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(f)a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for an expert’s fees;

(g)such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably

Now I would suggest if you wish to contest those rules you may want to try going to the Law Lords and see if they can change it for you

PJB wrote: »

I am no Jack the lad trying their luck, and have both brought and defended cases in the County, Magistrates and even the High Court, ALL successfully to date.

No of course not Jack and it's quite clear you have all the experiance as your posts declare

Perhaps it would be best for you to issue proceedings as you have been giving us all a laugh on here we could do with a few more :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

PJB

Silk wrote: »

I suggest you try to stick to talking about what you know about rather than trying to act the fool on here

Try starting with Civil Procedure Rules CPR 27.14



Now I would suggest if you wish to contest those rules you may want to try going to the Law Lords and see if they can change it for you

No of course not Jack and it's quite clear you have all the experiance as your posts declare

Perhaps it would be best for you to issue proceedings as you have been giving us all a laugh on here we could do with a few more :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You have way to much time on your hands, but no spellcheck.

The unreasonable behaviour you refer to is in refrence to the handling of the case and the way you deal with the Court, Defendants, responses, Disclosure etc not the merit of the case itself, this can be dealt with earlier if the case has no reasonable chance of success under CPR, you should know this surely.

Anyway if you really feel that me taking a service provider to court as I am not getting the service is unreasonable it says alot about you and thank god you are not sitting in any Court!

I am not saying and never have said I will definitely win, but I think I do have a run and no Court in the land would deem it unreasonable in my view. Further if their super £150 plus per hour Counsel that you referred to was so good and my case was so unreasonable it would not even get to trial would it as they would successfully make application that my case had no reasonable chance of success surely?

Gordon_Hose

lol, spelling insults!

PJB

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

lol, spelling insults!

That's it, avoid the issues raised and stick up for your ........ whatever they are to you. Even though they are clearly spouting rubbish, and as a matter of fact they spell that rubbish incorrectly.

Gordon_Hose

Like I said, crack on. You clearly know it all.

I'm out.