Yet another Vodafone Issue

Silk

PJB wrote: »

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

How pathetic
By the way how do you spell reference :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

PJB wrote: »

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.

Where does it define "unreasonable behaviour" in the CPR's you must have the only copy in the country that does that :rotfl:

It's up to each Judge how they wish to define it and whilst there are guidances they are not set in stone.
For example

Examples of behaviour that a judge may consider to be unreasonable:

• Defending a case throughout but failing to attend the final hearing, without any explanation;
• Pursuing a case that is purely speculative and cannot be supported by the evidence;
• A complete refusal by a party to respond to correspondence or to show any interest in negotiating followed by a failure to attend the final hearing;
• Making up a defence or pursuing a dishonest claim;
• A last minute request for an adjournment purely because a party has failed to prepare their case;
• Persistent failure to comply with orders of the court to correct procedural defects;
• Giving oral, or other, evidence at a hearing which contradicts a witness statement previously supplied to support the case.

Have a guess which ones apply to you ....I've given you a clue in the bold print
(oh dear looks like it does include merits of cases ...ooops)

PJB wrote: »

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!

Thats the problem you do a get a service 300/900 minutes a month plus you say you were given a suresignal and moved location 3 times ...so yes it is unreasonable to most people except you of course.

PJB wrote: »

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?

I wouldn't think it would get to Court either ....however if it did, to try and contest the costs on the basis that "the Court shouldn't have heard it in the first place" is going to give them a bigger laugh than you do already on here :rotfl:

PJB

Silk wrote: »

How pathetic
By the way how do you spell reference :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Where does it define "unreasonable behaviour" in the CPR's you must have the only copy in the country that does that :rotfl:

It's up to each Judge how they wish to define it and whilst there are guidances they are not set in stone.
For example


Have a guess which ones apply to you ....I've given you a clue in the bold print
(oh dear looks like it does include merits of cases ...ooops)


Thats the problem you do a get a service 300/900 minutes a month plus you say you were given a suresignal and moved location 3 times ...so yes it is unreasonable to most people except you of course.

I wouldn't think it would get to Court either ....however if it did, to try and contest the costs on the basis that "the Court shouldn't have heard it in the first place" is going to give them a bigger laugh than you do already on here :rotfl:

Now well done on your spelling, can we please now work on our grammar.

Guys_Dad

PJB wrote: »

Now well done on your spelling, can we please now work on our grammar.

Getting back to planet earth and reality, You need to do a "risk analysis" on any action you plan to take. Is principle worth more than principal? If so, then you don't need advice or arguments on here.

It is the opinion of most on this thread that you will lose if you go to court. It's only an opinion and we - because I side with others - could be wrong. No one can really 2nd guess a court.

I think you would lose and it would cost you money. Only an opinion. It's your money and it's no skin off my nose if you win or lose.

So best bet is to follow your instincts. If you do, and win, then I hope you will have bookmarked this thread and you could then come back and tell us we were wrong.

Look forward to reading that post.

Gordon_Hose

PJB wrote: »

Now well done on your spelling, can we please now work on our grammar.

Seriously?

What are you, 12?

Another poster who throws around insults when they don't hear what they want to hear.

PJB

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Seriously?

What are you, 12?

Another poster who throws around insults when they don't hear what they want to hear.

And the above is what exactly if it is not an insult? Hypocrite.

mobilejunkie

As someone who's used the small claims court many times (and always successfully) I don't hesitate to sue - provided I have a VERY sound case with evidence, supported by the law; otherwise I don't go that route. It's fairly plain in this case that chances of success are at best poor - and relying on what is reasonable is also highly dubious (evidenced, if by nothing else, by the fact that most people on here - many who are also very experienced and knowledgable in this area) would not find in the plaintiff's favour. If the case fails there will definitely be the plaintiff's own costs which cannot be recovered, but also at the very least the court costs of the defendants.

If the plaintiff wishes to proceed on that basis it is their right; but I certainly would not if I were in their shoes.

Gordon_Hose

PJB wrote: »

And the above is what exactly if it is not an insult? Hypocrite.

It was a question, followed by a statement.

PJB

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

It was a question, followed by a statement.

So was it not an insult?

Gordon_Hose

Are you insulted?

PJB

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Are you insulted?

Ok then .