Court Action Against Tmobile - I need advice

grumbler

Presido wrote: »

Upload in the sense of creating an image file of the Adjudicator's decision

I think you can upload any evidence/proofs you want.

and linked it to this thread.

I don't see how this thread can be of any use for the court.

d123

grumbler wrote: »

I think you can upload any evidence/proofs you want.

Odds are, T-Mobile will have a copy of the adjudicators decision as part of their defence if it went to court.

cookie365

Presido wrote: »

I do not understand your point. I also do not think it is proper to attack my language.

I'm not attacking your language. I'm trying to help you understand that if you have difficulty in putting points across in written English, you'll struggle to get the result you want in court.

So it might be an idea to get help from someone with strong English skills so you can get your viewpoint across.

d123

cookie365 wrote: »

I'm not attacking your language. I'm trying to help you understand that if you have difficulty in putting points across in written English, you'll struggle to get the result you want in court.

So it might be an idea to get help from someone with strong English skills so you can get your viewpoint across.

Having just tried to read post 6 in it's entirety, cookie365 has a valid point.

Presido

d123 wrote: »

I would agree with this, and odds are so would a court.

You should probably take proper legal advice before continuing as there is a good chance you could end up out of pocket if a court did decide you failed to mitigate the loss.

I disagree with you because the unravelling of a fraudulent transaction trumps the mitigation of any loss.

Techhead_2

Presido wrote: »

I disagree with you because the unravelling of a fraudulent transaction trumps the mitigation of any loss.

I don't see the point of you asking for advice in a forum and then arguing that you know best.

You need to take professional advice about this, so as to help you put your argument into some sort of order and in understandable English. If you can't do that then at least speak with a consumer advice or action group to help with your case.

mobilejunkie

Presido wrote: »

I disagree with you because the unravelling of a fraudulent transaction trumps the mitigation of any loss.

Accusing the company of fraud WILL lose you a court case. They plainly haven't committed any and the adjudicator confirmed that should any independent proof be necessary (it won't be).

Given the time and effort you have already invested on here in holding firm regardless methinks pursuing a court case wouldn't help you (rather the opposite). Either sue or don't; bluster is worthless.

Buzby

There is certainly no fraud here - and if you cannot see how the defender will point to your cavalier attitude and inability to query and seek any explanation for 9 months show a disregard for your finances. As others have noted, you are supposedly the injured party but did nothing to protect your interests by querying bills in a timely manner.

Contract law does not apply to your tariff - which is a separate issue and with different considerations.

If you decide to proceed - and I've no opinion as to whether you have a case - there are some things to consider. Your action, even if it has no merit, will cost you anything up to £100 to instigate. Whilst you will get this back if your claim is upheld, and you remember to ask for costs, you need to factor in your time to go to court which may take multiple days.

The flipside, is your action can be defended, and if you lose you then take the hit for the costs which is £100 you'll not see again. Then you can be sure (as loser) you will be required to pay the defenders (capped) costs at court, this could be up to £200, but be assured they will push for as much the court deems reasonable.

This is not a no-risk strategy. You could of course hope they decide not to defend/ignore your action - this will give you a default judgement, and probably save them more money than defending it. You spin the coin, and see where it falls.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

Contract law does not apply to your tariff - which is a separate issue and with different considerations.

It does apply as the tariff is the essential part of the contract.
Any commercial contract makes no sense without the financial part.

Buzby

You keep stating this with no evidence.

A contract needs to be explicit - the tariff is variable and is not stipulated. The contract will refer to the tariff and its subject to change, following your logic, since the contract does not state pricing, you could argue you shouldn't pay anything!

Neither does a contract exist for the time period of the minimum term only (laughable comments such as 'I'm out of contract' abound). The bottom line for the OP is he is probably going to lose money in the long run, so not very MSE.