Settlement accepted, but subsequently found out was lied to

Taiko

Just after a general opinion, although I think I may know the answer.

I purchased from software from a company for my PC. My PC's specs greatly exceeded the minimum requirements, however the software failed to perform as intended.

After around 6 months of troubleshooting, they offered a settlement figure having received a LBA from me, as I seemed to have exhausted the process with them.

I accepted their offer, although I had in with them a Subject Access Request as well. The company did not respond within the 40 days, with me finally receiving the information 2 months after my initial request.

In the documentation though, it seems to confirm that they have misled me in saying they had tested everything that I had and believed it to be working as intended. I am now of the belief that, if I had proceeded to court I would most likely have won the case.

In light of the new information, what are my options? Am I bound by the initial settlement in light of their misleading information? Or would this discovery give me additional rights to pursue them?

visidigi

If you took them to court there is still no guarantee they would pay.

If they have agreed to settle, and have indicated they will pay I would take it...

bris

Settling out of court isn't always an admission of guilt, in fact it usually never is, companies settle out of court because it is far cheaper and easier than attending, just a numbers game.

You say they believe they tested it and think everything is working as intended, well that would be their defence too, if they could prove in court working as intended you would lose.

You can take your chance in court, no one can stop you even for a fair settlement but be warned if it's deemed fair, again the judge will rule against you and uphold the settlement and award the other side costs seeing your claim as a waste of the courts time, especially if they believe the new evidence you have changes nothing.

ThumbRemote

bris wrote: »

You can take your chance in court, no one can stop you even for a fair settlement but be warned if it's deemed fair, again the judge will rule against you and uphold the settlement and award the other side costs seeing your claim as a waste of the courts time, especially if they believe the new evidence you have changes nothing.

Complete and utter rubbish. The small claims court does not penalise people just because a piece of evidence is ruled to have no value, or because a defendant has offered a settlement in advance.

Why do you insist on posting scaremongering about the small claims court?

DevCoder

Why do you refer to the "small claims court" when it doesn't exist?

The small claims "route" is just a process where simple claims, counter claims and judgements which should take less than a day can be processed.

The court can award £90/day for the "other sides" costs (loss of earnings, travel etc) and up to £750 on top if there was an expert witness or expert report required.

shaun_from_Africa

krisdorey wrote: »

Why do you refer to the "small claims court" when it doesn't exist?

It might not exist as such, but "small claims court" is a commonly used expression used by many people including the CAB and the government of the UK.
If they are happy to use the expression, what's wrong with it being used on here?

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview

You can take court action against someone who owes you money and won’t pay.
This is known as making a court claim. It can also be known as taking someone to a ‘small claims court’.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_taking_action_e/consumer_legal_actions_e/consumer_going_to_court_e.htm

Read these pages to find out what to do when making a smalls claims case and how small claims courts work

ThumbRemote

krisdorey wrote: »

The court can award £90/day for the "other sides" costs (loss of earnings, travel etc) and up to £750 on top if there was an expert witness or expert report required.

They can, but very rarely do so.

The post I replied to was nothing but scaremongering - claiming that even if all the evidence is in OPs favour, the judge will rule against them, and will award costs.