Not fit for purpose, Comapny wont respond

Ectophile

PT2482 wrote: »

^
I have sent too letters to that address already, both recorded and both have not been signed for
Trading standards told me I have to give them 14 days
I am just so angry as its difficult to swallow
my next port of call is legal but I am waiting on the 14 days being up "just incase"
thanks

If they won't sign for letters, then send a letter first class, not signed for. Post it at a Post Office and get proof of postage. After one full working day, you may assume that it was delivered. (Interpretation Act 1978, section 7)

pendragon_arther

unholyangel wrote: »

All that has been mentioned so far is data that is publicly available for everyone to see already. Also it won't be construed as harassment unless op is telling a pack of lies with the intention of causing a certain person/group of people alarm or distress.

If OP's telling the truth they have nothing to worry about.

The funny thing about your comment is many people have been wrongly advised by citizens advice before. If you want proper advice you go to a solicitor - but in cases like this it would be counter productive to actually spend any money on a solicitor as its a pretty straightforward case and solicitors fee's wont be recoverable even if this goes to court.

How do you know this, can you back it up?

unholyangel wrote: »

I have no "beef" with you.

My issue is when people give out bad/wrong advice to people that could be detrimental to them. It just so happens I've had cause to reply to your posts 3 times (and one of them was your own thread) - and if that equals a "beef" then jeez you've had it easy. This is the real world, people disagree....it does not mean they have a problem with you personally let alone a vendetta against you.

If you think I'm wrong about the harassment aspect then by alll means, post the appropriate case/statute which states that posting information that is already publicly available amounts to harassment. But I won't hold my breath as I know it doesn't exist.

As for solicitors costs.....please feel free to provide proof that they are recoverable in small claims. Again, I won't hold my breath as the only thing you'll find is evidence proving that what I said was correct - it would be counter productive in the circumstances to pay for solicitors advice.

In small claims court cases if the plaintiff wins, although solicitor costs are arbitrary, usually 70% of the costs are awarded.

bod1467

In private parking court cases, the parking company often adds £50 solicitor fee to their claim - and that is the maximum they can add as far as I am aware. I'd presume this would apply universally, so 70% sounds, well, arbitrary.

bod1467

Ectophile wrote: »

If they won't sign for letters, then send a letter first class, not signed for. Post it at a Post Office and get proof of postage. After one full working day, you may assume that it was delivered. (Interpretation Act 1978, section 7)

I thought it was 2 working days for 1st class postage, but yes - send a letter via the PO and obtain a (free) certificate of posting.

unholyangel

pendragon_arther wrote: »

How do you know this, can you back it up?




In small claims court cases if the plaintiff wins, although solicitor costs are arbitrary, usually 70% of the costs are awarded.

If you were a regular on this board, you wouldn't have to ask.

As for solicitors costs.....care to back that up with evidence?

http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvdisputes/small_claims_guide/small_claims/

Generally, solicitors’ costs are not recoverable for small claims, even if you win.

http://www.masonbullock.co.uk/solicitors-fees/

Costs are very rarely awarded for small claims

If a claim is for less than £10,000 it will almost certainly be allocated to the Small Claims Track, often referred to as the Small Claims Court.

In the Small Claims Track, the court will only usually allow the successful party to recover very limited costs, such as court fees and witness expenses.

A more substantial costs order will only be made if one of the parties has behaved unreasonably. Examples of unreasonable behaviour are rare but include lying or pursuing a claim that has no prospect of success.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/

In most cases, the court will not order solicitors’ costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case, and if you instruct a solicitor you will have to pay the costs yourself. For this reason most claimants deal with a small claim without the help of a solicitor.

That was just the top 3 results on google. I can provide many more examples saying the same thing and not one of them makes mention of 70% and they all say they're not awarded except in exceptional circumstances.

InquisitiveMind

unholyangel wrote: »

I have no "beef" with you.

If you think I'm wrong about the harassment aspect then by alll means, post the appropriate case/statute which states that posting information that is already publicly available amounts to harassment. But I won't hold my breath as I know it doesn't exist.

I actually, honestly hate doing this, but damn, yes it's out there. You're targeting individuals instead of a company. This is uhm... illlegal. You pester more than one individual just once, and you have commited the tort / crime of harassment involving more than one person. The PHA 1997 is over there which is designed to protect innocent people against weirdos who stalk and harass, such as posting information on a forum.

unholyangel

And yet, CPS say:

In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a


I've yet to see anything backing up your viewpoint other than....well, your viewpoint.

And complaining that what I've posted is even inappropriate is rather redundant. They chose to make that information public. Its not even as if its their personal facebook page that they might have a mistaken belief its private. Its information that is held on public record.

unholyangel

InquisitiveMind wrote: »

I actually, honestly hate doing this, but damn, yes it's out there. You're targeting individuals instead of a company. This is uhm... illlegal. You pester more than one individual just once, and you have commited the tort / crime of harassment involving more than one person. The PHA 1997 is over there which is designed to protect innocent people against weirdos who stalk and harass, such as posting information on a forum.

Sir,

I would like to inform you that your repeated communications and attempt to contact are leaving me distressed and alarmed - as well as fearing for my safety. Such as accusing me of a crime I did not commit.

Please cease and desist immediately or I shall have you prosecuted under sections 2 & 4 of the PHA 1997 :rotfl:

Thanks. Been a while since I heard a joke that good.

pendragon_arther

unholyangel wrote: »

If you were a regular on this board, you wouldn't have to ask.

As for solicitors costs.....care to back that up with evidence?

http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvdisputes/small_claims_guide/small_claims/


http://www.masonbullock.co.uk/solicitors-fees/


https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/



That was just the top 3 results on google. I can provide many more examples saying the same thing and not one of them makes mention of 70% and they all say they're not awarded except in exceptional circumstances.

The first link states:

To stand the best chance of winning, you may have to pay for expert evidence e.g. a doctor, mechanic or surveyor. You can claim up to £200 from your opponent towards this cost if you win the case.

If the cost of bringing the case costs say £300 (rarely does it cost more) then unless my calculator is lying it comes to roughly £200, or about 70%.

The second link states:

You almost certainly won’t recover all of your solicitor’s costs

The courts will only award costs that are reasonable and proportionate. There is a process by which the courts will assess the successful party’s costs. This almost always leads to certain costs being disallowed.

We usually advise that a successful party will recover about 70% of its legal costs.

The third link I won't bother with because your wisdom tells me CAB are useless.

Although I did ask about your negative view regarding CAB and considering your veteran status and rather sharp responses (I've seen a lot from you and would put it down to liver problems) it would be nice to learn from your worldy wisdom why you have reached this viewpoint instead of some vague insinuation that lots of people here complain about them.

unholyangel

70% of your legal costs and 70% of your solicitors costs are not the same thing.

Legal costs = filing fee, hearing fee etc.

You're limited how much you can claim in costs in small claims.

ETA: I'll further expand on the above. The civil procedure rules set out what can be claimed and in which circumstances.

These are the two categories that cover possibly recovering your legal fees:

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 –

(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;

(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

Which one is it that you think applies here? Or perhaps that neither of them apply in OP's circumstances?