Can I claim for time wasted on the phone etc.....

miserable_ol_so_n_so

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Don't quote me but being an individual and not a Company the same principle will be in place whereby the Court would say that you do not need a assistant to do this and can do it yourself, This additional cost would be classed as unnecessary and in the most likelihood be struck out as part of your claim, If you were incapable of doing these tasks then that should be a different matter.

Bear in mind it is only the true actual costs as per my post above via the Courts that could be sort.

Thanks for your comments. I do have two attorneys who could do this on my behalf. They both live abroad. It would cost hundreds and hundreds in airfares alone not to mention having to take time off from work, losing wages etc. which will have to be paid for by me.

unholyangel

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

Thank you for your comments. I do have attorneys but both live abroad it would cost hundreds and hundreds of pounds in airfares alone.
What if I engaged a personal assistant and paid their invoices for communicating with the bank and the merchant (this is prior to any court action). Would I be able to claim these costs if the matter had to go to court?

As regards the instance where a refund had been made by the merchant and not passed on by the bank and the time spent by the merchant. Yes I would suggest that the merchant should be able to bill for their time wasted and the bank should be made to pay that.

I don't think you're understanding what people are telling you. What you're trying to do goes against the basic principles of civil law. As I said, civil law is not penal in nature. The purpose of damages is to place the innocent party in as near as possible (as near as money can achieve it) to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred - the purpose of damages is not to punish the party in breach.

Yes where a party is in breach they are liable for the reasonable & actual losses of the other party. But those losses also need to be foreseeable (ie naturally arising from the breach or within contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into) and the injured party have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss and must not take unreasonable steps to increase it (such as hiring someone to write letters purely to increase your claim for damages).

As for billing for time, again no. Because you would end up with situations of thousands being claimed for disputes over a tenner or worse, where there was no actual loss.

I get that you're frustrated and want to inconvenience them for the inconvenience they have caused you, but those types of claims are not supported in law.

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

Thanks for your comments. Having read them, I am inclined to go to county court claim now as I believe it will be quicker. If the court disallows costs that include compensation for time wasted, then I will pursue it with the Ombudsman.
The only thing is I have already lodged a complaint with the bank though not filled in section 75 claim form yet.

You cannot take a claim to the financial ombudsman once legal action has commenced. You can however take legal action if - after having complained to the ombudsman - you dont like their response.

Have you sent a letter before claim yet?

miserable_ol_so_n_so

unholyangel wrote: »

I don't think you're understanding what people are telling you. What you're trying to do goes against the basic principles of civil law. As I said, civil law is not penal in nature. The purpose of damages is to place the innocent party in as near as possible (as near as money can achieve it) to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred - the purpose of damages is not to punish the party in breach.

Yes where a party is in breach they are liable for the reasonable & actual losses of the other party. But those losses also need to be foreseeable (ie naturally arising from the breach or within contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into) and the injured party have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss and must not take unreasonable steps to increase it (such as hiring someone to write letters purely to increase your claim for damages).

As for billing for time, again no. Because you would end up with situations of thousands being claimed for disputes over a tenner or worse, where there was no actual loss.

I get that you're frustrated and want to inconvenience them for the inconvenience they have caused you, but those types of claims are not supported in law.



You cannot take a claim to the financial ombudsman once legal action has commenced. You can however take legal action if - after having complained to the ombudsman - you dont like their response.

Have you sent a letter before claim yet?

Thanks. 1. I have not got so far as the ombudsman. At this point in time, I have lodged a complaint with the bank telling them that I want to make a claim under section 75 and directing them to all the correspondence in their secure messaging system. They will either sort it out or in time or they will want me to fill in a claim form.
2. I have not sent an actual letter before action ( I had never heard of it ), what I have done is sent them (both the merchant and the bank) written messages and emails twice, first giving them 14 days in which to ensure a refund is made. I informed them that if they need extra time, they must ask for this. When the first deadline expired, I wrote again, giving them seven days informing them that if they need extra time they must ask for it. They have not responded. That expired today.
Throughout, I have given them lots of opportunities to send this money in any other way such as a cheque or direct bank transfer or to my present credit card to no avail. I even proposed to the merchant that I was actually making a purchase from him for a sum in excess of the refund and he could offset the refund against that but they could not do it! I now wish I hadn't and I shall never ever patronize this merchant.
3. I will come back to you about the other good things you mention.

miserable_ol_so_n_so

unholyangel wrote: »

I don't think you're understanding what people are telling you. What you're trying to do goes against the basic principles of civil law. As I said, civil law is not penal in nature. The purpose of damages is to place the innocent party in as near as possible (as near as money can achieve it) to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred - the purpose of damages is not to punish the party in breach.

Yes where a party is in breach they are liable for the reasonable & actual losses of the other party. But those losses also need to be foreseeable (ie naturally arising from the breach or within contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into) and the injured party have a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss and must not take unreasonable steps to increase it (such as hiring someone to write letters purely to increase your claim for damages).

As for billing for time, again no. Because you would end up with situations of thousands being claimed for disputes over a tenner or worse, where there was no actual loss.

I get that you're frustrated and want to inconvenience them for the inconvenience they have caused you, but those types of claims are not supported in law.

My problem is the waste of time this mode of conducting affairs like this causes. It is similar to time wasted when arranged delivery or repairs do not appear. I believe now if this occurs, you can demand compensation. How does that work? Should the principle be extended to cover cases like mine where I have had to spend hours? If the businesses are not ever going to have to deal with such issues by making extra payments, what incentive do they have ever to refund small amounts?

wealdroam

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

My problem is the waste of time this mode of conducting affairs like this causes. It is similar to time wasted when arranged delivery or repairs do not appear. I believe now if this occurs, you can demand compensation. How does that work? Should the principle be extended to cover cases like mine where I have had to spend hours? If the businesses are not ever going to have to deal with such issues by making extra payments, what incentive do they have ever to refund small amounts?

Have a read of MSE's Failed Delivery article to understand how compensation may be due in such circumstances.

There is nothing different for failed deliveries.
You can only claim for actual losses if a delivery goes wrong, and as I said before, in your scenario you have no losses attributable to your time.

miserable_ol_so_n_so

wealdroam wrote: »

Have a read of MSE's Failed Delivery article to understand how compensation may be due in such circumstances.

There is nothing different for failed deliveries.
You can only claim for actual losses if a delivery goes wrong, and as I said before, in your scenario you have no losses attributable to your time.

Thanks for your reply. I am right now involved with another scenario. Please can you advise how I should proceed so that I do not have to spend hours on the phone.
1.Having spent a considerable amount of time on the phone, writing letters etc, Office of the Public Guardian agreed that I was due a refund of £110 and that a cheque will be in the post. I have this in a written letter from them. That was a month ago!
2. The same grand body disposed of the original documents I had sent in which included documents from HMRC. They have been good enough to offer costs involved in obtaining these.
What should I do? How many hours should I spend on the phone to HMRC? According to what I have read, calls go unanswered, letters do not get answered. Should I tell OPG to use their considerable resources, get through to HMRC and arrange for the documents to be sent to me? Should I engage an accountant to carry out liaison with HMRC obtain the documents and bill OPG directly?
Are organizations using the public as free source of labour instead of employing adequate staff to run their businesses in a competent way?

wealdroam

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

What should I do?

Start another thread.

It will only get confusing dealing with two entirely separate issues in the same thread.

lovinituk

miserable_ol_so_n_so wrote: »

It is similar to time wasted when arranged delivery or repairs do not appear. I believe now if this occurs, you can demand compensation. How does that work?

Even if you do demand compensation and they are obliged to pay, they can still refuse to do so. At that point, you would have to take them to small claims to try and force it.

Even if you 'win' at small claims court and a judge orders them to pay, they can still refuse to do so.
Even once they have been issued a CCJ, they can still refuse to pay.
Even if you pay for the bailiffs to go round, they can still refuse to pay.

It can be a very long and drawn out process if the other party is uncooperative.

miserable_ol_so_n_so

lovinituk wrote: »

Even if you do demand compensation and they are obliged to pay, they can still refuse to do so. At that point, you would have to take them to small claims to try and force it.

Even if you 'win' at small claims court and a judge orders them to pay, they can still refuse to do so.
Even once they have been issued a CCJ, they can still refuse to pay.
Even if you pay for the bailiffs to go round, they can still refuse to pay.

It can be a very long and drawn out process if the other party is uncooperative.

Thanks. I never knew that! How can they refuse a bailiff as I thought a bailiff would be authorised to remove things to the value of the judgement?

miserable_ol_so_n_so

wealdroam wrote: »

Start another thread.

It will only get confusing dealing with two entirely separate issues in the same thread.

Thanks. Yes I will.