Claiming back cost of phone calls to customer services

wagtamm

lather30 wrote: »

...
So my question is, given that this was 100% their fault, and likely caused by the incompetence of their warehouse staff, is there any way that I can claim back the cost of the phone calls from them?

I would suggest you leave off any assertion as to who's to blame, or assumption as to the cause - it will only get get a defendant's back up and give additional grounds for them to challenge any claim.

I would, in the first instance, simply request the supplier a refund of the charges you have incurred. You may be lucky with the supplier willing to refund such charges in full as a matter of goodwill in order to hpefully retain your custom in future. But they are not obligated to refund you the full cost.

If it comes to it, should you wish to pursue the matter according to the relevent legislation already provided by others, it is an almost standard requirement that as a complainant seeking compensation, you will be expected to show that you mitigated your loss.

Unfortunately, as has also been indicated by others above, you don't seem to have done that. The website is clear on the costs involved in using the number you have

Calls cost 13p per minute plus your phone company's access charge.

But you could have alternatively used the 018...number as others quickly identified to you. That would only have cost you what the appropriate legislation refers to as "the basic rate".

Alternatively, you could have contacted the supplier using their online form (or via email), which would not have cost you anything. :money:
(they indicate they aim to respond within 1 working day)

wagtamm

That should get the juices running of the resident militants and their band of supporters :rotfl:

Ian011

The CJ website clearly indicates an 0871 number for customer services and that act breaches regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 irrespective of whether call charges are shown alongside or not. Upon calling the advertised 0871 number the caller is bound to pay more than the basic rate. It's a premium rate number.

The regulations require the call charge to be refunded, i.e. redress. They do not specify anything about additional compensation due. No provision is made for that. The fact that there is another method available for contact at a lower or no charge does not excuse in any way the offering of a premium rate number which is not permitted to be offered.

unholyangel

wagtamm wrote: »

I would suggest you leave off any assertion as to who's to blame, or assumption as to the cause - it will only get get a defendant's back up and give additional grounds for them to challenge any claim.

I would, in the first instance, simply request the supplier a refund of the charges you have incurred. You may be lucky with the supplier willing to refund such charges in full as a matter of goodwill in order to hpefully retain your custom in future. But they are not obligated to refund you the full cost.

If it comes to it, should you wish to pursue the matter according to the relevent legislation already provided by others, it is an almost standard requirement that as a complainant seeking compensation, you will be expected to show that you mitigated your loss.

Unfortunately, as has also been indicated by others above, you don't seem to have done that. The website is clear on the costs involved in using the number you have
But you could have alternatively used the 018...number as others quickly identified to you. That would only have cost you what the appropriate legislation refers to as "the basic rate".

Alternatively, you could have contacted the supplier using their online form (or via email), which would not have cost you anything. :money:
(they indicate they aim to respond within 1 working day)

It would be for the other party to prove the OP had failed to mitigate their losses. And in order to do that, they'd need to prove the action the OP had taken was unreasonable. I can't see that holding any weight - its the number they advertise in order for people to contact them regarding contracts they've entered into. They can hardly claim its unreasonable for someone to use something they supply for its intended purpose.

Mitigating your loss means that you should take reasonable steps where necessary and not take unreasonable steps to increase them. It doesn't necessarily mean only ever going with the cheapest option.

wagtamm

Ian011 wrote: »

The CJ website clearly indicates an 0871 number for customer services and that act breaches regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 irrespective of whether call charges are shown alongside or not. Upon calling the advertised 0871 number the caller is bound to pay more than the basic rate. It's a premium rate number.

The regulations require the call charge to be refunded, i.e. redress. They do not specify anything about additional compensation due. No provision is made for that. The fact that there is another method available for contact at a lower or no charge does not excuse in any way the offering of a premium rate number which is not permitted to be offered.

I had indicated earlier that I thought my posts based on FACT would not be welcomed by many here. Indeed I can see the support you have received for your post, and the lack of support for any of mind (bovvered? ) but unfortunately, public support does not translate into an accurate interpretation of the law.

The legislation, which you, yourself, have linked to previously, is very clear in my opinion; at least I do not see how it could have been made any clearer.

(2) If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate.

wagtamm

unholyangel wrote: »

It would be for the other party to prove the OP had failed to mitigate their losses. And in order to do that, they'd need to prove the action the OP had taken was unreasonable. I can't see that holding any weight - its the number they advertise in order for people to contact them regarding contracts they've entered into. They can hardly claim its unreasonable for someone to use something they supply for its intended purpose.

Mitigating your loss means that you should take reasonable steps where necessary and not take unreasonable steps to increase them. It doesn't necessarily mean only ever going with the cheapest option.

That's a new one on me too, albeit it garners much public support from other readers. If only public support made it correct?

In 99.99% of all litigation matters, the burdon of proof rests fairly and squarely on those that bring the claim; the defendant has to prove nothing (unless they bring about a counter claim)

... and no, this is not one of the 0.01% of type of cases where that burdon of proof does not apply.

That is the fundamental basis on which our judicial system is established.

There is a general and sometimes over looked principle in litigation that a party can not recover damages for any loss which could have been reasonably avoided. Accordingly, any party making a claim is required to take steps to minimise any loss and also to avoid taking unreasonable steps which may cause it loss. This is often referred to as the duty to mitigate...

https://coffinmew.co.uk/rules-on-the-obligation-to-mitigate-losses/

But never mind, at least you have the support of others if not the actual support of the law in this regard.

unholyangel

wagtamm wrote: »

That's a new one on me too, albeit it garners much public support from other readers. If only public support made it correct?

In 99.99% of all litigation matters, the burdon of proof rests fairly and squarely on those that bring the claim; the defendant has to prove nothing (unless they bring about a counter claim)

... and no, this is not one of the 0.01% of type of cases where that burdon of proof does not apply.

That is the fundamental basis on which our judicial system is established.

https://coffinmew.co.uk/rules-on-the-obligation-to-mitigate-losses/

But never mind, at least you have the support of others if not the actual support of the law in this regard.

If only you understood what it is you're quoting. Oh well, at least your post gave me a good laugh!

We're talking about proving they failed to mitigate. Its up to the claimant to establish they have a basis for recovering the sums under law (breach, causation etc). But its up to the defendant to prove they failed to mitigate.

https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/breach-of-contract-the-innocent-partys-duty-to-mitigate-loss

The duty to mitigate loss
In a contractual situation, English law provides that the innocent party does have a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise loss. What is reasonable is generally a question of fact, but it is not safe to assume that doing nothing will be considered reasonable or to take action to remedy a breach without due regard to all available options, their suitability and cost involved.

It is worth noting that under English law the burden of proof is on the Defendant to prove that the innocent Claimant has failed to mitigate loss.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9438650f-b920-4fac-bbfe-aba06f9047e0

In Lombard North Central Plc v Automobile World (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 20, the Court of Appeal addressed the important issue of a party's duty to mitigate its loss. This duty arises in claims in contract and tort, and provides that an injured party cannot recover damages for any loss which could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps. The second limb prohibits unreasonable steps which increase loss. Whilst this case does not create new law, it is a timely restatement by an appellate court of the applicable principles. In particular, the Court noted that the duty is not a "demanding one" and the onus is on the defaulting party to demonstrate that the other side has failed to mitigate its loss.

Seems like I do have the support of the law

Ian011

wagtamm wrote: »

I had indicated earlier that I thought my posts based on FACT would not be welcomed by many here. Indeed I can see the support you have received for your post, and the lack of support for any of mine (bovvered? ) but unfortunately, public support does not translate into an accurate interpretation of the law.

The legislation, which you, yourself, have linked to previously, is very clear in my opinion; at least I do not see how it could have been made any clearer.

I wish I knew what your actual point was. You have quoted the regulation where it explains the trader must pay the caller and I have stated the caller must be refunded.

For most people, the way we pay for ordinary calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers these days is through an inclusive call plan. Individual calls to those numbers incur no additional charge or rate. Thus, if someone calls an 084 number at up to 72p per minute or an 087 number at up to 78p per minute, the trader must refund the caller at that same rate.

If the caller has, for example, a Three pay-as-you-go mobile, the caller would have paid 3p per minute to call an 01, 02 or 03 number and should therefore be refunded at the rate of 69p or 75p per minute. However I doubt that if someone presents a statement showing a 30 minute call costing £23.40 that a trader is going to argue the toss that they will only pay back £22.50 instead.

Is your quibble that I didn't mention the minutiae of the mechanics of that? Anyone who is making a claim under the regulation should read it beforehand. Having done that they will be clued up on what it says.

DoaM

I'm sure I made a response yesterday along the same lines ... no idea what happened to it though.