Have you taken a company to Court after Ombudsman rules in your favour and the company fails to pay

whalemoney

Hi I made a claim via the Ombudsman Service (I'll refer to them as OS) against Virgin Media (VM) and the OS ruled in my favour.  VM have agreed to be bound by the OS suggested resolution, which was to pay compensation within 28 days.

Approx 1 week after the OS Judgment, VM notified the OS and me that they had raised payment by cheque.  I'd previously provided VM with my BACS details yet they say they don't do BACS because presumably they think we are still in the late 1900s.

Approx 35 days have now passed and I have not received payment.  I have chased it by email and OS advisor tells me she is regularly chasing and update but not getting a response.

I'm now considering enough is enough and it's time to issue a Court Claim.  

I was wondering if any of you in this forum have taken a company to Court after exhausting the OS process?  If so, when I file my Claim Form and POC, do I have to go into all of the details of my complaint from day one (because it's a long complaint with lots of to'ing and fro'ing of emails and screenshots of texts and all sorts of guff)? 

Or is it sufficient to simply refer to the OS Judgment and demonstrate that VM have failed to honour a binding agreement?  Would this constitute a breach of contract that VM are liable for?  My assumption is VM is going to try to blag "the cheque got lost in the post" - would a Court consider this as a reasonable excuse after I provided my BACS to them on a number of occasions?

HillStreetBlues

Have you gone back to the Ombudsman? They can add interest until you are paid.

whalemoney

HillStreetBlues said:

Have you gone back to the Ombudsman? They can add interest until you are paid.

yeah OS are chasing but she's basically said there's no enforcement powers afforded to OS so ultimately VM can continue to sit on their thumbs and not pay up

Mark_d

Talk to OS about routs for enforcing their judgement.  Sure the ombudsman decision gave a deadline by which the compensation should be paid

TELLIT01

If the OS are saying they have no enforcement powers does that mean that their decision is advisory only.  In other words the 'guilty' party doesn't have to pay up even if they have agreed to use of the service?  If so, I wonder how a court could enforce payment.

voluted

TELLIT01 said:

If the OS are saying they have no enforcement powers does that mean that their decision is advisory only.  In other words the 'guilty' party doesn't have to pay up even if they have agreed to use of the service?  If so, I wonder how a court could enforce payment.

Most people think that the various ombudsman services are like the FOS, but they're not. The FOS's powers are baked into law, almost all (if not all) of the rest of them don't make legally binding decisions.

For the most part I guess you could call them "gentleman agreements." And for the most part, companies comply.

Courts can enforce payment because they have the legal power to enforce payment, although strictly speaking if you play your cards right you can essentially be untouchable in that regard. A large company like VM wouldn't really be able to pull that off though, unlike a one-man local tradesperson for example.

born_again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840

It's not a quango, it's not funded by the public purse. They are funded by their members which are the telecom/Media companies. 

voluted said:

TELLIT01 said:

If the OS are saying they have no enforcement powers does that mean that their decision is advisory only.  In other words the 'guilty' party doesn't have to pay up even if they have agreed to use of the service?  If so, I wonder how a court could enforce payment.

Most people think that the various ombudsman services are like the FOS, but they're not. The FOS's powers are baked into law, almost all (if not all) of the rest of them don't make legally binding decisions.

For the most part I guess you could call them "gentleman agreements." And for the most part, companies comply.

Courts can enforce payment because they have the legal power to enforce payment, although strictly speaking if you play your cards right you can essentially be untouchable in that regard. A large company like VM wouldn't really be able to pull that off though, unlike a one-man local tradesperson for example.

It's beyond a gentleman's agreement, the "communications ombudsman" is one of the two ADRs authorised by OfCom and all those in the industry must be a member of one or the other. 

When a company selects they sign a contract which stipulates they will follow the decisions. Haven't seen the Comms Ombudsman's contracts but certainly other similar members based ADRs put in financial costs if their members dont follow the decisions and the right to be kicked out if you continue not to do so. For some, like the former "retail ombudsman" its not much of a threat because there is no obligation to be in one whereas for the Comms Ombudsman it should be as they've only two to select from and so dont have many options if your kicked out of one. 

Whilst it doesn't directly benefit the OP, given its the ombudsman that gets the "late payment fees" it in principle gives the ombudsman leverage beyond that a gentleman agreement 

TELLIT01 said:

If the OS are saying they have no enforcement powers does that mean that their decision is advisory only.  In other words the 'guilty' party doesn't have to pay up even if they have agreed to use of the service?  If so, I wonder how a court could enforce payment.

A court wouldn't, "OS" is an ADR, if the parties dont agree then they go to court and the court makes up its own mind based on evidence/hearing etc. 

The FOS is distinctly different, their decisions are binding by statute and so with them you dont issue a claim in the court and have a hearing etc but submit a different form and the ruling from the FOS and in return you get a court order which then opens up the normal avenues for enforcing a court order.

born_again

regulators such as Ofcom
Are covered in the link.
Which is who OP will have been through.

voluted

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840

It's not a quango, it's not funded by the public purse. They are funded by their members which are the telecom/Media companies. 

voluted said:

TELLIT01 said:

If the OS are saying they have no enforcement powers does that mean that their decision is advisory only.  In other words the 'guilty' party doesn't have to pay up even if they have agreed to use of the service?  If so, I wonder how a court could enforce payment.

Most people think that the various ombudsman services are like the FOS, but they're not. The FOS's powers are baked into law, almost all (if not all) of the rest of them don't make legally binding decisions.

For the most part I guess you could call them "gentleman agreements." And for the most part, companies comply.

Courts can enforce payment because they have the legal power to enforce payment, although strictly speaking if you play your cards right you can essentially be untouchable in that regard. A large company like VM wouldn't really be able to pull that off though, unlike a one-man local tradesperson for example.

It's beyond a gentleman's agreement, the "communications ombudsman" is one of the two ADRs authorised by OfCom and all those in the industry must be a member of one or the other. 

When a company selects they sign a contract which stipulates they will follow the decisions. Haven't seen the Comms Ombudsman's contracts but certainly other similar members based ADRs put in financial costs if their members dont follow the decisions and the right to be kicked out if you continue not to do so. For some, like the former "retail ombudsman" its not much of a threat because there is no obligation to be in one whereas for the Comms Ombudsman it should be as they've only two to select from and so dont have many options if your kicked out of one. 

Fundementally it doesn't change the fact that there is no legal backing to the various non-FOS ombudsman agreements. Clearly whatever they CAN threaten their members with isn't much, as VM appear to have happily given them the middle finger.

whalemoney

Mark_d said:

Talk to OS about routs for enforcing their judgement.  Sure the ombudsman decision gave a deadline by which the compensation should be paid

The OS advisor either doesn't have the authority by the OS to force the issue; or she simply doesn't want to put in the effort.  Ultimately other than sending an occasional email to VM, the OS doesn't want to go beyond this.  I get the impression it's a bit of a 'company policy' at the OS to limit the level of threat their advisors can impose.  The OS has not even told me that interest can be added nor any penalty fees.

Right now the OS is the go-between for me and VM.  VM don't reply to me when I contact them directly so I have to go via the OS.  I've asked OS to contact VM on my behalf to request VM disclose their legal correspondence address so that I can get the ball rolling and issue a Small Claim.  I've basically said "can you copy and paste the following paragraph" (requesting VM's address) but OS refuses to do this because they can't get involved in anything pertaining to legal disputes.  Even though there's no allegations being made in my paragraph, I'm simply asking for the address, yes this is enough to have OS stepping back

Absolutely pointless service.  It's really annoying as had I taken VM directly to Court in the summer when my complaint was already a few months old, a Court could have potentially held the opinion that I'd jumped the gun and not gone to the OS first.  I've wasted christ knows how long compiling all of the complaint details on the OS website, then waited an age for the OS to come to a verdict and it's all been for nothing and I'm back to square one, more than six months later.