Where "I'll sue" gets you.

[Victoria J]

You know how people like to threaten to sue even when they're completely in the wrong ? Today I got to see 2 people who went one step further and did sue.

These people had been paying the electric with regular bank payments - and when you do that the company continues to bill you and show your balance. Regular payments mean you're likely to be in credit in the summer, the fact that the companies always set payments high means you probably will be in credit all the time. I know my supplier says that if you're in credit by £100 they refund it, otherwise they roll it over but you can sometimes request smaller payments.

These people got a bill every couple of months showing them to be in credit every time. £20, then £30, then £40, then £35 (winter)...

They decided the company owed them money. So far - correct. But in an act of inverse genius that breaks new records for stupidity they decided that they could add these amounts together.

...add together a number of statements showing a running total...basically add the same credit to itself over and over...

Then they demanded the money. Then they took legal action through the small claims court.

And won ! But only because the company failed to respond - and as soon as the company woke up and took notice they applied for a set aside and had the judgement thrown out.

And got a new one. For £1000+ costs against these people.

They want to go to the high court. When I explained why this wasn't a good idea they didn't believe me.



Next time someone threatens to sue because a sale ad is "false advertising" etc. - think about what happens to anyone foolish enough to do it.

Victoria J

[Andara Bledin]

Idiots.

However, someone needs to slap the legal department around a little for failing to respond to the small claims action.

^-.-^

[marasbaras]

If I ran a store, my policy would be this:

If a customer threatens to sue, all communication with that customer stops. The only thing you may say is "Since you have threatened legal action, all communication must go through our lawyer."

[marasbaras]

However, someone needs to slap the legal department around a little for failing to respond to the small claims action.

Maybe they were too busy laughing.

[Victoria J]

Yeah - if I was a judge (not likely I'll admit) I wouldn't allow big companies a 2nd chance like that.

However it may be that the couple filed the papers to the wrong address - that'd be a good reason for the set aside. And it's believable, they did everything else wrong.

I feel a bit sorry for them. Stupid tax of £1000 seems a bit high to me. It's not like there aren't other disadvantages...

Victoria J

[tamezin]

If I ran a store, my policy would be this:

That is my company's policy. We have a BK and legal Dept that handles all communication going forward.

[Kogo Shuko]

I think this is great. The fact that the customer managed to win (briefly) is amazing. If anyone tried to sue Bell for something like that, Bell would squash them like a bug. To Bell, a dollar is a dollar. And Lord knows I've had dozens of "I'll sue!" threats over the phone. That's nice.

But for someone to actually go through with it? And win?! Wow someone in legal definitely didn't pay attention!

[greensinestro]

It seems to me like it costs them more money after filing the suit, hiring an attorney, not to mention time away from work. Did they really come out ahead in the end?

[Victoria J]

It seems to me like it costs them more money after filing the suit, hiring an attorney, not to mention time away from work. Did they really come out ahead in the end?

I'm confused.

The person who sued used the small claims court. DIY no solicitor. They're also not in work. They briefly came out ahead then ended up owing £1000+

The big company ? Well they lost money I suspect. To avoid a claim that was only for around £100 they spent over £1000 in legal fees - and while they'll get them back from the claimant it'll take a while.
On the other hand they almost certainly have in house legal ( a colleague of mine actually successfully challenged them in the small claims court - they took him to court for non-payment after they incorrectly fitted a boiler in such a way it didn't work and could potentially have killed him and his family - I'll assume they spend plenty of time in court).

In the end it was probably worth it for them. If only because it means these people won't do it every few months, or give anyone else the idea.

You have no idea how carefully I'm writing up my interactions with these people. If they sue me I'm ready

Victoria J

[allniter]

lol

If they do pursue it further and lose, which I'm sure they will, they'll owe court costs as well for the new third judgement that goes against them. I hope they lose their home for being in debt.

[redmountaingoldfish]

I hope they lose their home for being in debt.

Wait... So they sued a company that owed them money (although they were way off in the total), got hammered by a fine because the company didn't show up to the first trial... and now you're rooting for them to loose their house?

[tollbaby]

lol

If they do pursue it further and lose, which I'm sure they will, they'll owe court costs as well for the new third judgement that goes against them. I hope they lose their home for being in debt.

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Yes, they tried to cheat the system, yes they lost (rather spectacularly, considering they're out of work). Why on earth would you wish more punishment on them - to the tune of losing their home, no less?

[Geek King]

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Yes, they tried to cheat the system, yes they lost (rather spectacularly, considering they're out of work). Why on earth would you wish more punishment on them - to the tune of losing their home, no less?

There, I bolded the answer. There is great precedent in law for fines, or even jail time, that outwiegh the crime committed if the crime was committed with full knowledge of wrongdoing or if the criminal has a history of previous offences. The very best you could say about them is they sued out of malicious stupidity. Not going to lose sleep over this one.

[redmountaingoldfish]

Yes, they tried to cheat the system,

But did they really try to cheat the system? Or did they just have a nasty case of stupid and got ignored by said system until they sued.

To me it seems they honestly thought the company owed them tons of money (which is the stupid I referred to) and the company ignored them up to the point of not responding the lawsuit.

And I'm done.

[earl colby pottinger]

More likely

Yeah - if I was a judge (not likely I'll admit) I wouldn't allow big companies a 2nd chance like that.

[SNIP]

I feel a bit sorry for them. Stupid tax of £1000 seems a bit high to me. It's not like there aren't other disadvantages...

More likely as SCs they were not on their best behaviour around the judge either and the judge only awarded them in the first place because the company had no rep there.

I don't think most judges want to reverse their own decisions like that (make they look bad), and that suggests to me that it was how the SCs acted in court that made the judge happy to reverse his own judgement.