O2, Lowell Financial Ltd and Bryan Carter solicitors forced to "discontinue court case" but offer no apology?
By Value hunter on Feb 2, 2015 | In In real life, Money chat, Bad business, Frugal wars, Frugal victories, Rip off Britain
For the best part of two years O2, then Lowell Financial Ltd via various debt collectors, have been chasing me for a debt that I did not owe.
Late 2014, they instructed solicitors to persue me through the small claims court for an amount of around £950.
I received notice from their solicitor (Bryan Carter solicitors) this week, that the case has been "discontinued" for the full amount.
In plain English, they are no longer seeking any payment and the full "debt" and their action in the small claims court has been stopped.
Case won so all's well?
No actually, all is not well!
In the process of this case, I discovered several things:
* In a small claims case put through the Northampton county court business centre, the claimant can attempt to "strike out" the defence, once it receives a copy, in effect winning the case, without any representation for the defendant.
This shows serious bias, in favour of a claimant.
Claimant submits a claim saying you owe them money - you file a defence (thinking it will be sent to an independant local county court, where both sides can be heard) - the claimant then receives a copy of what you have filed as your defence - claimant can then pick apart your defence and attempt ot have it struck out.
If successful, then the defence will lose the case.
Looks very one-sided to me!
* A national company such as O2 in this case, can keep inaccurate account records of phone conversations on a regular basis and nothing is done about it.
I asked on more than one occasion, for a copy of records, each time I was refused.
It came to light, during my own investigations, that O2 staff promised to transfer across an account to the name of the correct person, once they had reached the age of 18. Over successive upgrades they failed to honour this and failed to record this accurately on the account notes after it had been promised.
* OFCOM (regulator for the mobile phone contracts industry) and the Communications Ombudsman do not know which law applies to mobile phone contracts.
Are people of the UK now only protected if an ombudsman deems a company in breach of "Guidance" and vague regulations, which the ombudsman does not enforce and the regulator (OFCOM in this case) only enforce to ensure the industry works smoothly and doesn't impede the needs of the business?
That both organisations show such little knowledge of common law in England and Wales and fail to display any inclination towards upholding it, which has legal precedent for over 100 years, is deeply disturbing for consumer protection in the UK!
So for all the messing around, the phone calls, etc. I get not a single apology or admission that I was right in the eyes of common law in England and Wales...
No feedback yet
« Royal Blackburn Hospital - East Lancashire Health trust quiz | Working poor: A month in the life of... » |