Jump to content

Flyyyte

Registered Users
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Flyyyte last won the day on February 3 2012

Flyyyte had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Flyyyte

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Have you been able to get any further in regard to your £36.75p rebate? Top Cashback has given you the runaround, in much the same way it appears to so often treat its users with contempt. This £multi-million company is, in fact, regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and appears on the FCA's Financial Services Register as an "Appointed Representative", this being the formal term for its regulatory status as "a firm or individual that can act on behalf of another firm (its principal) that is authorised in the UK or regulated in another EEAA country. The principal is responsible for the appointed representative's activities." [my emphasis] Where you are concerned, you were sold a regulated financial product (home insurance) by a business regulated by the FAC, the essence of sale being that a portion of the money you paid would be rebated to you. As you received no such rebate, you were mis-sold. The mis-selling of any financial product in the UK is taken seriously by the regulatory authorities, as demonstrated by the punitive costs incurred by the banking sector in regard to mis-sold PPI. Though Top Cashback is currently not subject to much greater regulatory oversight -- it certainly should be -- it is, in this instance, unable to avoid the perhaps inconvenient reality that it was, in your case, the Appointed Representative of Nationwide. Please disregard then, any carefully constructed gibberish from Top Cashback and instead file a written complaint with the insurer in its capacity as principal. Your complaint should state the time/date of purchase of the insurance, and the date(s) and content of any subsequent online contact with Top Cashback. Be aware that your complaint must be fact-based. It would not be enough to say that you bought the policy on the basis of the promise extended at that time (by the principal) on its Appointed Representative's (Top Cashback) website. If you have no such proof -- ideally, screenshots of the transaction as it progressed, and at least one screenshot showing Top Cashback's confirmation of your visit -- then your complaint stands almost no chance of being accepted. If, however, you know you can provide supporting evidence of your complaint -- and this is what we're talking about here: your correspondence with Nationwide MUST be headed: "COMPLAINT: Mis-selling of a financial product" -- then you will be seeking from them the sum of £36.75p + a £60 compensatory payment in regard to the stress and inconvenience caused to you. Because you are invoking a complaint in regard to the mis-selling of a financial product, an 8-week period now kicks in, during which time Nationwide must, by Law, accept or reject it or make you a compromise offer (for example, the £36.75p, but not the £60 compensation.) You should know, however, that due to the nature of the complaint, you are entirely at liberty to accept the £36.75p whilst at the same time continuing on with your request for £60 compensation. If after those 8 weeks have expired and you are still not happy with the outcome, you can lodge your complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. If the FOS decides that your complaint merits further investigation, it will contact Nationwide and require it to pay over a sum amounting to several £100s, this being the non-returnable fee that has to be paid to finance the FOS's inquiries. For obvious reasons then, businesses mindful of their own bottom line are mindful of the money to be saved by settling a complaint before it reaches the FOS. So. There's the answer. Complain, with supporting evidence, to the principal (Nationwide) about the mis-selling of its financial product (home insurance policy) and seek payment of the outstanding rebate and compensation, allow a maximum of 8 weeks to elapse and then if the matter isn't settled, file your complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. As to Top Cashback, don't believe anything that any of its representatives write or say. Keeping well clear of it. * Apologies for not spotting this post of yours until just now, when I was browsing the forum for something different.
  2. Yes, I'd noticed last year, or perhaps even earlier, a solicitor of the same name as the esteemed Mr Crossley on the books at Rodney Warren's south coast law firm: http://www.rodneywarren.co.uk/our-legal-team/ and thought that the description of their Mr Crossley, as well as the photograph of their Mr Crossley: http://www.rodneywarren.co.uk/our-legal-team/andrew-crossley/ was uncannily reminiscent of the pathetic wreck of a shyster said by his peers to have brought the entire legal profession into disrepute. Given so great an insult to the standing and repute of lawyers everywhere, it was quite clear to me that no law firm with any respect for itself or its clients would ever consider having such a (literally) disreputable character on its books. I concluded, therefore, that the formerly bankrupt Andrew Crossley who specialised in civil litigation designed to intimidate and harass for financial gain is absolutely not the same Andrew Crossley who specialises in Civil Ligation and only has the best interests of his clients, and the larger public, at heart. It's all pure coincidence.
  3. Thanks, blackknight. It's not an issue about the warranty though, but about the point you made: the 'extra level of comfort' for a PCP customer. In this instance, I'm assuming that ownership of the car has passed from the factory gate to the finance company (which is more than likely independent of the manufacturer though trades under the manufacturer's name.) What my relative does NOT want to have to contend with is a faulty vehicle that, though covered by manufacturer warranty, is then off the road for varying periods to be repaired. He's paying a monthly amount for a vehicle to be in his keeping, not a garage's. It's that point which I'm trying to clarify: if in the event that things do go pear-shaped, just what pressure can he exert to ensure he does not have loss of usage / enjoyment etc as a result? Already he's worrying about whether or not the vehicle will be all right. It's not a level of anxiety I'd be prepared to tolerate -- a £25,000 car that's 10 months old and, literally, you don't know if it's going to break down within the next few weeks?? I agree wholeheartedly with you about the Internet complaints though. They can be misread as to how representative they are. That said, there are also God knows how many who don't post on a forum and aren't members of one -- which includes my 75-year-old relative. . .
  4. A family member decided 10 months ago to replace his ageing car with a factory-ordered brand new one. He opted for a PCP deal having first undertaken extensive homework about total interest payable and likely future value etc. Of all the options open to him, the PCP deal together with further incentives he negotiated with the supplying dealership most suited his circumstances. Until recently, he had no cause for complaint. But then the symptoms of one or two faults (or a single inter-related fault) affecting engine and auto transmission became evident. The car has been into the supplying dealership which immediately sought the manufacturer's involvement. Some preliminary work was then undertaken according to the manufacturer's guidance, pending further work which will be carried out two months' hence at its first service. The car, which has one 9,000 miles from new, is said to be perfectly usable until the time of that service and that in any event, anything and everything is covered under the manufacturer's warranty. Fair enough. Except: delving into the Internet to research his car's emergent problems, he has discovered dozens (literally) of posts on motoring forums going back over several years, all of them complaining about the same problem(s) and about the hoops it was necessary to go through to get them fixed. In some cases, the manufacturer replaced the engine and transmission under warranty -- though only at the end of protracted arguments where some consumers were concerned. Also in some cases, the vehicle was off the road for up to a month while those repairs were completed. What isn't clear from any of those Internet posts is whether or not the posters had financed the purchase of the car outright from their own funds; whether it was with a bank loan; whether it was hire purchase; or whether it was a PCP. That actually strikes me as being of crucial importance. Currently, my relative's car is still showing symptoms of inherent faults, albeit those symptoms are now less noticeable than originally. He is resigned to living with them and to abide by the dealership's / manufacturer's guidance. However, he is worrying about what might happen if it turns out that the vehicle becomes unusable due to failure, or if he is ultimately told that it will be out of his possession for a lengthy period due to the possible scale of repairs required. The word 'possession' prompted me to post this query on here, because it seems to me that he doesn't 'possess' the vehicle in a strictly legal sense (i.e., of ownership), rather that he and the manufacturer entered into a contract -- brokered by the supplying dealership -- via which he pays a monthly premium to the manufacturer's finance company and the manufacturer in turn supplies a car fit for purpose and usage. Am I right in thinking that in the event of -- and I must stress: 'in the event of' -- the situation becoming worse and the vehicle failing to perform / being unavailable to him for short periods or an extended period, the essence of the issue here is as more about breach of contract than anything else? Advice appreciated; though things seem to be under control at the moment, it's surely as well to be fore-armed by being forewarned of a consumer's position when it comes to the PCP of a new car and what happens if that car develops problems early in its life. Thanks.
  5. The Grauniad article makes it abundantly clear that the customer registered an Amazon account 14 years ago and has returned 37 items in the past two years. The article also states that the customer has purchased 343 items, though perhaps due to lousy subbing, it isn't clear if that total accrued in the past two years or over the full 14. But that's by-the-by. The key stats are 37 returns in 24 months. Wow. That's some going. I've been a registered Amazon customer since 2002. I have no idea how many items I've purchased in that time -- many, many hundreds -- but I do know I've had legitimate cause to return four. 4 returns in 168 months. I've also been a registered eBayer since 2001, buying and selling hundreds of items in those 15 years. In that time I've found it necessary to give just one neg and to return just three items. I don't count myself as being extraordinarily lucky with my purchases. Rather, I reckon I'm just an average Amazon customer / eBay member. Where the allegedly vexatious Amazon customer is concerned, this individual is either the unluckiest individual there's ever been, or her / his transactional expectations have been consistently unreal. If I was running a pub and the same customer kept coming in to order a beer, taste it, and then rejecting it because it wasn't any good, I'd ban that individual from ever entering my premises again: I'm running a pub, not a product research laboratory set up for the benefit of someone on a free ride. Where eBay is concerned, those who sell on it can be as good, bad or ugly as those who sell on Amazon -- or on any street market, anywhere, seeing as how the latter are the real-world forerunner of both. Nowadays I actually use eBay more than Amazon, because unless I'm after the back-up to be derived from a purchase that's direct from Amazon or Fulfilled by Amazon then it's plain daft to fall for Amazon's £20 order minimum when an easy cross-check of the item on side by side browser pages will show that the same Amazon seller is also on eBay, selling the same item most usually (a) for less and, even more significantly (b) post free. One of the things most noticeable, back in the days of eBay's help-each-other forums -- killed off by eBay on the obvious though unstated grounds that it exists to take commission, not criticism -- was the sheer number of buyers who really shouldn't be let out on their own: failure to read a listing; failure to research a seller's ID history, location, and feedback record; failure to take even the most elementary self-protection. There's no reason to think that type of buyer has vanished. What surprises me about this thread is that some posters seem to regard buying from an Amazon seller as the same as buying from Amazon. Of course it isn't. Rather, it's the exact same as buying from an eBay seller, the only difference being that you can't, ever, buy anything from eBay anyway; you can only buy on eBay. As for Amazon's banned customer, his Amazon vouchers are void because his customer account is void. He may well have a legitimate argument in regard to that aspect but as the Grauniad article fails to state the amount involved here -- a fiver? Or £50? -- then who knows the scale of loss? It's up to him to take action for recovery. Whether or not he goes through 37 different law firms over the next 24 months will, of course, be his decision .
  6. Honeybee: Sincere thanks again for the LiP information. I've now browsed this site and noted a number of helpful references. I've copied / pasted text into Word docs where appropriate as well as screencaptured other items. Finally, I've followed various links to other reference resources including Law articles, Form N260, and the Bar Council Guide to self representation. I tend to work quickly so am hoping I've not missed too much on this initial LiP foray; I'll have more time tonight to re-read in more detail. The sheer volume of helpful information here continues to astonish and I've been happy to make a small donation just now, a fraction of the amount any Law firm would've required. I've also -- now that I've read Form N260 -- made an exact note of research time spent here, that is, the period from the time of my last post to the time of this. Armed, now, with knowledge I clearly lacked hitherto, I shall put further thoughts of civil action on hold, and wait to see what emerges in the course of the handling of my formal complaint. Once again: my sincere thanks to you, Good Sister and BazzaS.
  7. Hello Honeybee. Apologies for this unintentionally belated reply but I've only just caught up with your post. You most certainly are not off-track -- so many thanks indeed for bringing this LiP facility to my attention. I've never heard of it, iyiyiyiyi. I've some spare time this morning so am off to plunder this wonderful CAG website for more info. Once again: BIG thanks!
  8. I wasn't implying that you said that at all. I was merely theorising on a payments-of-worth calculus. What I'm actually trying to figure out is how a civil court, or even a utility company, might compute this. In employment, then an equivalent to the individual's paid hourly rate? Wow. I should be a corporate counsel then. Not employed? Therefore, no hourly rate for assessment purposes? Oh. We all know that utilities hide behind the mask of "goodwill" payments when goodwill has never entered into it. We're all, also, well aware of derisory payments, £50 here or £75 there. Go-away money. Courts? I presume there's some sort of yardstick. But I've no idea. Perhaps it's about time some Consumer Messed About Hourly Rate was legislated.
  9. Hello BazzaS: thanks for that info, it helps in trying to sort out a possible (and tenable) claim. And thanks especially for pointing out the error there: sheesh, the math really was wrong! I should, of course, have been working on the basis of a 37.5 hour working week, not a, er, 37.5 hour working day. I think I'll go apply now for a job with Scottish Power's billing department. A 37.5 hour working week equals a 7.5 hour working day, so at £12.82p an hour that's £96.15p per working day. In my case, then, that would be £288.45. Which (to me) seems nothing like enough. Though considerably more reasonable than that earlier £1,442. Eeek. Anyway. If one can't bill a company for the time they would have / might have paid an employee but whose work one has had to undertake oneself, then I guess the idea is a non-starter anyway. Might be better to have a look at the UK average wage and go from there. It would also be equitable, because if an argument is to be advanced that only a customer in employment can be compensated according to the hourly rate appropriate to her or his current employment, then the time of every customer who is not in employment, or who has retired, is counted as nothing. That signals to any utililty company (or any other company, come to that) that easy pickings are to be made from elderly consumers because they can't hit back because they're. . . worthless. I quite like the concept of mitigating my losses though. Most solicitors I know -- not paralegals, nor juniors -- charge between £85 and £140 per hour. So if an argument was -- theoretically -- to be advanced that 3 days of an individual's time had had to be given over to an issue such as this, whereas a lawyer could've dealt with it in half the time -- then 22.5 hours I've spent (which now need revising upwards) would equal 11 hours of a solicitor's time at £100 per hour. Call it £1,000. Ah well. Interesting to play around with figures, but really, this post was mainly to say thanks for clarifying things and for pointing out the fallibility of my math. Seems best now for me to set aside the issue of compensation until such time as all my hours are totted up at completion of the Formal Complaint letter to SP. Onwards & upwards -- or at least, sideways.
  10. Sincere thanks, GS. At a time like this when, despite best efforts, one's thoughts are somewhat scattered, your post provides clarity and enables focus. Doesn't get any better than that. I'll sit down tomorrow and draft a letter of Formal Complaint which I'll send to Scottish Power's complaints-handling address. I'll structure it according to the points you've highlighted. It is unlikely to have the appearance of amicability because I can not, in all good conscience, pretend that I am not outraged at this company's behaviour towards me. It will not, however, be hysterical: words have been my business for many a long year, and I'm well aware of the standard required for writing-for-the-record. I'll update here in due course, hoping that the recording (on here) of this episode may be of some help to others in future. Meantime: sincere thanks again.
  11. Many thanks Good Sister for responding so quickly and constructively; thanks, too, to the site team's citizenB: I have to confess to an initial reluctance to even raising my query, seeing as how folks must surely get fed up of hearing yet *another* complaint about a UK utility company. And yet, in a way, that's the real indictment: the treatment of honest, decent and responsible consumers by corporate giants who couldn't care less how heavily and how wrongly they tread. My situation at the moment is that I've no idea what a Judge would consider to be a "reasonable" claim against SP or not. There would, I assume, need to be specific grounds: no good me ranting on about distress and dismay etc if SP is going to honey-voice its way out of things and (for example) respond that though I may have grounds for being annoyed, I have no actual legal grounds for compensation. It is my (hazy) understanding that Direct Debit agreements with a utility provider are outwith the Consumer Credit Act (though why I should even have to spend the time, trying to find that out, escapes me: I'm not a lawyer nor have I any aspiration to be.) I see from citizenB's link that "mismanagement of my account" may, possibly, provide some basis for civil action but if at the end of the day we're talking about some kind of industry voluntary code, then I can't see how a default in respect of that which is voluntary can be said to mean the same as a breach of some legislative act or order. Then there's the amount. I have spent so many, many hours dealing with this, trying to get Scottish Power to LISTEN, and then as a concomitant trying to understand which regulators do what and how and for whom and on what basis. None of that should ever have been necessary, yet to be unprepared is to be vulnerable, and to be vulnerable is -- or so it seems to me -- to be the last thing any consumer should be when a company with as appalling a public record as Scottish Power's comes a-hunting for money. By way of trying to devise some theoretical sum, I reckoned that as I'm the one who has had to do so much work in regard to this mis-billing because Scottish Power has not, and will not, then I'll base it on an estimated £25k a year paid to an SP customer services manager (it may be more, it may be less) equalling £480 a week for a 37.5 hour week equalling an hourly rate of £12.82p. By my calculation, in terms of time spent not merely in dealing with SP but in trying to protect myself against its serial misconduct -- including now having to pester people on here for help -- the time is now 3 full working days, equal to 112.5 hours and therefore, £12.82 x 112.5, total: £1,442.25. And the total is growing -- ironic, really, seeing as the amount at issue (that is, the difference between that which SP is doing its darndest to make me pay and the sum that the facts show I should be paying may not be more than £50.) That difference, however, is of fundamental importance, because it relates to the consumption of gas which Scottish Power hasn't provided. . . but Sainsbury's Energy / British Gas so very clearly has (and been paid for it.) I'm now poised to write a formal letter of complaint to Scottish Power. All previous complaints, in my emails, were effectively ignored / dismissed. As soon as I realised Scottish Power, with its FINAL DEMAND, seemed about to pressure me into paying it monies to which it has no lawful claim, I kept everything in writing. For the record. And advised SP I was doing so. They'd had one telephone call from me. There would be no more. The paper trail, then, is complete. Because of all this entirely unnecessary wasting of my time, I've had to learn that OFGEM won't deal with a consumer directly -- OK, fair enough -- but will only act in light of anything flagged up by some Energy Ombudsman service or other . . . if said Ombudsman service can even be bothered to do so. To even initiate such a process though, I must first make a formal written complaint (in my case, about both mis-billing and appalling CS behaviour) so that SP can have a period of time in which to resolve matters -- as if it hasn't had enough time already. I do wish to place that formal complaint on record though, not least because I intend to seek the assistance of my local constituency Member of Parliament. Question then (I guess: sorry for being so. . . scattered at the moment!) do I now register my formal complaint with Scottish Power and allow 8 weeks (I think?) to elapse OR: do I now write to SP saying I'm about to institute civil action and not bother filing a formal complaint OR: do I threaten civil action -- but not yet initiate it -- in a formal complaint? I cannot stress too much here that it is not the amount that troubles me. It is the oppressive weight of a giant company (and a foreign-owned one at that) which all too clearly thinks it can do anything, say anything, and get away with anything, regardless of whatever censuring it may previously have received from the regulator and regardless of whether or not it has just been acclaimed -- if that's the right word -- the worst major company in Britain for its handling of customers. Again: sincere thanks to Good Sister and to citizenB; in a better regulated market than the one we seem to have here in the UK, none of this would be necessary. And Scottish Power wouldn't even have a licence any longer to even operate. (And in addition to my thanks, my apologies, too, for any inconvenience my posts here may inadvertently cause.)
  12. I hadn't actually thought such might be possible until seeing bankfodder's thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?444374-ScottishPower-%96-do-you-want-to-sue-ScottishPower-in-England-%96-Contact-details but am now interested in doing just that. Cut a lonng story short: I am sick, weary and tired of having to do Scottish Power's work for it in terms of (a) accurate billing and (b) best practice customer service, neither of which seem to me to be concepts that this company even faintly understands. Six months ago it issued me with a final bill on my departure to Sainsburys Energy. (Had I realised at the time that Sainsbury's Energy is just a trading name of British Gas, I'd never have gone to it -- but that's another story.) British Gas / Sainsbury's Energy made a complete shambles of this routine switch and not only "lost" the gas meter reading I provided to it but then went on to give Scottish Power a meter reading entirely of its own invention. Scottish Power, therefore, sent me a Final Bill which bore no relation to my usage. As this wasn't SP's fault, I immediately telephoned -- BAD mistake, but at that stage it had my sympathies -- and spoke to an SP rep who brought my account details up on screen and within mere seconds said they had a logarithm (or 'formula'? Can't remember which: both words may've been used) that they ran to check a disputed bill. It was obvious from that, or so I was assured, that the meter reading they'd received from BGSE was wrong. I now provided the meter reading given to BGSE some six weeks earlier and was told the following: 'We will take this up with your new supplier as it's clear that a mistake has been made. Until we have sorted out the facts of the matter, the bill we have issued to you is suspended. This means you do not have to pay anything and you do not have to do anything until we contact you again with a revised bill.' (Note: rightly or wrongly, I don't trust any UK utility company to look after me or my money. Shortly before the switch to my new supplier occurred, I therefore cancelled my monthly Direct Debit payment to Scottish Power on the basis that I'd rather pay it what I owed than have it taking my money and, in the event of a billing dispute, being obstructive about paying any of it back.) Meantime, my supply continued from BGSE. I also received an apology from it for the mess it had made of my switch. As I'd been told not to do anything until hearing back from SP, I left it at that. It wasn't until August that SP got in touch again. I received by surface mail and by email a letter headed FINAL DEMAND requiring that I immediately pay an amount owing from March. The amount was higher than the original, "suspended" bill. No accompanying documentation was provided by way of explanation of how this FINAL DEMAND had been calculated. No explanation was offered as to how I was in receipt of a 'demand' that was 'final' when no other 'demands' had ever preceded it. Thus began a protracted to-ing and fro-ing of email correspondence which achieved nothing other than the waste of many hours of my time. SP's emails were, to my mind, a disgrace, each one beginning with a scripted 'apology' as cosmetic as it was meaningless, and concluding with an invitation for me to go online if I still had a problem because SP was sure I could find "answers" there. I repeatedly provided SP with all the information it needed to act reasonably and responsibly and, at one stage, even seemed to be making progress: one reply I received said that in light of the information I had (repeatedly) provided, the matter was being passed to SP's billing department to investigate with a view to issuing a revised bill if such was appropriate. But I never heard any more about that. Instead, another threatening email arrived -- the usual stuff, about jeopardising my credit record, this despite the fact that I had (repeatedly) said that I was furious about being treated in such intimidatory fashion. This last email was now either a downright lie or an act of blazing incompetence but whichever, it was clearly calculated to make me pay up whether I owed SP the amount stated or not: for the first time, the word "agreed" was incorporated into the text, as in "I can confirm that I have looked into your bill based on the agreed meter readings". Obviously, if the darn things had ever at any time been agreed, then there'd have been no need for me to expend so much effort, disputing the position. It seemed to me I had exhausted whatever level of collective ability -- if any -- might exist in SP Customer Service and so I asked for the matter to be elevated to a managerial level. I also made that request in writing, wasting yet more time reprising the facts. It wasn't merely that I was furious about being patronised / dismissed / misled / and (to my mind) lied to by this company, rather that I had provided SP with inarguable proof of its mis-billing and yet it was giving every appearance of seeking to wilfully ignore that and harass, and threaten, until it had, in so many words, extorted from me monies to which it had no right to claim. If that was how Scottish Power thought it could treat me, then God only knew what it thought it could get away with where a customer, for whatever reason, was less able to challenge its steamroller tactics. SP has sent me no further emails. Instead, I have received an unsigned letter from Pastdue Credit Solutions in which it is claimed that I owe its client a sum of money that is now even higher than the earlier amount owing that was in itself higher than the original bill which an SP representative assured me was "obviously wrong". I have written back to PastDue saying I don't recognise the amount it is saying I must pay immediately and as no supporting documentation was supplied in respect of that claim, would PastDue now kindly correct that omission within the next 7 days. Where we go from here, I'm not sure. A sum in excess of £200 is in dispute. The documented grounds for my challenging SP would instantly demolish its claim in any civil court. I don't, therefore, know if SP would even dare risk going to court -- but am worried (and no consumer should ever have to be "worried" by behaviour as repellent as this) that it might try to sidestep that process and mess up my credit history instead. More than that though: as I said at the start of this post, I am sick, weary and tired of being compelled -- because it is just that: compulsion -- to do Scottish Power's work for it. I have had to repeatedly demonstrate to Customer Service staff how they should be dealing with a genuinely distressed customer; I have had to repeatedly demonstrate how to even calculate a bill. All the hours invested in such labour have been wasted. But why should I be the one who is penalised for the indifference, the incompetence, and the sheer intimidation that is so evident here? I've no idea of what, let's say, a CS manager gets at Scottish Power but if it's £25k a year then I can't see why I shouldn't be on that same hourly-equivalent rate seeing as I've been required to do that same job . So-oo . .. Back to Bankfodder's original thread. I would really, really like to sue this company for compensation in regard to my time wasted / distress caused etc etc, using as a yardstick of claim the equivalent cost of 15 hours' CS Management pay. I haven't done the math because I've only just thought of it but that's by the by. The main question here is: Has any ordinary consumer ever attempted to sue a UK utility company and if so, on what basis / for what amount / and was her / his action successful? I'm guessing that at some point along the line, SP is going to have to roll over and may even offer to make a "goodwill" payment or "goodwill" gesture, coupled with an apology about how a technical hitch occurred or a misunderstanding arose or SP has been dealing with system problems which it has now overcome and really honestly genuinely we're very very sorry, never happen again, blah-blah-blah. But that "goodwill" will be as counterfeit as any and all of its apologies. That "goodwill" will make it appear it has never done anything wrong, and that it is a utility company fit and proper to hold a UK operating licence. Well: I don't want to allow it to skip away into the convenient obfuscation of "goodwill". I want Scottish Power punished. And I want Scottish Power's money in my pocket -- not my money in its.
×
×
  • Create New...