Vodaphone versus a deaf person (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION)

[zooch]

xxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[pompeyfaith]

Well done to you its about time people with a disability took action.

 

Mobile phone companies should have a text only service I totally agree.

 

PF

[buzby]

You'll lose. They provide you with the same service as all others, so there is no discrimination. If because of your inability to use their service you what what exactly? No line rental and to pay for texts as you use them?

 

Try the PAYG service, which works in precisely that way. No discrimination, no foul. Althought it might help if you can spell the name of the network correctly, as Vodaphone do not exist. Assuming it does reach court and you lose, you;ll be required to pay their capped costs in defending the action. You must have money to burn.

[zooch]

xxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[HSBCrusher]

Please keep it civil Buzby, refrain from the personal remarks.

[buzby]

Please keep it civil Buzby, refrain from the personal remarks.

 

Er, I've made no personal remarks whatsoever. However, if you look carefully, you'll see I've been the recipient of them.

[zooch]

zz

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch

[HSBCrusher]

Althought it might help if you can spell the name of the network correctly, as Vodaphone do not exist.

 

this is personal, and check the spelling of although

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[buzby]

:-DYou silly fool...you dont know the DDA law...maybe you work for Vodafone...so keep off

 

 

Because YOU say so? (1) You've not explained what the issue is that leads to this alleged 'discrimination'. Kindly explain for the benefit of us without your insight as to how you are disadvantaged.

 

(2) Work for Vodafone? No way, I don't believe that inducing people into long term contracts and then squeal to a CRA with no external arbitration or notice required when something goes wrong is being fair.

 

Of course, stupid laws are enacted all the time as I recall, the ID Laws are the most recewnt to be appealed. The law is about discrimination, and you have to prove this. Not faff on because you're unable to use a service because there are viable alternatives.

 

If that's being 'foolish', then count me in!

[buzby]

buzby I suggest you refrain from any more comments. Thanks!

 

I suggest you do the same.

[buzby]

The spelling is correct (vodafone) for the courts papers and have been served with no issues.

 

Read the Subject line.

[HSBCrusher]

I suggest you do the same.

 

zooch is the OP.

 

any further off topic stuff will be moved.

[buzby]

this is personal, and check the spelling of although

 

WHAT is personal...? Secondly, the 't' at the end of although was a key bounce. Let me guess, you're being perverse on purpose this morning?

[buzby]

zooch is the OP.

 

any further off topic stuff will be moved.

 

Please do. Along with the personal insult would be good too. On topic, I'm STILL awaiting clarification regarding where this supposed 'discrimination' has taken place.

[HSBCrusher]

WHAT is personal...? Secondly, the 't' at the end of although was a key bounce. Let me guess, you're being perverse on purpose this morning?

 

you have a go at someone about spelling and in the very same sentence you spell although wrong.

 

I understand you have a point of view, and I think its good to get all sides to the story. But we can all be civil about it cant we?

[zooch]

xxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxx

[HSBCrusher]

you would do well to listen to as many arguments to be as prepared as you can be.. the battle in court will be a lot tougher than an internet forum!

[zooch]

xxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxx

[buzby]

buzby I will not be responding to your comments.

 

I have submitted my case to the court and will let the judge decide the outcome. I will of course post when I have the results.

 

Look forward to it.

 

Off topic, but possibly of interest - is a recent case where someone took a cinema to court under the DDA because he paid extra to watch a 3D film. His problem was he did not see the '3D effect'. This was due to his inability of his eyes/brain to resolve the image being projected (an IMAX presentation I believe), although he claims he was unaware of this prior to the presentation.

 

The court agreed it was unfortunate his disability prevented him full enjoyment of the entertainment, but this was not a failing of the cinema - suggesting he should have watched and paid for a 2D presentation instead where available. A comment from the bench also added that a high proportion of males suffer from colour blindness, as such it would be unreasonable for those with this disability to attempt to seek a reduction in admission prices due to their inability to resolve the full colour spectrum. (This was back in 2003 or so). I have to agree.

[buzby]

Hello,

 

I am not at all worried about the court and yes am expecting a battle because it is not in an interest for a service provider to admit disability discrimination which is unlawful and a failure to make a reasonable adjustment for me which is also unlawful under the DDA.

 

What is this 'reasonable adjustment'? Surely a tariff that makes no charge for voice minutes fits with your requirements?

[zooch]

xxx.

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[zooch]

xxxx.

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxx

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxx

[buzby]

Thanks for for multiple messages. I've no idea what 'scare' you think is supposed to work.

 

Now can you answer the question?

 

"What is this 'reasonable adjustment'? Surely a tariff that makes no charge for voice minutes fits with your requirements"