Vodafone Case From 2016!

[BankFodder]

Hi, we've received your message pointing out that this thread has received no replies and also asking us to delete it.

First of all have to say that I'm very sorry that nobody has come back and commented on your letter – which looks very thorough and obviously because it appears that you've now had a result (according to your message) it has been very effective.

Once again, I'm very embarrassed that you had no response to this thread. It's extremely interesting and I don't know why it has passed us by – except that everything is very difficult at the moment for everyone due to the crisis, and a rise in the number of problems been posted in other parts of the forum.

You shouldn't have to do it of course, but I suppose that if we had received a contact message earlier pointing out that this thread needed attention, then we would have dealt with it. Once again, you shouldn't need to do that and I'm sorry.

I'm afraid that we don't delete material. Everything contributes to the knowledge base and your circumstances seem to be so interesting they are especially useful to other people who might find themselves in the same position – and that's what makes our collection of stories here so useful.

Finally, I have to congratulate you on the result. It would be very helpful if you would come and tell everybody exactly what has been agreed – and you think that it is a really fair result given the amount of time and trouble and embarrassment you have been put to.

If we understand what has now been promised to you, we might be able to suggest some further move by you to claim some kind of compensation – but maybe you have managed that already.

Once again, well done on having achieved a resolution of this problem. It's very good that you managed to get Vodafone to listen – most often they don't and that is one of the problems about this company.

Please do let us know what happened

[BankFodder]

I'm trying to go through your story in your opening post – but it's pretty long so it will take some time.

[BankFodder]

Well I've looked through the letter – and is extremely complicated – but I have to say that it's an amazingly well laid out and well structured letter – and it scares the hell out of me!

I think it would be very helpful if you could possibly distill it into a rather more brief bullet pointed chronology.

Also, you refer to various clauses in their terms and conditions. Maybe you could reproduce these here. Use our quotes function as it compartmentalised its things and makes it all much more easy to follow.

Quote

Our quotes function        

 

But I gather that you set up a business account in your company name and they seem to have been treating it as a personal account – although I'm not too clear what difference that has made.

They then suspended the account because they say that you had been abusing it and were in breach of a contractual term. You deny this
By suspending – rather than closing the account, they were able to say that you owe them the entire rest of the charges until the end of the contractual term. – A very convenient approach from Vodafone.

Then Vodafone made an entry on your personal credit file – even though it was a business account.

They then send it out for debt collection – and eventually Lowell's sole sense.

Apparently Lowell remove the default and cleaned up your personal credit file – but wouldn't it have been for Vodafone to do this?

If you could layout the chronology please to begin with – and then maybe in a subsequent post you could address the questions that I have put.

From the sounds it I think that you have got quite a good case for complaint although I understand that they have now paid you some level of compensation – with this made subject to any conditions such as full and final settlement et cetera?

I would suggest that you send Vodafone an SAR immediately – and also one to Lowell. There free and so you might as well get them off as quickly as possible. Basically want everything – including recordings of conversations, notes, screen notes, correspondence – internal and external – and anything else – on any matter whatsoever. All data that they hold on you
 

[BankFodder]

Thank you.

First of all, this is not chronology so we don't have any sense of the timeline.

It's still rather complicated – but maybe when you produce a chronology it will come more into focus.

However, there are a few things that we can start to tease out.
You say that you accepted £250 in an offer which was intended to reflect distress. Although you say that you accepted this offer mistakenly, it may well be that you have no further rights on this issue because of course it would have been up to you to understand the situation properly before accepting any kind of financial offer.

However, it would be useful to understand the reach of this offer and so please could you post up the offer letter by uploading it in PDF format.
You say that "high-volume messaging" is not explicitly covered in the terms and conditions – but there may be references to "fair use policy" and it may be an interpretive problem rather than looking for words which specifically match your situation. So it will be helpful to know what words Vodafone were relying upon and also what was the extent of your high-volume messaging. Did they give you any warnings.
You say that they referred to terms and conditions which you did not sign. However, it isn't necessary to sign terms and conditions. We would have to understand more about the context – but generally speaking if there is an agreement which refers to terms and conditions from the outset and you then embark upon the agreement and use the services, then all the signs would be that you've accepted the conditions of use. Signed written terms and conditions are generally speaking only required in contracts for property or copyright or shares.

You say that the contract was put in your sole name despite the fact that the company name was on the agreement. We don't have a chronology so we don't see how long this went on for and you don't explain why you didn't raise any objections to this – or maybe you did?

You say that you have sent Vodafone and Lowell an SAR but "so far" you are waiting for a response. This suggests that you sent the SAR some time ago – but you haven't told us anything about when this might have happened.

You are referring to obligations under the Consumer Rights Act but I'm afraid that these obligations refer to contracts between a trader and a consumer – and you are not trading as a consumer so these probably wouldn't apply to you.

Finally, you are worried about expressing a claim in legal language. If you begin a small claim then you certainly don't need any legal language – and in fact that kind of approach simply gets in the way. Also, it seems to me that you are gearing up to bring a court claim – which is fine, in my book – but you haven't identified your cause or causes of action and you don't have a plan.

I think we need to slow down and have a more careful and methodical look at the situation. Otherwise you're simply going to find yourself in trouble

[BankFodder]

14 minutes ago, Consumer2020 said:

It says on the document that it is private and confidential and that it can not be disclosed to any person or organisation not directly involved in adjudication unless it is necessary in order to enforce the decision...

Send a copy to me by email at our admin email address

 

Also, I suggest that you involve us in your dealings will CISAS to the extent that you let us know what settlement has been proposed and we can give you an opinion as to whether it is reasonable or not.

[BankFodder]

If you upload documents as a scanned PDF, then generally speaking the qualities retained. It's when documents are uploaded in JPEG format that we have difficulty.

Have you sent an SAR to Vodafone?

You haven't told us the extent of your texting even though I did ask you about this

[BankFodder]

I'm trying to understand Vodafone's failings here. I've come up with a bit of a list

 

• Failed to open account correctly – placing in personal names rather than business name breach of contract and breach of data protection.
• Suspends services contrary to contract??? - Breach of contract?  If the high-volume messages are permitted under contract.
• Peremptory termination of contract  Breach of contract- if the high-volume messages is permitted under the contract
• Incorrect account balance - breach of contract – if account is in personal names then also breach of data protection
• Failure to produce deadlocked letter – breach of contract.
• If the account balance et cetera is incorrect and the account was incorrectly set up, then the entry onto the credit file is also a breach of data protection rules.
• Sharing data on this basis with a third party is also breach of data protection rules.

I'm afraid that there is still information missing here.

I'm afraid that there is still information missing here.

I asked you specifically about the extent of your high-volume messaging – and you haven't responded.
I also asked you about the terms and conditions that they were referring to – and we haven't seen them. Although you have posted some documents, you can simply photographed them rather than scanned them.

Surely if you are running a business you must have access to a scanner.
I think it is reasonable to ask you to present us with documents in a way that you would like them presented to yourself if you were providing help to somebody who had a problem.

 

[BankFodder]

What I am likely to be more specific than that. You say "group" texts. Doesn't it strike you that somebody might like to ask how many people in the group?

[BankFodder]

47 minutes ago, Consumer2020 said:

I hope this will do. 

Vodafone_T&C.pdf 3.18 MB · 1 download

I'm terribly sorry – I'm doing my best but all you've done is post up another photograph – slightly better this time but still a photograph of very very dense two column text in small print.

We just don't have the resources to be able to hunt through it. I can't even apply word search.

I've actually tried to convert it to text and the quality is so poor that it remains illegible. Here is a Microsoft Word version of what you have sent. We shouldn't have to do this.

 

Vodafone_T&C.docx

 

Also, I gather that what you are trying to put up are a copy of the terms and conditions which Vodafone are trying to apply to you – and you say that you are bound by some different terms and conditions – but we don't know what they are. In order to make any judgement here then we also need the comparator.

You may feel that I'm giving you a hard time, but it is getting to be a bit of a struggle to understand the whole situation. It shouldn't be this hard

Also, we haven't seen a document yet. I've received nothing in my email

[BankFodder]

Also, when your service was suspended, were you given any warning about this?

Additionally, a suspension implies a temporary cessation of service and it will be resumed. Did Vodafone say anything about this when they suspended you?

[BankFodder]

Thank you. Now we need to see a legible copy of the terms and conditions that Vodafone say applied to you – and the comparator version which you say actually did apply to you.

By the way, I think you did very well getting CISAS to reopen the settlement. I certainly wouldn't have expected that.

[BankFodder]

Incidentally, the reason that we are going through all of this is to understand the value of your losses or what you have suffered so that if and when CISAS come back with a different proposal, we are all in a position to decide whether or not it is a good proposal or whether you should decline it and follow your own course of action.

Of course what will be helpful from CISAS will be to see all of their findings because that will produce very useful information to put before a court and it will be very compelling evidence.

[BankFodder]

Well if this is the quality of the documents that you are handing out to people when you are trying to deal with this extremely serious matter then you will tend to lose sympathy.

I'm sorry to say but looking at the history of what's happened, you've got people who apparently tried to start a business so you imagine that they are being businesslike.

They walk into Vodafone store and walk out with a contract in the wrong name and the wrong kind of account - and apparently they don't notice.
They then start sending large amount of text messages which may or may not be contrary to the terms of service – we don't know because we still haven't seen a copy of the terms and conditions or the comparator.
Then a dispute arises – and eventually there is apparently a settlement but you then managed to misunderstand the settlement so that everyone thinks it's a done deal so that you then have to reopen it.
And after all this time, you are only just now become aware that the documents that you are handing out our pretty well illegible.
We also have to go through an extensive correspondence for you to identify our admin email address

Have you tried using Adobe Scan? This is an app which exists at least on the Google play store – and I suppose it is on the Apple Store as well and this should allow you to scan your documents into a text format.

You should not scan the entire document, you should scan it a column at a time.

It would also help if you would isolate the actual terms which you are referring to – but of course without the comparator it's not a lot of use.

I have to say that if you mean that you have been sending two groups of text per week of up to 5000 members in each group – then this could add up to 10,000 text per week – over quite a number of weeks then this sounds strongly like "volume messaging" to me.

I suppose we would eventually need to understand what Vodafone's definition is. Also I'd be interested to know whether the sole trader contract which you entered into was very different from the business contract that you intended to enter into and whether that business contract would have permitted a high level of texting.

These are all important questions to ask and if you haven't furnished this kind of evidence to CISAS they may well end up making a decision purely on the evidence in front of them. And you can be certain that Vodafone would have done a far more efficient job of putting their case before CISAS – partly because they are used to it – and partly because they are probably better organised than you are.


 

[BankFodder]

Still waiting for the settlement letter please

[BankFodder]

First of all I'm a bit concerned that you are considering sending this case out to solicitors. Believe me, they will simply charge you a load of money and end up shuffling correspondence around and then eventually try to persuade you to take some kind of compromise because they want to get the file off the table and move on to the next case.

Even if eventually you decide to go to solicitors, you will save money and also have much more powerful control over them if you let us help you examine the case with you in order to really understand your position. However, I don't see any need to go to solicitors at all. This is really not a matter of law – and even if it were I would consider that solicitors would be out of their depth.
I defy you to find any firm of solicitors who has any experience or background in this kind of dispute.
The only people who do have experience in this kind of dispute will be Vodafone's own solicitors or the solicitors acting on behalf of other telecoms companies – and of course they won't be working for you.

I'm still waiting to receive a confidential copy of the settlement letter – unless you decide not to send it.

So I understand in fact that there is only one set of terms and conditions although you did earlier on say that there was an agreement referencing the "wrong terms and conditions" which led me to believe that there was another set of terms and conditions and that this was what was causing the dispute. A contractual ambiguity.

In fact I now understand from you that there was only one set of terms and conditions – presumably the one which you have posted up – and it is now a matter of interpretation.

Maybe you could find the actual cause within those terms and conditions and post those up. If you took a close-up – in focus – photograph of the particular clause you are referring to then we can start have a look at that.

Have Vodafone never given you any basis for their differing interpretation?

[BankFodder]

You say you want to be pointed to the relevant law. But it's really very wide. You are referring to the law of contract on one hand and there also seems to be data protection issues on the other hand.

The contractual issues here seem to be based on an interpretive disagreement – but we don't have enough information from you yet to know precisely what it is that is being interpreted because we haven't seen the relevant clause. Also we don't understand the basis of your interpretation of that clause and we do understand the basis of Vodafone's interpretation of that clause.

Because these are interpretive differences, I'm afraid you won't find any discrete easily identifiable legal parcel that will give you the answer. Apart from anything else, English law doesn't work like that. English law is all about reasonable interpretations - and that is why we have a case law system – as opposed, for instance to civil law jurisdictions in Europe where law is completely written down and although interpretations have to be made, at the end of the day they can always fall back on the written word.

That doesn't happen in this jurisdiction – especially with areas of law like contract. Especially with contract law as it applies to businesses which is considerably less prescriptive than contract law as it applies to consumers.

We really do need to see the clause in question which seems to have caused so much problem and then we need to understand how this causes been interpreted by Vodafone and also by yourself.

The data protection issues are much clearer because data protection is a codified law and it is much simpler to point to inaccurate processing – which is a legal duty and it seems that Vodafone may have breached this. However, estimating the damages for breach of data protection law is rather more difficult – especially when you are dealing with damages for distress – which is one of the heads of damage which is available under data protection legislation.


 

[BankFodder]

Of course it's up to you if you want to send me the settlement letter. I don't know what you think I'm going to do with it – post it up on Facebook maybe?

I don't think it will do you any harm to see the letter in confidence – and at least we would get an angle on what has been said and what you have apparently agreed to.

We receive lots of secrets from people who come to this forum for help – but if you don't want to send the letter then that's fine. Only you didn't say so earlier on so I've been waiting for it.

[BankFodder]

Your contract was in 2016 – and I can't seem to get hold of any terms and conditions of that date from the Vodafone website.

However, I have found this https://www.vodafone.co.uk/business/business-mobile-plans/unlimited-data-plans on their current website. Is there any chance that this reflects what you bought?

[BankFodder]

If you have received a lot of paperwork then you might want to have a look at the advice we give about how to deal with your court bundle or subject access request disclosure. You may give you an idea as to method.

You talk about "breach of privacy" – I've been interested to see where you think you have such an action available and whether such an action exists in English law.

Also, you are talking about £40,000 damages – not only is this an improbable figure – verging on the impossible, it also takes you into extremely dangerous waters because that puts you onto the "multitrack" where you will become liable for the other sides extraordinary costs if you lose – and my guess is that you would.
You would certainly have to justify a loss of £40,000 in considerable detail. This is not a figure that you can just pluck out of the air such a figure would have to be very carefully explained to the court.

I can't imagine a solicitor agreeing to go along with a claim for £40,000.

You refer to "no win no fee". Be careful – it's not all it's cracked up to be – and all it really would mean is that if you don't win then you don't have to pay a solicitor fee. If you do win then the solicitors fee will partly be taken from your winnings because the amount awarded in a court in his like to be less than your actual costs.
If you lose, then it is correct, you won't pay the costs of your own solicitor – but you will pay the other side's costs. No win no fee doesn't protect you against costs incurred by the winning party.
 

 

A final quick word about no win no fee: you have to decide what winning means. If the solicitor negotiates a deal – which you may find unsatisfactory but which the solicitor insists is reasonable and a good outcome – then you will be obliged to accept because if you don't, the solicitor may still come after you for the fee on the basis that it was the best deal available and the solicitor won't be deprived of fees simply because you didn't manage to satisfy your own expectations – even though they may have been higher.

You should understand that no win no fee motivates solicitors to bring a fairly speedy solution – almost on any terms – so they can pronounce it as "a win" and then pick up their fee.
You might get a no win no fee deal and come away extremely aggrieved at the idea that you have had to compromise far more than you wanted and not only that, a fair amount of your winnings have been taken out of the reduced/compromise settlement.