Claim against well known Warranty Provider UPHELD
Discussion
Baldchap said:
Given we are now discussing factual events that have been verified by an overseeing body, rather than opinion, why isn't the name of the company allowed to be posted?
Used car buyers have a right to know what this company is like.
PH are dreadful when it comes to standing up for themselves or forum users. Name and shame rules go too far.Used car buyers have a right to know what this company is like.
A PH thread recently got pulled at the behest of a "sale or return" specialist car dealer in the north - there is documented proof, emails, everything FROM HIM that he has absconded with over 40K of a punters money - no slander, no libel: it's FACT. The chap is a common thief, nothing more. Yet PH side with him and pull the post.
Thankfully 911uk.com have got more spine.
As a person who always tries to help people leveraging things like the Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Rights Act, I'm happy you've kept a level, reasonable head and done everything by the book and got this far.
Hopefully the Ombudsman nails them to the wall if they decide to let it go that way.
Top man.
Hopefully the Ombudsman nails them to the wall if they decide to let it go that way.
Top man.
Dog Star said:
PH are dreadful when it comes to standing up for themselves or forum users. Name and shame rules go too far.
A PH thread recently got pulled at the behest of a "sale or return" specialist car dealer in the north - there is documented proof, emails, everything FROM HIM that he has absconded with over 40K of a punters money - no slander, no libel: it's FACT. The chap is a common thief, nothing more. Yet PH side with him and pull the post.
Thankfully 911uk.com have got more spine.
There was one for over £220k !A PH thread recently got pulled at the behest of a "sale or return" specialist car dealer in the north - there is documented proof, emails, everything FROM HIM that he has absconded with over 40K of a punters money - no slander, no libel: it's FACT. The chap is a common thief, nothing more. Yet PH side with him and pull the post.
Thankfully 911uk.com have got more spine.
This has made my day. I was rolled over by this lot years ago and have warned as many people as possible away from using them.
So pleased for you, and good for you for your perseverance. In my opinion that company should be investigated for malpractice as I’m sure many give up the fight.
Shame on PH for pulling the original thread. This kind of dishonest business practices needs to be called out.
So pleased for you, and good for you for your perseverance. In my opinion that company should be investigated for malpractice as I’m sure many give up the fight.
Shame on PH for pulling the original thread. This kind of dishonest business practices needs to be called out.
Am I right in thinking that the naming and shaming rules are to prevent claims of libel or slander but neither is actually possible if what has been written is factual?
If so, the rules are being misinterpreted now surely?
Can we also argue that if the naming and shaking rules are actually/also to protect advertising revenue that is fine, but it is reasonable to expect some honesty about this (as we generate the clicks that create an additional revenue stream)?
Or a less pompous way of putting it may be to just say that we are all corporate w
es!
If so, the rules are being misinterpreted now surely?
Can we also argue that if the naming and shaking rules are actually/also to protect advertising revenue that is fine, but it is reasonable to expect some honesty about this (as we generate the clicks that create an additional revenue stream)?
Or a less pompous way of putting it may be to just say that we are all corporate w
es!
Rewe said:
Am I right in thinking that the naming and shaming rules are to prevent claims of libel or slander but neither is actually possible if what has been written is factual?
If so, the rules are being misinterpreted now surely?
You would have thought so. If so, the rules are being misinterpreted now surely?
But we live in a dictatorship either worried about their own shadow or concerned (maybe?) that a future/present advertising customer is being discredited. Either way their reasoning is illogical and downright wrong. Once facts are proven to be facts, and are not conjecture or open to debate then the name and shame policy should be bypassed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff