Legal Eagles - Tell me why this idea won't work...
Discussion
So, today I've spent most of of my time getting more and more pissed at Sony and UKMail's customer care. I won't go into specifics, but they've wasted a great deal of my time. Speaking to a friend she had a similar story to tell regarding Vodafone screwing up their billing with her and I'm sure neither of us is alone in suffering from shoddy customer service from companies that should know better.
I'm not a fan of compensation culture, not in the slightest, but I'm also not a fan of big corporations showing a complete disregard for any semblance of customer service knowing that a few annoyed customers won't make much difference to their bottom lines and most customers don't have any options other than to rant at their customer service reps (when you finally get through to them).
So, whilst walking this dog this evening, I came up with the idea for non-profit organisation and online platform. For people who have genuine grievance against a big corporation, they'd be able to submit the details of their problems, along with evidence to this platform. With help from law students and/or legal samaritans they'd be able to submit their application for compensation to whichever company they have been wronged by. The company would then be able review the information and either fight the claim or concede and pay compensation.
The twist is that whichever claims for compensation are successful, the money conceded will be given to charity. Either a charity of the claimant's choice, or added to a pool to be shared equally amongst all charities signed up.
In my mind, the claimants win on principle by taking their fight to the worst offending corporations, the legal samaritans gain valuable experience and can use the experience to further their careers, whereas the offending corporations get hit where it hurts whilst charities benefit from successful claims.
So where are the flaws - why won't this work?
I'm not a fan of compensation culture, not in the slightest, but I'm also not a fan of big corporations showing a complete disregard for any semblance of customer service knowing that a few annoyed customers won't make much difference to their bottom lines and most customers don't have any options other than to rant at their customer service reps (when you finally get through to them).
So, whilst walking this dog this evening, I came up with the idea for non-profit organisation and online platform. For people who have genuine grievance against a big corporation, they'd be able to submit the details of their problems, along with evidence to this platform. With help from law students and/or legal samaritans they'd be able to submit their application for compensation to whichever company they have been wronged by. The company would then be able review the information and either fight the claim or concede and pay compensation.
The twist is that whichever claims for compensation are successful, the money conceded will be given to charity. Either a charity of the claimant's choice, or added to a pool to be shared equally amongst all charities signed up.
In my mind, the claimants win on principle by taking their fight to the worst offending corporations, the legal samaritans gain valuable experience and can use the experience to further their careers, whereas the offending corporations get hit where it hurts whilst charities benefit from successful claims.
So where are the flaws - why won't this work?
jammy_basturd said:
...most customers don't have any options other than to rant at their customer service reps (when you finally get through to them).
Twitter and Facebook are your new friends as routes to logging complaints that can often get an instant positive response in order to reduce reputational damage. This is the new model.Monkeylegend said:
I also suspect that most people who win compensation will not want to give it away to charity.
Yep, don't understand why anyone would bother.I've got a case ongoing with a utility which has taken considerable time out to resolve. If the cheque was going to charity I suspect (rightly or wrongly) I'd be less inclined to pursue it with the same vigour.
I've acted for a few friends as freebies in cases like this.
The incompetence of these companies beggars belief, which is part of the reason why the dispute has remained unresolved to that point.
That lethargy does not alter post-Court proceedings and, as odd as this may sound, it's sometimes more labour-intensive to pursue a case against a unresponsive opponent than it is one who pro-actively participates. Jumping through the necessary hoops can be a right ball ache even in circumstances where you have a Judgment in default. Only when you go to enforce a Judgment do the Defendants tend to wake up and pay up.
So you are doing a lot of work for nowt.
Add to this the fact that the Court fees vastly increased in the last few years. And more hoops to jump through (as above) means little additional Court fees along the way. Someone has to fund these (presumably the Claimant here?) and when we are talking a "debt" of a few hundred quid...
As an example, I did a favour for a mate in a case against a big utilities company for a few hundred quid a couple of months back. I have just checked my accounts system and the disbursements in terms of the Court fees totalled £145. Yes, he recovered those as well, but its still finding that when you are already down to the tune of the debt.
If the case does get defended you've then got to find someone to represent you at the hearing, or do it yourself. And then there is the time off work to attend etc etc.
The money claims online site is relatively straight forward to use. The Court fees are no different (slightly cheaper but I would use the MCOL on behalf of someone anyway) but you don't require representation and, for the most part, its simple enough for the average Joe to navigate unless you then meet a defence.
The government is doing what they can to withdraw access to justice for the little person and to make the Court's profitable by upping costs to access them. In many instances legal representation is disproportionate so folk will have to rely on a mate or do it themselves.
The other option, of course, is to consult the CAB and seek legal advice from the volunteers there. That's where many of these good legal samaritans hang out and have done for years.
The incompetence of these companies beggars belief, which is part of the reason why the dispute has remained unresolved to that point.
That lethargy does not alter post-Court proceedings and, as odd as this may sound, it's sometimes more labour-intensive to pursue a case against a unresponsive opponent than it is one who pro-actively participates. Jumping through the necessary hoops can be a right ball ache even in circumstances where you have a Judgment in default. Only when you go to enforce a Judgment do the Defendants tend to wake up and pay up.
So you are doing a lot of work for nowt.
Add to this the fact that the Court fees vastly increased in the last few years. And more hoops to jump through (as above) means little additional Court fees along the way. Someone has to fund these (presumably the Claimant here?) and when we are talking a "debt" of a few hundred quid...
As an example, I did a favour for a mate in a case against a big utilities company for a few hundred quid a couple of months back. I have just checked my accounts system and the disbursements in terms of the Court fees totalled £145. Yes, he recovered those as well, but its still finding that when you are already down to the tune of the debt.
If the case does get defended you've then got to find someone to represent you at the hearing, or do it yourself. And then there is the time off work to attend etc etc.
The money claims online site is relatively straight forward to use. The Court fees are no different (slightly cheaper but I would use the MCOL on behalf of someone anyway) but you don't require representation and, for the most part, its simple enough for the average Joe to navigate unless you then meet a defence.
The government is doing what they can to withdraw access to justice for the little person and to make the Court's profitable by upping costs to access them. In many instances legal representation is disproportionate so folk will have to rely on a mate or do it themselves.
The other option, of course, is to consult the CAB and seek legal advice from the volunteers there. That's where many of these good legal samaritans hang out and have done for years.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff