Sued for a bad Trustpilot review???

[touch]

The fact he doesn't appear to have bothered to try to fight it is probably a big part in why he lost...

Here is some of his correspondence with the court and his reasoning why he didn't turn up:

1. The court responded by informing the Defendant that he should copy his emails to the other party as required by CPR 39.8. The Defendant responded as follows:
   
   
   "I am well aware of the history of this application and I responded to it at the time with a witness statement answering all the issues.You have not answered any of my points or addressed any of the issues I raised.If you seek a response from me for you procedure, then you could include my witness statement in the court bundle along with this email chain and the judge can read it all before the hearing should he/she wish to do so.I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending.By continuing with the hearing you are undermining the integrity of your own institution"

He doesn't make life easy for himself.

 

[dl8860]

No, you can't just make any statement you want and claim that it's your opinion when challenged on it.

In defamation law, the defence of personal opinion where an honest person could have held the same opinion given the same facts. He paid the solicitor to do some work and they did some work for him. He maybe wasn't happy with the standard of the work but no honest person would consider it a "scam".

I would consider it a scam if I received the same information regurgitated back to me, like he asserts. Wouldn't you feel scammed in that case? For the purpose of this hypothetical let's assume they did just do that.

 

[COYS]

So if you have a bad meal in a restaurant, and leave a bad review, the restaurant owner should be able to sue you for libel unless you can 'prove as factually true' that you had a meal you didn't enjoy?

No, because that's not libel.

 

[dl8860]

No, but i presume if you had a steak and left a review stating that the steak was horrible and probably dog meat.

Then you're making a statement that is untrue and you would be opening yourself up for libel.

Sure, if the guy said that during the course of his engagement with the company they harrassed him, told him his case was pathetic and he was an idiot, and he left a review to that effect despite it being untrue, then yeah libel.

But I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he did in fact feel scammed, having just had his information regurgitated back to him. If he genuinely felt that and isn't legally insane, then he's entitled to that opinion and should be allowed to share that in my opinion.

 

[Martynt74]

I would consider it a scam if I received the same information regurgitated back to me, like he asserts. Wouldn't you feel scammed in that case? For the purpose of this hypothetical let's assume they did just do that.

I wouldn't say it was a scam, a poor piece of work (depending on what was asked), but not a scam.

To me a scam legal firm would be full of people who aren't trained legal professionals who are just trying to con people.

 

[dl8860]

No, because that's not libel.

Uh.. you made the argument that in order to say something negative in a review, it needs to be proven factually true in order to not be libelous. Can you not see the circular reasoning in your argument?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Stick to the facts in a review and you won't have a problem, start throwing around emotional accusations that you can't back up and you'll run into problems. Especially if it's a law firm you've decided to rub up the wrong way

This is excellent advice for all areas of life.

 

[dl8860]

I wouldn't say it was a scam, a poor piece of work (depending on what was asked), but not a scam.

To me a scam legal firm would be full of people who aren't trained legal professionals who are just trying to con people.

If you're selling legal services, take a fee up front and perform no actual legal work but merely repackage information then that is dishonest and could be described as a scam in my opinion.

 

[touch]

I would consider it a scam if I received the same information regurgitated back to me, like he asserts. Wouldn't you feel scammed in that case? For the purpose of this hypothetical let's assume they did just do that.

No, I wouldn't feel scammed. A scam is a deception or trick used to cheat someone. I can't see what the deception here could be?

I wouldn't be happy about it and would likely make a complaint though.

 

[dl8860]

No, I wouldn't feel scammed. A scam is a deception or trick used to cheat someone. I can't see what the deception here could be?

I wouldn't be happy about it and would likely make a complaint though.

Have you not been cheated if you pay for a service and don't receive it?

 

[COYS]

Uh.. you made the argument that in order to say something negative in a review, it needs to be proven factually true in order to not be libelous. Can you not see the circular reasoning in your argument?

No, that would be his defence to a libel claim, that they actually were a scam firm. That's what I meant if not clear.

Having a bad meal and leaving a reasonable negative review stating that isn't libel. In that case you you don't need to prove you didn't enjoy it.

 

[hyperseven]

Another 50 reviews have been submitted (156 bad)

Should you be able to sue your own clients

 

[touch]

Have you not been cheated if you pay for a service and don't receive it?

He did receive the service. It wasn't what he expected, which may be grounds to complain. It doesn't mean he was scammed.

If you order a gfx card from OcUK and they are slow to send it and it turns up a few days late, they have not provided the service you expected so would you consider that they are scammers?

 

[dl8860]

No, that would be his defence to a libel claim, that they actually were a scam firm. That's what I meant if not clear.

Having a bad meal and leaving a reasonable negative review stating that isn't libel. In that case you you don't need to prove you didn't enjoy it.

OK, so to make things clear, I'm not saying calling a solicitors a scam is the same as saying you didn't enjoy your meal. It's a much heavier accusation, I just mean that if it's how he really feels then it's legitimate criticism.

To continue the restaurant analogy, it would be like if you went to a restaurant and ordered the steak and they brought you a photo of a steak instead. That would be a scam, because you aren't getting what you'd reasonably expect to receive. I think we can all agree you'd call that a scam. This bloke believes that a solicitors repackaging his information as 'legal advice' is similarly scammy, and if that's what they did then I agree with him.

 

[dl8860]

He did receive the service. It wasn't what he expected, which may be grounds to complain. It doesn't mean he was scammed.

If you order a gfx card from OcUK and they are slow to send it and it turns up a few days late, they have not provided the service you expected so would you consider that they are scammers?

No, receiving something a few days late and not receiving something at all are very different things, obviously.

 

[Haggisman]

He did receive the service. It wasn't what he expected, which may be grounds to complain. It doesn't mean he was scammed.

Depends what service he paid for.

If it was "please rewrite this letter in a legal form so I can send it to ABC", then yes, he received the service.

If it was "please engage with ABC on my behalf to achieve XYZ", then no, he didn't.

Assuming what he said in the review was accurate ("what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me") and that wasn't the service he had paid for then to be honest I don't see anything wrong with his review. His mistake was not defending himself in court - if he'd been able to show that was what happened then I can't see how he would have lost?

Be interesting to see how the balance of PR works out - a lot of people will have never heard of the company before but sometimes this kind of negative PR isn't good (see Gillette) especially if handled badly.

Yup, good old Barbra Streisand Effect

 

[Tom_ed1987]

Just a solicitor chancing their arm; under the enduring illusion that the internet is serious business. I'm sure it will all be dropped shortly to save face if nothing else.

 

[Haggisman]

Just a solicitor chancing their arm; under the enduring illusion that the internet is serious business. I'm sure it will all be dropped shortly to save face if nothing else.

Too late for that, London law firm Summerfield Browne will forever be known as "that law firm who bullied a customer who left them a bad review"

 

[Kenai]

I would consider it a scam if I received the same information regurgitated back to me, like he asserts. Wouldn't you feel scammed in that case? For the purpose of this hypothetical let's assume they did just do that.

Consider there is also a difference between saying 'I feel like i've been scammed' and 'this person is a scammer' or 'this is a scam company' - one is a statement of feeling, the other is an accusation.

 

[touch]

No, receiving something a few days late and not receiving something at all are very different things, obviously.

That's not the case though. Had he not received anything at all then it could possibly be considered a scam but not necessarily so.