Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2021
- Posts
- 1,726
wow the others that followed with the reviews are fooked to then
Sued for a bad Trustpilot review???
- Thread starter hyperseven
- Start date
Not if they're not defamatory comments, which is the point most of the follow-up reviews don't understand as being the legal issue here, being more than just a bad review. Same applies for many in this thread.
youd have to find them first wouldn’t you, and I doubt they would bother when they can just have the reviews deleted.
the difference is the guy in the original review was known to them, they had all his details.
If your opinion is that the food is bad, no you won't be sued for that.
If you accuse the restaurant of scamming/fraud (which is not an opinion), then they'd probably have a good case, unless you can prove such a claim.
As per my earlier quote:
'Honest opinion' doesn't come into play when you're making direct accusations of misconduct like fraud.
What if they offer their services for £200, stating they will give an assessment of somoeone's legal position, but then only send back their documentation, but re-worded; but they're also doing the same thing to other people? Could you not reasonably consider that a scam? But I guess it involves proving the latter. Which he was unable, or unwilling, to do.
I suggest the person who responded to his enquiry was probably an office junior and possibly not even fully qualified.
If he was the first and his review put people off using them, then he has potentially prevented a scam and has performed a public service?
The above are questions and not statements. So I'm not accusing any one, or any thing, of scamming.
Last edited:
Made assumptions about how their client's ambiguous wording should be interpreted?
Again, quite possibly misinterpreting what he said to them, and rewriting what he had written incorrectly, or referencing completely irrelevant material.
If I set up a solicitor's office and when you ask me to take on a case, I run the documents you provide through Google Translate a couple of times, then send them back to you with some references to completely unrelated cases, would you not think that was a scam?
The quality of the work provided is central to whether the statement was defamatory - if he was able to provide evidence that the work provided wasn't what was paid for then is there anything to prove they weren't trying scam him?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/4
If the guy genuinely believed they were out to scam him and wanted to warn off others, then surely that would apply? Of course the court would still get to make a judgement on whether he did genuinely believe it (and the fact he didn't chase it up with them or follow their complaint's process etc. certainly wouldn't go in his favour), but it doesn't seem quite so clear cut.
Either way, it's certainly not a win for the solicitors. They've lost far more reputation than they would from a single review, and given that the guy now lives in Sweden, they're unlikely to see a penny of the £25k.
IMO, both parties involved are petty.
Reviewer should've complained in a better, more useful way rather than pretty much just accusing them of scamming. But equally the firm didn't have to turn around slap them with such a ridiculous legal action without seeking other means to get the review removed to avoid any damage. They both overreacted.
Give them both a slap.
Reviewer should've complained in a better, more useful way rather than pretty much just accusing them of scamming. But equally the firm didn't have to turn around slap them with such a ridiculous legal action without seeking other means to get the review removed to avoid any damage. They both overreacted.
Give them both a slap.
I'm sort of coming round to the idea the reviewer is at fault and should know of his responsibility to be more careful with defamatory statements, but I still feel uneasy that he can incur a 25 grand slap down for expressing his genuine opinion.
Defamation: libel and slander - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales) (hse.gov.uk)
Defences to defamation
That seems to be a blurry enough line that I can't really find him too responsible. This does depend on their legal work being basically non-existent as he claims still. If he's made it up out of nothing then yeah, guilty as charged (I know it's civil not criminal).
It's sort of a good point that a judge who has reviewed the case obviously knows better than me, but judges aren't perfect.
Defamation: libel and slander - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales) (hse.gov.uk)
Defences to defamation
That seems to be a blurry enough line that I can't really find him too responsible. This does depend on their legal work being basically non-existent as he claims still. If he's made it up out of nothing then yeah, guilty as charged (I know it's civil not criminal).
It's sort of a good point that a judge who has reviewed the case obviously knows better than me, but judges aren't perfect.
The defence of Public Interest was thrown out largely because the guy effectively asked for money for removal of the review in his defence (ie a refund of the solicitors fees).
He's lucky it was just £25k. They also asked for special damages to the sum of £12500 but the Judge rejected that because they hadn't made out that claim sufficiently in their evidence. There is a slight irony here given the allegation from the bloke of duff legal work
He's lucky it was just £25k. They also asked for special damages to the sum of £12500 but the Judge rejected that because they hadn't made out that claim sufficiently in their evidence. There is a slight irony here given the allegation from the bloke of duff legal work
Yeah actually I retract that statementAre you really though? Be honest
They won't be able to figure out who they are. If they aren't customer linked reviews they have no way to find them. Plus they are likely burner accounts/email addresses. They have tanked the company's score and there is no comeback for them. As soon as they re-open for reviews it will happen again so they are a bit screwed.
TBH all people have to do is write "allegedly" before/after accusations and they can say whatever they like.
There are also comments about their site breaking GDPR rules (allegedly), so now the vulture are probably circling them. If they are doing that they are likely to be storing personal information insecurely. 25k will be peanuts next to the fines they will get for that.
Last edited:
They have now brought even worst PR on themselves.
Don't these companies realise that there will always be a percentage of people they can't please. This is why its always a percentage total as the final score.
They could have just replied to his comment with the facts.
Don't these companies realise that there will always be a percentage of people they can't please. This is why its always a percentage total as the final score.
They could have just replied to his comment with the facts.
Seems like a lot of people seem to think it's okay to express "opinions" they can't back up with facts.
That kinda thing tends to get you in trouble when these "opinions" you express are about individuals or companies that will sue you for losses incurred.
That kinda thing tends to get you in trouble when these "opinions" you express are about individuals or companies that will sue you for losses incurred.
All the recent reviews will get deleted and the internet will get bored and move on, any stragglers will get flagged by the company and removed later by TrustPilot on review if they're not satisfied they're from genuine customers
but you also have to take into account the fact that he didn't bother to turn up and defend himself.
I also don't think anyone would be taking the guy's side if it weren't for the fact they sued him for £25k - that's a ridiculously disproportionate amount for a single review from basically a "nobody".
If it had been a reasonable amount for their time + costs to get the review removed then I'm sure most people would have thought "fair play", but if a well established business is in that much of a precarious position that a single negative review has such an impact, maybe they're just looking for a scapegoat? Every business is going to end up with a customer they couldn't please now and then, and (assuming they are actually a good & legitimate business) anyone sensible looking at reviews will see a 1000:1 ratio of good to bad, and treat the bad ones with the scepticism they deserve
And in 5 years, anyone doing a google search for reviews about the company will still find a BBC article about how they sued a customer for a bad review popping up in their search results
Last edited:
but you also have to take into account the fact that he didn't bother to turn up and defend himself.
I also don't think anyone would be taking the guy's side if it weren't for the fact they sued him for £25k - that's a ridiculously disproportionate amount for a single review from basically a "nobody".
And in 5 years, anyone doing a google search for reviews about the company will still find a BBC article about how they sued a customer for a bad review popping up in their search results
Yep and being the BBC site it will probably come up first lol
I'm predicting they will change their name. I think what they did was stupid and was always going to backfire, no one likes lawyers as it is.
That being said have you ever read reviews for things online like hotels some people are nuts. "Had an amazing time, lovely room, amazing grounds with very friendly staff and superb value for money. The only downside was they ran out of orange juice one morning" . Rating - 3/5
People take things for granted and are very harsh with reviews. I'm a ebay seller and only 1/20 even bother to leave a review but God forbid you make a mistake and you can guarantee you get a negative.
That being said have you ever read reviews for things online like hotels some people are nuts. "Had an amazing time, lovely room, amazing grounds with very friendly staff and superb value for money. The only downside was they ran out of orange juice one morning" . Rating - 3/5
People take things for granted and are very harsh with reviews. I'm a ebay seller and only 1/20 even bother to leave a review but God forbid you make a mistake and you can guarantee you get a negative.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,772
- Location
- Location, Location!
I'm siding with the guy on this one, you can't trust a law firm with a website designed in the 1990's. It doesn't exactly give off the impression of a professional firm, and suing a client and taking £25k for a bad review. haha, they clearly are a useless firm if they think that is good practice.