Sued for a bad Trustpilot review???

[Haggisman]

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

So to go back to the ordering a GPU from OCUK analogy. If you ordered a 6800XT, but instead received a 6800GT, it wouldn't be a scam because you at least received something?

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Some great reviews on there. Pretty shocking service really. Ask for help, receive no help, leave a review, get sued for said review. You'd be crazy to use that firm. Their website doesn't particularly instil professionalism either, its as dated as they come. I don't think they fully thought this one through from a PR perspective.

 

[Nasher]

Not sure how that happened. Trustpilot is just opinions and you cant sue an individual for an opinion.

But lol they are getting review bombed now. Dont **** off the internet...

 

[touch]

So to go back to the ordering a GPU from OCUK analogy. If you ordered a 6800XT, but instead received a 6800GT, it wouldn't be a scam because you at least received something?

It depends. If they've intentionally sent out the wrong item in the hope that I wouldn't notice then that's deception and I would consider it a scam. If they've accidentally sent out the wrong item, then there's no deception and I don't consider it a scam. (but I'd still be within my rights to complain about the service - that's a separate issue)

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Another 50 reviews have been submitted (156 bad)

People need to learn and to stop leaving 1 stars, they are too easily deleted. 2 stars with a few 'positives' in there should do the trick.

 

[COYS]

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.

I understand what you mean. If he'd just said something like he received a terrible service, took them ages, they didn't help him with his issue, the advice he recieved was not satisfactory, he'd wasted £200 etc (a kinda standard review on trustpilot) then that's a reasonable review. It's not libel so is OK.

To claim 'scam' then he is claiming someting that is false information that he is unable to prove, which is forseeable to cause damage to the firms reputation. This was presented as false in the court by a witness statement from the firm of solicitors showing the firm to be in good standing.

In your further restaurant analogy you are comparing something that is a scam and is demonstrably so (the photo), to something that isn't (his claim they are a scam company).

 

[hyperseven]

Some great reviews on there. Pretty shocking service really. Ask for help, receive no help, leave a review, get sued for said review. You'd be crazy to use that firm. Their website doesn't particularly instil professionalism either, its as dated as they come. I don't think they fully thought this one through from a PR perspective.

I was going to mention their site, 7 years old but looks much older in design

The 'internet' are now attacking their few posted YouTube videos now https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHHehfBocVtxaqpS81canbw

 

[CaptainRAVE]

I was going to mention their site, 7 years old but looks much older in design

The 'internet' are now attacking their few posted YouTube videos now https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHHehfBocVtxaqpS81canbw

Haha, brilliant. Its hard to feel sorry for them. They'd be better off just moving on, most people would ignore one bad review and one that said 'scam' anyway.

Their best video is how to deal with disputes - I think they should have followed their own advice and open a line of communication.

 

[m@rty]

Stupid move from them, they will now feel the wrath of the internet before issuing a full apology in an attempt to save their business

 

[Kenai]

Piecing together from various stories, it seems the original review said the following, at least in part:

a total waste of money and another scam solicitor.'

I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me.

No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law.

I suspect if he'd simply omitted the comment about 'another scam solicitor' he'd have been just fine. The rest is a (presumably) honest assessment of the service he received, that would have been easy to defend if challenged. He has no basis to assert that the company is a scam though, which is what they've targeted him for - i don't know if it's defined legally anywhere, but it's effectively accusing them of conducting business fraudulently.

edit -

He did not attend the remote hearing held last July, at which Master Cook struck out the defence of honest opinion, as the law says this cannot succeed where the words used – in this case, ‘scam’ – convey an allegation of fraud.

 

[Haggisman]

It depends. If they've intentionally sent out the wrong item in the hope that I wouldn't notice then that's deception and I would consider it a scam. If they've accidentally sent out the wrong item, then there's no deception and I don't consider it a scam. (but I'd still be within my rights to complain about the service - that's a separate issue)

but then how do you prove intention?

I'd argue that a law firm is exactly the kind of business who are perfectly placed to intentionally mislead a client whilst ensuring they stay just on the correct side of that fine line where they can get away with it.

Edit: would point out that I'm not suggesting they were actually doing so in this case (please don't sue me London law firm Summerfield Browne ) but it's not exactly far from the realms of possiblity.

 

[COYS]

Piecing together from various stories, it seems the original review said the following, at least in part:



I suspect if he'd simply omitted the comment about 'another scam solicitor' he'd have been just fine. The rest is a (presumably) honest assessment of the service he received, that would have been easy to defend if challenged. He has no basis to assert that the company is a scam though, which is what they've targeted him for - i don't know if it's defined legally anywhere, but it's effectively accusing them of conducting business fraudulently.

It said:

""A total waste of money another scam solicitor Stacey mills left the company half way through my assessment and the replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law. Once they have your money they are totally apathetic towards you. You will learn more from forums, you tube and the Citizens advice website about your case, for free"

 

[Nasher]

Seems fair tbh

 

[Semple]

A bit torn on this. To those saying he deserves it, what's to say that his opinion that they are scammy isn't genuinely felt? And if it is, he's entitled to say it isn't he?

He's perfectly entitled to that as an opinion, but you can't leave a review calling them scammers as that is libelous.

Had he kept his review factual, XYZ never replied to emails despite agreeing to a deadline, or XYZ wasn't interested in my case and had a poor attitude, or XZY agreed to a price of Y but the resulting invoice was Y x 2.

 

[BUDFORCE]

He should employ the same firm of solicitors that sued him, to counter sue trustpilot on the basis that trustpilot didnt make him fully aware of the conseuqnces of his actions or by leaving a negative review.

Good PR for the solicitors, win win for everyone.

 

[Minusorange]

They probably enjoy all these negative reviews and see them all as new sources of income when they take everyone to court

 

[Zeeflyboy]

A bit torn on this. To those saying he deserves it, what's to say that his opinion that they are scammy isn't genuinely felt? And if it is, he's entitled to say it isn't he?

No, an opinion doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof that what you are saying is true when it causes damage to reputation and income. He failed to prove that what he was asserting was truthful (didn't even bother to defend in fact) and paid the consequences. Had he just left a review saying the facts of what happened and left 1 star, there would be no case... however he accused them of fraudulent behaviour by using the word scam.

Otherwise libel and slander literally wouldn't be a thing in law - a newspaper could just say "well it's our opinion that dl8860 is a kiddy fiddler" and there would be no recourse, even if it caused you financial harm and destroyed your life.

Some people's idea on what an opinion is has become somewhat distorted... you can have an opinion on whether mint ice cream is nice, you can't have an opinion that 2+2 = 5... well you can, but you're just wrong and saying "well it's just my opinion" doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[touch]

I'd argue that a law firm is exactly the kind of business who are perfectly placed to intentionally mislead a client whilst ensuring they stay just on the correct side of that fine line where they can get away with it.

Edit: would point out that I'm not suggesting they were actually doing so in this case (please don't sue me London law firm Summerfield Browne ) but it's not exactly far from the realms of possiblity.

We don't know what was agreed between them or what work was done but I'd be inclined to take the solicitor's side on this. The review doesn't sound factually correct to me:
The review said that the solicitor didn't add anything and he got back "just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information" but also that it was full of assumptions and errors? How can they have included assumptions if they havn't added anything?

It says there was no legal information: "or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done" but also that it was "showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law". How can it identify a lack of understanding of the law if there's no legal comment included?

 

[ttaskmaster]

The guy didn't even show up to the court hearing, though.
Had he done that, he could have presented his side and possibly landed compensation for wrongful prosecution (or whatever the particular term might be), or at least saved himself a hefty fine through mitigation and downplay.

It might seem like bad PR, but the firm still won their case and that will appeal to some prospective clients.

 

[Hades]

Not sure how that happened. Trustpilot is just opinions and you cant sue an individual for an opinion.

But lol they are getting review bombed now. Dont **** off the internet...

Depends what's said really. I don't know what the guy wrote. But if you write something like "They are scam artists" then it could be considered libel. If you write "In my opinion they are no better than scam artists" then that's certainly an opinion rather than stating it as fact.

He should have turned up to court too. Not doing so would mean a default judgement.