Switch card theft: question

Oh, bloody hell - another one jumping on the band wagon of compensation culture. This newsgroup is filling up with them.

Grow up! Stop eeking out the 'I'm a victim' mantra.

Grow up and be grateful that you ARE getting your money back now....rather than after the prosecution!

Marcus

Well, given that the courts will probably give the offendera slap on the wrist, why shouldnt he claim and give the thief some more hassle. Small claims court is probably the best way, chances of you actually getting something off them are twofold, slim and fat.

I thought the Small Claims procedure was only for simple cases, in which assessment of the damages was pretty well clear-cut. If you're going to claim for airy-fairy stuff like compensation for inconvenience, pain and suffering, etc, don't you have to use the full-blown procedure, where you gamble rather more than the trivial SC fee?

DUnno. I guess you can always lose, but I dont see why you cant put a value on it and have a try, especially if the amounts you put up arent taking the piss.

"Marcus" wrote in news:fs9eb.18$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net:

So you think I should just lay back, be royally shafted be this guy who will probably get sod all punishment, and accept it. Bollocks to you.

It's time people started fighting back against criminals. Sadly I'm not allowed to go beat him up, but why the hell shouldn't I get recompense for the damage he's caused me !!!

How are you getting shafted? He took the money, you are getting it back. Did you miss direct debits payments that you are not getting reimbursed?

I am not saying whether you should or should not try and sue him, all I am saying is i don't see your justification for suing him. I don't see how you have been that affected by it?

Simple, it took money (telephone calls), time and hassle for him to clear it up, and caused him worry, why shouldnt he be compensated for that?

Someone should probably point out that a thief is probably 1) not in any position financially to cough up extra dough (and who is to say that it's not stolen money he/she would pay with) and 2) even if a judgment was rendered against the thief, it's not like the police or government will go and torture the person until paid up - more likely it could take years of further legal action and threats.

so imho it's not worth it, not to mention that the 'pain and suffering' line of thinking has been overused and abused by people exploiting the system - american style. I agree with the poster who said you should just be happy you got your money back. I also agree with whoever said that this person is likely to get a slap on the wrist because of the kindly british nanny state. until the people get fed up enough to start voting in tough-on-crime-build-more-prison-even-if it-takes-raising-taxes types, that's not likely to change. ~dh

The best that could happen for you would be a judgement in your favour against someone with no morals or money. The court could "order" the thief to pay you 50p per week for the next umpteen years, but as a thief has neither money nor respect for the law, you wouldn't get the first payment.

The worst that could happen is for you to spend more time and effort for nothing.

I understand where you are coming from. Good luck whatever you do.

You appear to care so little about your stress and physical problems that you wish to add to them by suing someone, one of the riskiest types of case under English law ?

Try posting to uk.legal

The only financial advice I can give is to investigate legal insurance to remove the cost & stress of any future incidents.

Daytona

I am being quite glib with my answer, But I like to play devils advocate sometimes.

How many phone calls is a hassle? Was it one to the bank and that was it? More than one?

If taking the money from his account, did not affect him at all financially, is he going to sue for a couple of quid in phone calls? Or the phone calls, and 2 hours of time at £4.60/hour

We have to experience times where we have to phone someone to remind them, and it causes us hassle quite regularly if you sat and thought about it, But you wouldn't sue everyone that caused it, or you would be starting 2 lawsuits every month.

For example, I called the council 6 weeks ago to collect some stuff from my house after some Home Improvements, I have since called them twice(Being on hold for long periods), and it has cost me money, and been hassle, but i wouldn't think of suing them. If my train in the morning is late, and I have to get a taxi to work, I don't sue Scot rail. Its part of live

I would imagine, that suing the guy is going to be far more hassle, and cost far more than the original inconvenience would ever be.

You haven't been a victim of theft. Your bank has.

Sue your bank (if you must), it is their crap customer service which appears to be at the root of your problem. The thief deserves to be punished, but it isn't his fault your bank needed to be chased up on this.

Dom

Good points, though the deliberate nature of the theft obviously exacerbates it more.

But, people have succesfully got compensation from companies that didnt turn up when they said they would, or caused more problems than they _reasonably_ should in a business transaction.

And, perhaps if more people did sue or just kick up a fuss, we wouldnt have as many late deliveries, cancelled trains, etc. While you sit back and do nothing, why should they care or change their behaviour? If its more expensive to cancel a delivery (because they have to pay compensation to you), than to employ extra people to get the job done properly, they would employ more people or make sure their systems didnt screw up. At the moment, since it costs them nothing to screw you over and keep their costs lower, why should they change?

Because by employing more people to deliver the same service/product more reliably, you make that product more expensive. That will either make a company which does as you suggest less competitive than one which doesn't, which is suicidal unless it can sell itself on the reliability card, or else, if everyone does it, the customers get stung for paying for extra reliability which -let's face it- many of them don't need.

But you'd know the real cost, and would the be able to analyse which was the best company (not just in terms of cost. Currently, all you see isa list of prices,a nd you ahve no idea if the cheapest (or best for you by another criteria) really is that price, or if they are going to pass soem extra of their costs back to you in the form of delays, hassle, etc.

If two companies, for example said 'product+delivery 28 days 100' and 'product+delivery 7 days 110', and you knew those were reliable quotes, you could make an informed choice. As it is, both companies will say 'product+delivery 7 days 100' and you dont know which will screw you over in delays and cockups(or maybe both will).

The answer is to get signature on delivery, so that time of delivery is documented and agreed. Then if it was on time, you pay the extra £10, otherwise you don't.

And what mass-market companies today offer this service?

None, because no-one needs to. Most companies offer a quick service and in fact deliver it. I was merely postulating a possible solution to your hypothetical problem.