Hi Blog World.

My name is Bill Watt, I'm 84 years old and I live in Scotland.
I've recently had a run in with the Carphone Warehouse (a mobile phone company) and the legal authorities here and I would like to tell you all about it.
Now let me begin ...

 I will publish details of how I got to the Court stage later, Regarding two u,s, mobile phones Plus lies and rubbish from the idiots from CarphoneWarehouse's Legal team.

Carphone Warehouse Troubles

 Back to where my troubles started.


 I got a call from O2 a part of Carphone Warehouse saying as I was nearing  the end of my contract, they were offering a new deal and phone,   I listened,and accepted a new deal.


The phone arrived, I charged it overnight,   It died while I was inserting numbers from my old phone within   1/2 hour in following a,m     I called CPW,   it couldn't be fixed over the phone,  was asked to take it to their unit at Parkhead Forge,   They were mystified also. I returned it,  received another one in exchange, a week.   ditto.  Defunct morning after charging overnight,


Same performance at Parkhead Forge   A new battery was inserted, I went home and charged it overnight,  dead again within seconds.  Returned to the Forge  where  I was then told,  this is not a new phone, it is a clearance phone  and the Manager pointed out a line of letters thus   CLE another eight -BLACK-NEW    he said,  the first 3 letters mean clearance , after the other eight  non-descript letters,  the dash, then BLACK- meant black phone,  when I enquired what the NEW after the next dash meant,   he was stuck,   I asked , was it not possible it could have meant New phone ,  he wasn't sure,  and I believe he was the manager.


Back to CPW   I cancelled and returned the second phone and demanded to hear the tape where I was offered, and accepted, a clearance phone,    I was told it would take two days to get back to me with it, when they didn't call in three days I called them ,  this time it was a female  who listened while I repeated the full story,  said it would take a further seven days ,  I replied,  you have till the close of office tonight to have someone call me with it or AM tomorrow I will be citing you at Hamilton Small Claims Court.


   I never heard the tape then or since !!!!!!


I cited them for the money taken from my a/c plus Court expenses
   Never a sound from CPW until a week before the sitting  ( approx 9 weeks) when one of their numb-sculls called me offering apologies for their mistake, offered to pay what I asked including expenses, asking if I would be good enough to convey this to the Court on their behalf and mine , saying it had been settled with no further money being owed to or from either party.
   I did that.
Continued, three months later.

PART 1 - Hamilton Small Claims Court

I will begin by saying I stand by everything I am saying re how I suffered Justice Hamilton Small claims Court style, when I cited Carphone Warehouse for harassment for the third time after receiving two apologies and payments, for their mistakes earlier.       I have no fear, as all I reveal will be in the Court records. There were quite a few Solicitors preparing for their own cases and many members of the public too.        As I was required to do, I sent in a letter earlier to the Court saying the reason I was now suing for £2950 was to stop the harassment of CPW .

When the case was first called, a lady Magistrate listened to my side then CPWs Council and told me, Council are saying you cannot claim for three cases, only this third case as the other two had been settled.     I replied,   It is precisely because they were settled by CPW admitting their fault, settling the first two cases, admitting I didn't ever owe them any money, twice, and on the second occasion have me blacklisted and have Roxbourghe's Debt agency send me two threatening letters.     The Head  Office   didn't respond to my letters,  nor did they defend my action , eventually paying up and apologising,       Three weeks later they  threatened me again with the possibility of a Debt Agent.( more of that later)      I was then persuaded by the Magistrate in the meantime that I should take 14 days to moderate my claim, taking account of the third claim only.


A letter was sent to CPW against my better judgement reducing my claim to £550 to fall in line with the previous paid claim.


When Council tried to object, Her Ladyship said, and you Council, have the same 14 days to produce the tape that you claim   Mr Watt was offered £300 to settle this present case,   against Mr Watt's assertion that all he was offered was £100 and the only time £300 was mentioned was , that was all it would cost CPW to hire Council to defend the action.


NOW WE COME TO THE REAL JUSTICE I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING  
.
The new Council was an attractive young Female who knew how to play her cards well. She stood with her gown hanging from both elbows. almost as tho' auditioning for one of those types of shows where men might sue tabloids which claimed they had visited.        
Her  Firm is called  Bell & Scott and the hearing date was 10th July 2008.
The magistrate a male of rather mature years, asked me,  " when did you hear again from CPW after you was threatened with another Debt Agency?".      I replied, not till shortly before this third case was about to begin,      What were you worried about then ?,      I replied,   was I to wait till some thugs kicked in my door to value my belongings.?
I am a man of 82 years severely handicaped with Athritis in the spine, knees and ankles, had two heart attacks,  suffering from angina for more years than I can remember, and,  I live alone,    That old apology for a Judge said,    Surely you are not saying that pressure and harassment caused your athritis in the spine, knees and ankles, your heart attacks and angina,?  


That was a pathetic comment   even for him

 I HAVE SINCE HAD A QUADRUPLE BYPASS !!!!!!!

No your honour, What  I am saying  is,  that a person of my age and condition is bound to feel the pressure of harassment more than most.
Pay Attention to this, his retort was. You can't claim harassment because YOU BROUGHT THE CASE MR WATT, YOU BROUGHT THE CASE.


So it would appear that I wasn't able to sue for harassment, because I was bringing the case.?    Maybe I should have waited till CPW brought the case against themselves


Eventually, as he showed no sign of offending the young Council I had to ask him about the tape she was told to bring to prove that CPW's Legal office weren't lying when they claimed I was offered £300 against my assertion that I was offered  £100 and the only time  £300 was mentioned was that was all it would cost to defend my action.   he nodded almost apologetically for her answer.
Her reply was a classic. Remember this was a Council who had spent her time telling the Court I hadn't a case, She stammered, Your Honour, That office is a shambles, that's all I can say a pure shambles.
That clown accepted it and awarded me £150 . I am absolutely sure this was to make out I had won.    and so should not be able to appeal.    I wonder if CPW  were happy for their Council to claim their Legal Office was a complete shambles     Since it stopped them having to prove they were not liars, as their tape would have surely proved them to be..Unless, of-course, Being CPW,  they probably felt , the end justified the means.   Integrity isn't the first thing I would associate with CarPhone Warehouse
   Remember also,  this was a Judge who accepted that without further comment, although that was the only piece of evidence she was ordered to bring by the  Lady Magistrate  at the previous sitting.


Robert MUGABE of Zimbabwe, would have been proud of him. 


Of-course, she didn't bring the tape because it would have proved beyond doubt,  that she  and CPW were lying to the back of their teeth in claiming I was offered £300 to settle the case.   as I have a letter from Rhona M Wark of Bell & Scott telling me that CPW  were renewing their offer of £100 to settle. 


As I got to the door, he tried to be a stand up comic by calling out, Mr Watt, I don't think you will be getting a Xmas card from CPW this year.        He wasn't much good at that either.

See the Next Post >>>>>

PART 2 - Falsely Blacklisted by Carphone Warehouse

Three months later   I found Carphone Warehouse (CPW) had resurrected this spurious  non existent contract and had taken more money out of my bank account. I wrote to their Head Office, detailing all that had gone on before, including the result.      Not even an acknowledgement from that scum-bag of a Company.


A few days later I found I had been blacklisted for non payment of debt to CPW   followed by two threatening letters from Roxburgh's Debt Agency.


 I called Mr Roxburgh,  read out my letter from my PC to him,   He asked , as a matter of urgency if I could forward a copy to him.    I did and when I called back later, he said  Mr Watt,  as soon as I received your letter , I  wrote to CPW asking for an explanation at once,  now after 14 days they haven't even given me  the courtesy of a reply,   so I have written again telling them    " I WILL NOT BE ACTING FOR YOU AGAIN UNLESS, OR UNTIL,   Mr Watt and myself have had a satisfactory explanation"       However Mr Watt,  you can bin those two letters from me,  thank you.   


Back to Hamilton Small Claims Court (HSCC)   Cited them again, waited the usual 9 or 10 weeks,  Found CPW had not defended, received the Court papers awarding me the £550   inc, exp, I claimed,     waited the required time ,    sent them on to the Legal Office of CPW ,  finally one of their razor sharp Legal Eagles  by the name of Catherine Norris, called me to say,   (I have these papers for view)   Mr Watt I have a citation from you demanding   £550 .   that seems a lot for just having been blacklisted and two letters from a debt collector,   I was thinking,  £300 would be enough.   She didn't say what she had used  to think with.       I replied,  I will take £550 inc exps.     She said,     I will require to get someone more senior to decide.     Is this  the same Catherine Norris who,  as the person who was fully  up to date with the proceedings so far,     I was supposed to write to,  and not reply to the idiot who had sent me the latest letter,  who had little idea what he was talking   about ?


She herself must be quite a way up the Corporate ladder if she wasn't quite ready to make such a big decision..


Readers make think I am kidding but as I have said,  I have these letters as as proof.   It gets better,     A letter arrived two days later saying,   If you don't accept OUR OFFER of £550  ,We can go back to the Court saying you were not being reasonable and ask the Court to make the decision of what was reasonable.  BECAUSE, the first sighting I had of the case was when you forwarded the Court papers ,to me on a date,  six weeks previous to the date on her letter.


So there you  have it.    I cited them for £550   they did not defend,  I was awarded £550 by the Court,   I demanded £550  and that galoot threatened to return to court if I didn't accept THEIR offer of £550 pounds.


Being the softy I am I accepted.!!!!   

PART 3 - The Third Claim

Three weeks later,  another demand from the same resurrected  defunct contract,  with another threat of a hearing from a Debt Collector.


Back to Hamilton Small Claims Court (HSCC)  with a letter explaining that I was going for the jugular to get the harassment of this disreputable Company of  my back,


In their defence statement Bell &Scott  claimed.   Mr Watt's credit rating has not suffered in any way,  this matter has now been remedied , and he has not been inconvenienced. 
 In fact I was denied a phone from another source  and it was only remedied  some months later   then three weeks after I received the latest cheque and apology plus a letter explaining how all the staff had now been instructed on the proper method of dealing with complaints,  I received the latest threat of  the risk of a call from another Debt Agent.


The statement ended by saying,  " The averments of the pursuer are irrelevant in specification and insofar as material do not disclose a case state-able in law, and the defenders should be assoilzied    ( no,  I don't know what that means either)   with expenses in their favour.".


My answer to that was Bell Scott lost  the defence, but due to a performance in Court  that must have raised many an eyebrow among the Legal Eagles,  they escaped what should have been a very real monitory penalty


Rhona M. Wark of Bell& Scott made  deliberate statements which she  did not verify to be true in her defence of my action


(1)  She claimed .  The Defender's   Office instructed the Pursuer's debt be removed from the system with immediate effect, and that the Pursuer's credit rating be restored.
      In fact it was some time before  they even replied to my letter, to the Head Office and,  in the meantime I found out I had been blacklisted by CPW and refused a new phone from another Company, for non payment of debt, and had received two letters from Roxbourghe's  Debt Agency..      I never got a letter in reply from that Low Life Company .neither did Roxbourgh. who intimated, he would no longer act for them.
     IF  Bell &Scott didn't know this , they had not done their homework or had been lied to by whoever instructed them.    BUT if Bell & Scott  DID know ,    What does that say about them?


(2)   She said , as is his wont,  Mr Watt did not contact Catherine Norris, with whom he had been in correspondence on the 26th March but  instead wrote to the Manager of the section, who had no knowledge of the previous proceedings.
   Another deliberate attempt to gain advantage by lying innuendo.
I did write to  the Manager,  it was a reply to his letter,   why the hell was he interfering if he had no knowledge of the previous.
    Catherine Norris,?   Would that be the same Catherine Norris who wasn't senior enough to agree to £ 550  ,  sat on the files for six weeks after her first sight of them, offered me £300 then told me " if you don't accept our offer of £550 , we can go back to the Court to ask it to make what they consider a proper decision ?."  Don't you feel that, just maybe  I had spent enough time trying to prise a modicum  of common sense out of the afore-mentioned Catherine Norris, without seeking her out when it wasn't her that contacted me.


  This was sent to Court as CPWs defence but was not put to me to deny.


(3)  Council had claimed ,  as I stated earlier that I had been offered £300 , and got away with not producing the evidence as ordered at the previous sitting earlier by claiming " that office is a shambles"  That's all I can say,   a pure shambles.    The  Judge nodded sympathetically to her,   I was surprised he didn't add   I understand pet.  don't worry 
  "  I offer this as fair comment and honest opinion* con.sidering his whole woeful performance
 While Bell&Scott says in another letter  " their letter renews their offer of  ONE HUNDRED POUNDS in full and final settlement..
  so who is lying this time. Council claimed I was offered £300 .  obviously it was  Council from Bell & Scott.


CarPhone Warehouse  Lied when they instructed Council I was offered £300
AND Rhona M Wark  had proof positive that they lied before her Council  claimed that in Court.


Don't make any mistake  Bell & Scott had the letter saying £100  and it was   Council from Bell & Scott who claimed I had been offered  £300  and then failed to produce.  


Another example   of the way Rhona M Wark  has of  using innuendo to suggest  I was at fault in the same letter   " Please note, that in the event you do receive further correspondence from Carephone Warehouse,  that regardless of who the letter is signed  by or from,whom,  these letters should be sent either to myself or to Miss Norris at CPW".  A  third, and probably, better option, could have been, the village idiot.


Rhona M. Wark   would have made more sense if she had warned the fools at CPW who appear to  write  such letters about which, even the Legal Company acting for them say they know next to zilch about,     should shut up. 
Then again  Miss Wark  would probably have made a lot more sense if she herself had said less.      Although,  if Miss Norris is her only option,  I can't say  she has a lot going for her .    Because she finishes with this wonderful observation   "Had you contacted Miss Norris direct this matter would have been resolved instantly.


  Such innocent  faith in a client's abilities and integrity, would bring a tear to a glass eye.


This  looks like Hobson's choice     The Devil or the deep blue sea    else    A Nitwit   or a Halfwit  


I can't speak for all viewers, but, as for me,  there is more chance of hell freezing over, than I would listen to anything in future,  that came from Catherine Norris and her fellow suspects in CPW ,   or Rhona M. Wark and co from  Bell & Scott


 Of course, if  Council can tell deliberate lies in Court , simply to save a mega rich client a few bob,   I shouldn't think slavouring rubbish advice like this, is going to test her conscience  .


I still find it hard to believe,   or take,   that any court in U.K. would not demand that Council produce that tape under severe penalty for failure 


  BUT HAMILTON SMALL CLAIMS COURT DID






   Meantime,   I rest my case.         B.W.