The Ability Organisation Ltd v Vodafone Ltd

Judgment against Vodafone Ltd in the Slough County Court

Background to the case.

Vodafone advertised a free Blackberry Storm mobile phone on condition that the customer had to sign up for a minimum contract of 18 months.

Mr Brown of The Ability Organisation Ltd needed a new phone and pre-registered for the phone. He had been with Vodafone for many years and was not under contract with them except for the standard one month's notice period. When he called the salesman initially told him it was an "upgrade" but when questioned at length admitted that the offer was open to anybody and it was not an upgrade as Mr Brown would have to agree a new contract with a minimum length of at least 18 months at nearly double the monthly rental he was paying at the time. Despite confirming that the phone would be free Vodafone sent an invoice for the phone £160+) a few days after Mr Brown received it. Mr Brown contacted Vodafone immediately but says they were

extremely unhelpful. He spoke with a number of people, repeating his story each time, but Vodafone insisted the invoice must be paid or the phone returned. Mr Brown had to go to the trouble of arranging for the phone to be returned and seek out another phone with another company, and transfer his number to the new company. In the meantime Vodafone took the cost of the phone by direct debit and failed to return the money to Mr Brown's company despite promising to do so after they received the phone back. Mr Brown sent a number of emails and threatened legal action but they were all ignored. One was even deleted without being read.

Mr Brown reported Vodafone to the Advertising Standards Agency who took up his complaint. After some time they reported that a senior employee at Vodafone admitted that Mr Brown should have received the phone after all but that didn't stop them defending the case in court.

Mr Brown claimed the cost of an equivalent phone from another provider plus other expenses and the return of the money he says Vodafone had stolen from him. Vodafone denied everything except the money they should have returned to Mr Brown's company and demanded that Mr Brown proved everything. Unfortunately for Vodafone, Mr Brown had taken a note of every call he made and every person he spoke to. Despite this, and the intervention by the ASA, Vodafone still went to trial. Their solicitor agued their case and even tried to claim legal expenses against Mr Brown's company. Their defence was astonishing. No witnesses or statements from any of the people involved in the dispute. Instead Vodafone chose to reply on an expert witness to prove their case. A "Customer Relation Specialist" made a statement wherein he claimed that he could analyse "the brief notes of actions which have been logged on the airtime account and thus provide an account history". Part of those records showed that Mr Brown contacted Vodafone two months after he had cancelled the contract and "recommitted through the april campaign of £50 cash back" !!! Vodafone's solicitor and the District Judge also had a laugh.

Vodafone's solicitor claimed that there were no witnesses because of the cost involved. Vodafone's defence and claim that Mr Brown was still under contract was dismissed. The judge actually found that they were in breach of contract and that it was Vodafone that terminated the contract by not honouring it and having the phone returned. The judge also expressed her surprise at Vodafone's decision to allow Mr Brown's business to go to a competitor. Mr Brown's company were awarded the cost of the alternative phone, costs and expenses. Vodafone were given two weeks to pay and they didn't even manage that. Their cheque and letter that accompanied it wasn't even written or posted until the day it should have been received. And that was after the judge had warned Vodafone that the judgment would be registered against them if they didn't pay on time.

Mr Brown says that the judgment against Vodafone Ltd is better than the hundreds of pounds it cost them in court. He says he hopes their behaviour is publicised.

Vodafone Judgment

<< Back