Attempt to be silenced by a Main Dealer

[Ninja59]

Originally Posted by volvorocks

Hi Ninja59

Yes I agree with your thoughts although slander is the spoken word and libel the written.

Howsoever labelled they do of course come under the label "defamation"

Regards

yes i know that i actually study law (GDL) and have done IT law but online bulletin boards and forums are annomyly in the world of defamation...

http://www.out-law.com/page-9330

Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court

Defamation on internet bulletin boards is more like slander than libel, a High Court judge has ruled. Mr Justice Eady said that bulletin board discussions are characterised by "give and take" and should be considered in that context.07 Aug 2008
Topics

E-commerce and the internet
Freedom of information
Hosting and maintenance
Regulatory
TMT & Sourcing

In a multi-defendant lawsuit concerning posts on an investors' bulletin board, Mr Justice Eady said that comments on a board are not to be taken in the same context as those in, for example, a newspaper article.

He said that the casual, conversational nature of bulletin boards meant that defamatory comments were more like slander than libel. Slander relates generally to spoken comments and libel generally to written and published ones. In English law it is harder to win damages for slander than libel.

"[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out," he said in his ruling. "Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

"When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions," said the ruling. "People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."

Nigel Smith runs a shareholder action group and his behaviour prompted comments on investor discussion bulleting boards run by ADVFN Ltd. Smith sued ADVFN and 37 individuals over comments claiming defamation.

Mr Justice Eady said that Smith had persistently pursued cases which were without merit and issued a civil restraint order against him, barring him from starting further actions. He later conceded that he could not do that, though, because he had stopped lawyers arguing about a civil restraint order in the course of the trial.

He did, though, order the continuation of a general stay on those cases which had already been begun.

The posters on the bulletin boards had criticised Smith for what they saw as heavy-handed behaviour and the issuing of threats of legal action by Smith when criticised. One said that he supported "those who were being threatened and bullied by … Mr Smith", and called Smith a bulletin board bully.

Another said: "I do not believe any of [another poster's] posts have been defamatory and Nigel Smith has behaved in an appalling manner. NS has discredited himself by his own actions".

Mr Justice Eady said that these comments were likely to be protected as fair comment, which means that they cannot count as defamation as long as they are posted without malice and represent the poster's honest views.

"I referred to common themes in the postings, such as that of 'bullying' other users and making 'threatening demands' for money. That is classic fair comment territory and, in the light of the modern authorities, it is inconceivable that a jury would find any of those who expressed such a view 'malicious' – let alone all of them," he said. "Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. It is fanciful to suppose that any of these people did not believe what they were saying. Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them."

In a case last year a number of posters on a football discussion website received similar protection. Club Sheffield Wednesday and some of its directors took a bulletin board to court to force it to reveal the identity of posters, but Richard Parkes QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said that the identities should not be revealed.

"I do not think it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes," he wrote. "That, it seems to me, would be disproportionate and unjustifiably intrusive."

Parkes ruled in the case that the expected right to privacy of the posters, who had posted using pseudonyms, outweighed the right of the directors and club to protect their reputation when the remarks in question were trivial.

Parkes was representing ADVFN in the current case.

Mr Justice Eady stressed that his ruling applied to the case before him, and that publishing via new technologies could lead to successful claims.

"I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim," he said. "I am focusing only on these particular circumstances."

In English law, a victim of libel can win damages even if he has not suffered financial loss as a result of the statement. A person who has been slandered must prove that actual damage has been suffered. Scots law, which does not distinguish libel from slander, requires proof of harm but not necessarily financial loss. In a defamation action under Scots law, there is a defence if the statement was made in the heat of an argument. The defence does not exist in English law.

Editor's note, 08/08/2008: Our original headline for this story was 'Internet chat more likely slander than libel, says High Court'. As a reader pointed out, real-time internet chat is a different type of platform from a bulletin board. So we've changed our headline for clarity.

Following the logic of Mr Justice Eady's reasoning, it seems highly likely to us that had the defamatory comments been made in an internet chatroom or by Instant Messenger, they would also be treated as slander, not libel.

assuming you understand the significane of using Outlaw/Pinsent Masons online resource...

[volvorocks]

Ninja 59

Thank you for posting the long reference the content of which is noted. Very interesting if I may say.

Being a law student means if you keep studying and eventually pass your exams you may become a practising lawyer which is indeed a well paid profession and in being a recognised and qualified lawyer you will over the years gain much experience so I say keep studying and go for it.

BTW I was actually in agreement with your thoughts on the position although slander is indeed the spoken word and libel is indeed the written.

Regards

[t5_monkey]

Interesting read

[Ninja59]

Originally Posted by volvorocks

Ninja 59

Thank you for posting the long reference the content of which is noted. Very interesting if I may say.

Being a law student means if you keep studying and eventually pass your exams you may become a practising lawyer which is indeed a well paid profession and in being a recognised and qualified lawyer you will over the years gain much experience so I say keep studying and go for it.

BTW I was actually in agreement with your thoughts on the position although slander is indeed the spoken word and libel is indeed the written.

Regards

Its quite an odd ball field tbh the courts will never truely keep up tbh...although it is naturally a field of obvious interest when you consider the rest of my post.... it has with it various technical problems right upto the latest EU decision regarding human rights and the possibility it might be illegal to block certain web pages (which would invalidate the recent newzbin (sp) case with BT having to block the website (and the others that were looking to be blocked)...

the question instantly here really is a forum a "form" of bulletin board...overall general easyness when someone puts a defamation claim general in is for the person or moderators to remove the post/thread etc. for safety. And if anyone saw my post on here in the past few months in regards to the potential changes to defamation it would make the world online much more challenging.

Saying that defamation is the most expensive form of litigation out of any field and the reason there is so few cases because it naturally requires a jury unlike any other form of civil claim...hence why it instantly is a high court jobby...the values involved easily go buy the threashold of 50K...

Already have one degree but in IT but studyed some law at a lower level and am at one of the well recognized large law schools if i mentioned (CoL) those in the know and all that already moving onto the LPC just looking for TC's i have so little time sometimes its mad! just enough time to go for a random drive for a few miles see the new GF and wash the motor ha!

i thought you were and i do not deny any of the information you have said as the general principle is what you have stated...

[s60ben]

Originally Posted by t5_monkey

Clive should have just resolved this.

Accusing someone of dangerous driving is entirely a separate issue to his displeasure at your account of events.

Tying the two together is silly and puts him in a very poor light. If he felt your driving was dangerous he should have informed the police immediately.

The worst thing about this, is Clive's reply.

They did resolve the initial problem of the large bill at the other dealers, but it was bloody hard work.. and I don't appreciate the manner in which I was spoken to, or lied to.

As for the "dangerous driving" that's a recent invention, as when he bought it up during the conversation it was speeding...

You are correct about the police bit, It would have been an easy one to track me down... LOL

As for all the "legal advice", thanks guys, but in all honesty, its not a threat that bothers me, i can quite happily prove my case without breaking a sweat.

Not only that, it detracts from the very important points at hand.

I may summarise them later.

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by Ninja59

Already have one degree but in IT but studyed some law at a lower level and am at one of the well recognized large law schools if i mentioned (CoL) those in the know and all that already moving onto the LPC just looking for TC's i have so little time sometimes its mad! just enough time to go for a random drive for a few miles see the new GF and wash the motor ha!

i thought you were and i do not deny any of the information you have said as the general principle is what you have stated...

Hi Ninja59

Yes indeed I was in agreement with your suggestions in your original post so was a tad suprised to read what I felt was a slightly defensive response on your part..

Whichever way its interpreted "defamation" or any tortious actions are notoriously complex and costly to pursue

I am aware of Mr Eady and his "rulings" and whilst not in much of a position to do anything about it (nor having any wish to do so...LOL) I tend to disagree in part with his opinion, which is after all what it is!!

I can see the point though that internet forums or mediums otherwise similar in nature are sort of 2 way "discussions" so he has deemed them "chat" so therefore potentially slander oppose libel.Notwithstanding, posting in a forum is STILL technically typing which has to be read so is therefore written so is therefore libel.!!!!!....I am sure there will be a challenge to slander v libel sometime..!!

Anyway a valid point worth making whether one is to talk, write, chat in forums, papers, in person or otherwise - is that it is always wise and prudent to think first....!!!!!....and if they have not and it has been published in an internet forum then to re-publish "mutatis mutandis"....

Regards

[irishcarfan]

Superb post by Lightfoot

Re-reading through all of this, I can't believe these guys are main dealers?

I know BMW are very strict on their dealers and we lost 2 well-established dealers where I live. Perhaps it's time that Volvo takes a closer look. Having said that, we've lost 3 or 4 main Volvo dealers out here over the last few years, but that's for a different reason...

[munsterbigfeet]

It's funny, I have worked in main dealers, and now run my own small garage on the South coast.. Within main dealers (especially Mazda) the rules on warranty/used car prep are simple... keep cost down... BUT, all tyres 3mm or more, bulges are a no-no etc etc...wonky plates and mangled bumper cut outs do nothing for advertising the staff competency! I would be embarassed rectifying such simple 'school boy' errors..puts the 'spanner men' in a bad light.
I repair and MOT cars for a guy who rents the forecourt, he has sold used cars for 30 years, people come back time and again with friends and family to replace/buy another car, he preps the cars well enough for them to a) look 'right' and b) feel like you have spent your money wisely. If a man can prep his cars in a double garage (and recovering from a quadruple heart op) and they still look fresh, why can't a main dealer/specialist??? Makes me shudder what their MOT practices are like if it was freshly MOT'd before handover... tyre bulge and numberplate lamp out are a failure, PAS leak be an advisory.....

Sorry to hear of your woes, hopefully you have a car that drives and looks as it should now.

[Lightfoot]

Thanks everyone for the replies and other comments, especially Ben. One thing that I didn't stress in my post was that the sales staff who sold me the car KNEW - it had been explained at the time, that my wife is terminally ill and that I needed a good reliable car to get her to hospitals and hospices where she is receiving treatment. So they sold me the car in that condition without any thought or care. I know the salesman concerned was new to Clive Brook and that this car was his first sale for them, but he had come from another Volvo Main Dealer. Also the management at Clive Brook must have known the condition of the car, so was it used as a test for their new salesman???

That was something else that Munsterbigfeet reminds me. The car had an MOT Certificate but it was six months old, so the car had not been MOT'd by the Dealer. They must have known it would fail.

[s60ben]

Thanks Lightfoot


The issues that currently and going forward that will affect Lightfoot, are the fact that the car does not qualify for the Selekt Scheme, it was advertised as a Selekt car (I have a copy of the advertisement).

This makes quite a large impact on the Warranty Cover provided, the "Selekt" warranty, covers everything, and has very few exclusions.

The "normal" warranty, doesn't cover everything, far from it.

Personally, if I were Mr. Brook I would do a number of things, in this precise order.

1. Apologise profusely in writing, for the issues at hand.
2. Resolve the warranty issue directly with Volvo Warranty (shouldn't be hard, they are local after all...) , and ensure it is upgraded, or put it clearly in writing that Clive Brook Volvo will back up the "standard" warranty to the same level of the "Selekt" warranty at any other Volvo dealership.
3. Sort out the tax disc situation...
4. Send Mr. Lightfoots wife a big fat bunch of flowers, and send Mr. Lightfoot a crate of beer.

I'd personally see that as being the end of the matter, and I suspect Mr. Lightfoot would do as well, and Clive can get a PR result out of a very poor situation.

Everybody has problems or things that go wrong from time to time, it's how you resolve those problems that makes you stand out from the crowd. It's really not hard.

That's why I was very polite, and attempted to assist (in reality) Clive Brook to make their customer happy.


FWIW - I didn't bring up Lightfoot's wife's illness in the dealers (I wasn't aware that they knew already anyway) , and haven't mentioned it publicly so far out of respect.

Problems with the car, are the absolute last thing that they should be having to worry about given the circumstances.

As such, I didn't post my reply to Clive's email on the forum (as it discussed the illness) - however, as Lightfoot has made that public, there's no reason to not post my reply for the avoidance of any doubt.

Clive,

I have considered your request to remove the post that I made about you personally and your business.

There are quite a number of factual errors, omissions and allegations that you made in your email however, which I must respond to.

I initially came into your dealership following a request from a good friend of mine, who had been asked by his father to do what he could do to help, as he was having difficulties in getting the level of service, response and respect from your staff that he rightly expected.

I politely sat down as instructed, and waited for you whilst browsing your sales documentation. When you appeared you initially presented yourself as being approachable and seemed to be helpful, however that initial impression was soon corrected.

After I had politely explained the basics of the issue, you then went off to consult your staff and when you arrived back at the table your attitude had entirely changed.

You stated that your staff had indeed been in contact with your customer, and then tried to play games by asking me to explain to you what the differences were between a Selekt car/Warranty and a non Selekt car, when I explained that I had the outlying basics, and that you would clearly have a much better understanding of the finer details, you denied knowing anything whatsoever about Volvo Selekt warranties - Which was quite frankly laughable.

You also informed me that your entire stock of some 29 Selekt cars had just been audited the day before, and only 2 had bought comment, and on very minor items. I'm however, well aware that said Volvo audits do not mean your entire stock was personally inspected, but that a very small selection of vehicles are selected for inspection.

You then stated that you couldn't understand what I was doing in your dealership, that you had indeed been in contact with your customer, that it was nothing to do with me, and that you weren't going to speak to me any further and that I could leave. At that point you got up from the table, and walked off.

I found that entirely disrespectful, downright rude and not befitting your position within your company as you were walking away and I followed to leave, I pointed out that as you were refusing to deal with the matter, then I would take it up with the Volvo Car UK Directors.

You then almost spat at me "You can't threaten me!". Given your venom, lack of respect and rudeness, I then responded "Yes, I just did", so you then repeated your earlier comment by shouting it at me, and I then responded "No, you are wrong, I can, and I just did, Goodbye".

I then exited your dealership, and called my friend - I gave him a quick run down, and he confirmed that there had in fact been no contact - I then re-entered your dealership, and saw that you were stood near your service desk, I walked over and waited whilst you finished your conversation, then informed you that I had your customer's son on the telephone, and that there had indeed been no contact.

After I left your dealership, having been told to leave, been shouted at and told that you were not discussing the matter with myself any further, you then saw it fit to call me again within an hour.

In that phone call, you told me that you'd been in touch with your customer, and the other Volvo dealer, and that it was now being dealt with in a manner that he was happy with, you then proceeded to attempt to lambast me, told me that I was "Playing Games", and eventually when you were pulled up on the matter as I caught you out in a lie, had to admit that you knew all about the Selekt Car and Warranties situations, but told me differently as you didn't want to or felt the need to discuss it with me, you then informed me of your comments about my driving, to which I told you quite clearly the situation, and that I didn't exceed the speed limit, nor had driven in a dangerous manner, your attitude throughout the call was so atrocious that I actually terminated the telephone conversation with yourself as it was clear that the entire purpose of the call was so you could try and form an argument with myself .

We now come to the quite farcical allegations you have made with regards to my driving. As you are well aware, your dealership sits on Canal Road, and is within a very busy 40mph speed limit, with quite poor and restrictive sight lines from your exit. I fully admit to pulling out into Canal Road from the stopped position at the exit of your dealership quite quickly to enable me to pull into a gap safely without inconveniencing or causing danger to other traffic. I then traveled some 42 yards to the entrance of Bolton Lane, and proceeded to turn left up Bolton Lane, which is nigh on a 45deg turn and something to be done carefully and slowly given the vehicle I drive has an infamous turning circle (facelift V70R on 18" Wheels).

I then accelerated up Bolton Lane, which is a grand total of some 200 yards (and yes I have measured it) . I will be the first to admit that my vehicle is much louder than your average almost silent V70 (having been fitted with a performance exhaust) , and that my acceleration was brisk, sensible and perfectly reasonable, but at no time was the speed limit of 30mph exceeded, you are also quite aware that at the other end of Bolton Lane you have no option but to stop. Not only that, but given the braking distance from 30mph is 25yards, and that at 30mph, you travel approximately 15 yards per second, in total that gives me 175yards of road and around 10 seconds (at 30mph, and considerably less distance and time at any higher speeds) in which you claim I managed to exceed the speed limit and drive dangerously due to that speed, to the point where a customer came in to complain.

In summary, your claims as to my speeding and dangerous driving, are quite frankly farcical, and any other sensible reasonable person would draw the same conclusion, even without the benefit of the maths lesson - unless of course he had an axe to grind and felt the urge to make up a story for his own ends and I challenge you to be forthcoming with undeniable proof / evidence of your claims relating to the speed of my vehicle.

I'm also very aware, from the beginning you attempted to bluff me, play it dumb, and that it didn't go as you intended, and went very wrong. I'm also aware that you stated you wished to contact me to see if we could start again, and put aside our differences.

Given your attitude displayed to me on the day, I call into question your honesty and integrity given that you lied to me on a number of occasions, and were caught out doing so - which you clearly did not like being called on.

Quite interestingly, with regard to your integrity, I note your username on the VOC forum, and also note that you have not made your position very clear, in fact it is fairly clear (Now knowing your username, and that you own the dealership) that you have attempted to promote/protect your business, but whilst posting as a user, not the owner - and many could have been mislead on a number of occasions from your posts that you have made.

I also have personally and both professionally an excellent reputation, based upon my excellent and award winning service and support to my customers, let alone fellow Volvo owners - hence why your customer felt the urge to ask his Son to assist, and he asked me to pop in and find out what was going on, as he is aware that I am local, and is also aware that I have resolved other seemingly unsolvable problems perfectly amicably with other Volvo dealers.

I have myself been a true Volvo enthusiast for a number of years, well over 10 years which I admit is less years than yourself, but then that's unsurprising as I've been on this earth for much less time. The big difference quite frankly is that my enthusiasm doesn't need to pay my bills, nor my salary.

You did indeed settle the bill from the other dealer, and your customer was understandably happy about that, given it was over £700 from memory, but that was in my opinion, nothing that you should be applauded for, as quite clearly - it shouldn't have even gotten to that stage of your customer having to worry about it, given that he was under the impression he'd bought a Selekt Car.

It shouldn't make any difference, and you were not to know at the time, as befitting the mature and responsible manner in which I dealt with yourself, I didn't bring it up at the time, I didn't feel that it should make any difference to your actions - but your customer who was having all of the problems with the vehicle, was taking his terminally ill wife to visit family members and friends, very probably for the last time, and spent a number of those very precious days, sat in a Volvo dealer waiting for someone at your dealership to deal with the matter, which in the end, was all resolved within a couple of hours of my visit, so I can personally sit quite comfortably, I wonder if your seat is so comfortable.

With regards to your point that you find my comments libelous, I should inform you that my post was very clear, very concise, and comments were made upon my own personal experiences of yourself, your service and your dealership .

I should also add that I can prove my claims and comments, that they were not malicious but quite factual, and I also state quite clearly that given my personal experience, that those comments were fair, and quite reasonable.

I also find your claims and exaggerations made in your email below sent to the various members of the Volvo Forum Team, to be unprovable, wholly malicious, and defamatory, and if they have been repeated to those "Number of other Volvo enthusiasts" you claimed to have spoken to, I will also find that defamatory.

I have considered your "request", please feel free to "Take the matter further".

Regards