Man to pay £25,000 damages over negative TrustPilot review

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55981600

by iechoz6H • 5 years ago

37 51 5 years ago

bbc.co.uk

wizzwizz4• 5 years ago

You shouldn't mess with companies wealthy enough to hire good lawyers, but you should never mess with lawyers.

baliex• 5 years ago

I think we can all agree with the sentiment but it's sad to see a case such as this that proves it to be true.

Reviews in support of the defendent already coming in thick and fast, https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.summerfieldbrowne.com

YuccaGloriosa• 5 years ago

This just ends up with lawyers thinking they can do whatever the hell they want. Especially when it costs them next to nothing to prepare court documents.

nicktelford• 5 years ago

Now that there's an article about this on BBC News, I wonder how much this firm will suffer from the Streisand Effect[1].

It was foolish of the defendant to not attend the hearing. I can't understand why he didn't.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

jansan• 5 years ago

If you check the recent ratings on TrustPilot, it already seems to take effect:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.summerfieldbrowne.com

Guess the damage done by trying to ruin a customer's life more than offsets what they won in court.

WrtCdEvrydy• 5 years ago

Apparently there's an "Alert" now, and reviews are disabled.

dd82• 5 years ago

looks like this was a default judgement because the defendant

... did not attend the online hearing or send a legal representative.

when that happens, the judgement is a default to the plantiff. so its his own fault, and the headline is fairly inaccurate. to be more accurate, would be

"Man doesn't show up to court, defaults judgement of 25k pounds over negative review"

rogual• 5 years ago

Saved me a click, thanks. The BBC has a real problem with clickbait headlines.

It's still kind of interesting that they even sued him, I suppose. And by looking at their Trustpilot page now, it doesn't seem to be working out well for them.

matsemann• 5 years ago

See the comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26076696

Apparently he felt he was being forced to pay 6k just to even defend himself.

marcus_holmes• 5 years ago

Be interesting to see the Streisand Effect of publishing this on the BBC site.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the legal firm is forced to rename/rebrand in a few months because its reputation is trashed.

You can win the battle, but lose the war...

albertgoeswoof3• 5 years ago

Would that mean they can sue for more than 25k damages, if the damages are actually more widespread, is the original reviewer at fault for this?

pyb• 5 years ago

No, they cannot sue twice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata)

syshum2• 5 years ago

Only in the UK against UK Citizens, if the Sites and people spreading the Info where in the US they would have no recourse as this review would absolutely fall under first amendment protections and they would get no where in the US court system, and if they picked the wrong venue would get hit with an Anti-SLAPP claim and likely have to pay the defendant

dogma1138• 5 years ago

Looks like the Google review on the firm are already pilling up due to the article... https://www.google.com/search?q=SUMMERFIELD+BROWNE+LIMITED

SirLJ• 5 years ago

Can you trust TrustPilot?

https://www.tradingschools.org/reviews/trust-pilot-the-mecca...

albertgoeswoof3• 5 years ago

Here's the review, interesting that it's still up: https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/56324e750000ff0001e69c5f

A total waste of money another scam solicitor
Avoid this solicitor - Summerfield Browne use their own clients confidential information to sue them if they give a bad review. That's why you will not see a bad review of this solicitor, they are now trying to sue me for defamation for the following honest review, rather than refund my money: 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, youtube and the Citizens advice website about your case, for free.

You can judge for yourself if this is defamation and untrue. "Scam solicitor" is the term that probably pushes this over the edge.

imdsm2• 5 years ago

£25,000 — an expensive review. Totally the chaps fault for defaulting though, should have just shown up.

albertgoeswoof3• 5 years ago

Here is why he claims he didn't show up:

I didn't lie in my review of Sommerfield Browne and them suing their own client for gain shows everyone what they are.
Their friends and family will back them up, as will the other lawyers.
I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing.
The fact is the judge put £6,000 costs on me before the case was even heard - I was literally priced out of justice. I could not attend or I would be accepting these costs. I cannot fight a rich solicitor in front of a biased judge. Seeing there was no justice here I decided not to give the court legitimacy by attending.

agilob2• 5 years ago

Look at this on google maps https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Summerfield+Browne+Solic...

HatchedLake721• 5 years ago

Lol, Streisand effect in action

imdsm2• 5 years ago

Terrible outcome for this chap but also his own fault for not attending. Pretty sure this will cost the firm more than £25,000 though in the long run. I definitely wouldn't use them, even though I wouldn't post a scathing review. Or maybe I would -- use some of that snide energy direct at a particular legal target.

ianhawes2• 5 years ago

Protip for anyone facing similar negative reviews on TrustPilot: Seek out positive reviews to counteract negative ones.

You will (hopefully) find that most people have a positive experience. If you don’t find that, perhaps a negative review is the least of your worries.

Once you have a stream of new positive reviews you can generally let negative ones slide much easier. People are acutely aware that not EVERYONE has a positive experience, they just want to see that the negative reviews are people being irrational or for something that won’t apply to them.

lordnacho• 5 years ago

The business model of TP is to help people get these positive reviews, since they're harder to coax out of satisfied customers. They know that unhappy people want to vent, and they make it easy for them to do so. It's a real grey zone from what I can see, and I wouldn't want to be supporting it.

ianhawes2• 5 years ago

I am a client of TrustPilot. We dispatch their review invites to every single one of our clients regardless of their experience. We typically have no trouble coaxing 5 star reviews.

fennecfoxen• 5 years ago

Reminder to Americans: Libel suits are a little harder to pursue here, but, much like in the UK case, the high price of pursuing justice (the defendant quoted £6000 just to fight it in this case) means it can still bankrupt you just to get anywhere near a resolution, even to a summary judgment when the facts are very much in your favor.

Support the First Amendment and support anti-SLAPP statues: https://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slappin...

noja3• 5 years ago

Question for anyone: if justice is fair and the system works, why are some lawyers paid so much more than others?

lucozade• 5 years ago

Justice being fair isn't the same as saying that all justice is identical.

If a lawyer works a case that takes a reasonable lawyer a day to complete, why would you expect the same compensation as a lawyer that works on a complex case for a year?

That doesn't imply unfairness. It doesn't even imply capitalism.

syshum2• 5 years ago

I dont think that is the claim...

The claim is that on any given case you may find a lawyer that is $100 or that is $1,000,000 for the same case

This is what creates the dual tiered legal system, if you can afford the High priced law firm, that has all the resources and talent to find every legal loop hole you win..

In the modern legal system, often times who ever has the deeper pockets wins.

csours• 5 years ago

'if justice is fair and the system works'

Justice and The System only work fairly in so much as we make them work fairly. People have fought revolutions over this stuff.

As for being paid well, lawyers may be considered primordial devops, dealing with the source code of society. It would make sense for there to be 10x law engineers.

tjalfi2• 5 years ago

Question for anyone: if justice is fair and the system works, why are some lawyers paid so much more than others?

TL,DR - it's a market economy and legal fees vary due to supply and demand.

Here are some of the factors that legal fees are based on, many of these are true for any professional services firm.

Practice Area - Some types of expertise are rarer. Few lawyers, for example, specialize in smart contracts.

Market Rates - Rates, like the cost of living, are higher in some regions.

Market Position - How is the firm positioning itself? Are they trying for bottom of the market (Walmart), middle of the market (Trader Joe's), or top of the market (a boutique)?

Peer Rates - What are other firms with the same market position charging for this practice area in this region? You don't want to leave money on the table or price yourself out of the market.

Experience - Lawyers with more experience can charge more; there's only one David Boies[0].

Volume of Work - Customers who regularly use legal services can often negotiate a discount.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies

noja3• 5 years ago

TL,DR - it's a market economy and legal fees vary due to supply and demand.

and so does quality. That's the problem.

Take MegaCorp 5000 Incorporated TM versus Timmy's Homemade Biscuits. Say they go to court. Once side is paying their lawyer a thousand times more than the other. How can a fair trial occur here?

vmception• 5 years ago

always sue in the UK lol, I love catching keyboard warriors off guard

xfz2• 5 years ago

The solicitors firm has probably trashed their own reputation for good by doing this.

They could have just exploited Trustpilot to get the review suppressed.

This video can be annoying and has some strong language, but contains some good points about Trustpilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMSMjF_b_Y

xfz2• 5 years ago

One of the reviews:

They track you on their website without any form of confirmation which is required under GDPR law. Since it's been law for well over a year I dread to think how many times this firm has broken the law themselves. I encourage all people that have visited their site to record proof of you being on their site and take these shady lawyers to court. I would advise suing for £25,000...

They might only get £750 each ("Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd") but I would definitely do that. At the very least, a complaint to the ICO.

Another review:

Moral: DO NOT SHOP at any online store, if they use trustpilot

Absolutely. I usually take my business elsewhere if a site prominently displays Trustpilot. Where that's not to my advantage, I write to their DPO citing GDPR Article 21 and request that they do not in any way share my data with this website.

agilob2• 5 years ago

They claim to be experts in Internet law but their website isn't GDPR compliant... https://www.summerfieldbrowne.com/internet/4582280575

paulpauper• 5 years ago

It is the UK..so yeah good luck collecting anything

Man to pay £25,000 damages over negative TrustPilot review

Related Stories