| Steve Richardson : Administrator 6th November 2014 11:00 PM |
Good lord, Trena and Mark in one day 
Sounds like you've had a fair wait for your day in court, good on you, and let us know how it goes!
Bad review couple win compensation
Yep good luck, I love a good court case, although even if you win the time, money and effort you put in getting it to court you still come away feeling left short. I always do it out of principle though. Must admit I'm dieing to know who it is.... Thanks, Barney
“Just a quick update on this, we finally have a court date for this for next month!”
Fingers crossed Clive
Not holding my breath, but not giving up either!
If nothing else you can get it all out in the open and let a judge decide Positive thinking ! Clive
The long and short of this is the review system is a pointless one if every time you report bad service or products you run the risk of court action. Thank god I only have good ones at the moment . I think the the right to reply to your review is the only right you should have. At least you can defend your corner.
“I think the the right to reply to your review is the only right you should have. At least you can defend your corner.”
I agree with you to a point, and right to reply should be that, a public reply then that's it, no more comments. But running a review site, you do get genuinely unfair reviews and businesses trying to nobble each other, we see it all the time. So it's a fine wire act, and takes good moderation to weave through the complexities of reviews that turn nasty. Luckily we have the advantage of being able to invoke alternate review resolution for large trade bodies if one of our Trading Standards Institute approved listings kicks off, in which case we hand over to an ombundsman. But for the others it can be a minefield and I'm all for negative reviews going live, and we let most go through that have made it past our profanity filter! We all make mistakes from time to time, and a decent right to reply can actually draw sympathy, letting the visitor make their own mind up. Assuming it's not all negative reviews But can't believe the hassle Trena has had to put up with, and then resort to court action. At least she will get her day in court and be very interested to hear the outcome.
Wow! The original story is ridiculous that it went so far and Trena you sound like you've had a nightmare! Why on earth these companies let it get to court when they're so clearly in the wrong who knows! My mum had loads of problems with a seller on Amazon threatening her by email and phonecall after she left a valid bad review. It's disgusting! The bullying tactics some use in business is a disgrace. Good luck Trena! Stick it to the Man, as they say!
Thanks, Rebecca CV and blog writer Pay for Precision | Saving you time by writing you kick-ass blogs and CVs.
Funny enough, the BBC'S watchdog programme had an item about a tradesmen review website this week, which is all highly endorsed by the company's local trading standards. Yet it appears no one can leave a bad review? On the basis that you'll never please 100% of your customers 100% of the time, having 100% glowing reviews is an impossibility, it just is.......If review websites say that they must check and verify bad reviews before publishing, then surely they must also do the same with positive reviews. It's my opinion that you cannot give more credibility to a positive review than you can a negative one. If review site owners are apprehensive about a negative review because of potential legal action, maybe they should insure themselves against such action..... Thanks, Barney
“If review websites say that they must check and verify bad reviews before publishing, then surely they must also do the same with positive reviews.”
Absolutely right. We moderate now in exactly the same way for positives as we do for negatives. It hasn't always been like that, but as reviews become more and more important, then they get gamed more and more, so moderation has to evolve. Different sites do things differently, but by and large it's gradually getting harder to game positive reviews across the board. Local Trading Standards in general have a different approach for various Trusted Trader schemes, in that they actively pursue positive review generation to promote local traders, so it can give an impression of bias. But the idea is to allow consumers to select reliable tradespeople rather than build a rogues gallery. If a trader is generating consistent bad reviews or doesn't meet the code of conduct for the scheme, then they get booted off, hence why perspective may be skewed. Any positive reviews from an official Trusted Trader scheme have to be genuine, will normally require an invoice number for proof, can be monitored and spot checked, and is an offence if seen to be fraudulent. But official Trusted Trader/Trading Standards schemes are purely designed for consumers to find reputable vetted tradespeople, not become a clone of Yelp or any commercial business directory. CheckaTrade isn't an official Trading Standard Scheme. It has good credentials and a good track record, but it is in effect a directory of traders like many others and is a commercial business. |
Recent Posts Improving Website Visibility and Performance for E-commerce  Glossing 3 comments Best Windows and Door Companies in your city/town How resource smoothing worked for my business Accounts for International Payments and FX? The benefits of therapy for entrepreneurs and businesses Investigating the Integration of Salary Sacrifice in Fleet Administration 3 comments A New Year begins - what's your resolution? 5 comments  Businesses that aren't yours but you would recommend 15 comments profits and new van 2 comments Composite front door 4 comments Vat / Vat Exempt 1 comments Artificial Grass Las Vegas aliexpress.com 2 comments Employee management? 8 comments |
