Being sued after writing a negative review on TrustPilot

[Torrent2000]

I am sorry to hear of your plight and want to offer my support. I am also facing a defamation case and understand how stressful and anxiety inducing it can be.

My case is featured here:

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-the-uk-courts

I would like to share what has worked for me.

I believe that you need legal help to assist with this, so I suggest you contact the Free Speech Union, Index on Censorship, and Robert Sharp (a free speech campaigner) for support. They may be able to find you pro bono representation or give you some advice. Index found me a pro-bono barrister and the FSU have offered me a great deal of support in a number of ways.

Robert has also been amazingly supportive and helpful as a second claimant, connected very closely to the first claimant, has brought another defamation case against me, which I am defending as a litigant in person. So I am actually facing two of these cases which are part of a much larger and very malicious campaign against me!

Secondly, you could start a CrowdJustice page to raise money to defend yourself. I did this, and it has so far raised £54K for my first case which has been of huge assistance to me financially, although my legal costs are currently in the region of £130K.

To bring a defamation case or to defend one, you are talking telephone numbers of money. It is extremely hard, but not impossible, to defend one as a litigant in person.

This man, Clinton Lee, recently managed to do that so you could contact him for help as well. He has reached out to me and given me some helpful tips:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/clint...member_desktop

Most defamation cases are issued as threats to try and crush you.

If the claim is issued, you must respond via the Response Pack within 14 days or you will get a default judgment against you.

I hope that helps for now and I will continue to add further thoughts when I have time. If you feel wobbly, you are welcome to call me on 07918 684598 and I will try and help you with your anxiety or questions.

Good luck!

Vanessa

P.S. I would add that it is vital that you work with a specialist defamation solicitor. Defamation is an extremely complex area of litigation and requires specialist knowledge. Don't use a general/local solicitor as this will not be the best option for you imho.

Hi Vanessa, that is a wonderful response and extremally helpful for me going forward. I have now contacted the Free Speech Union to see if they can help. Ultimately I want to bring this to the attention of as many people as possible and if you have any contact's in the media you think would be interested please feel free to share with me. Although there are differences in our claimants motive they are both using the exact method to inflict as much pressure as they can so it would be a good idea to share ideas.

[EXC]

I am not sure that is the case, although I am angry that they can peruse these claims through the court system.

As a forum who hosts countless complaints from people about numerous (and often less-than-reputable) companies, we've been on the end of numerous solicitors' threats for defamation, both before and after the 2013 Defamation Act. So many in fact, I lost count of how many years ago.

Despite all the threats and bluster, often from provincial solicitors, not a single claim has ever been filed in court against us or (at least to our knowledge) any of our members. As unversed as provincial solicitors are in defamation law, they are at least bright enough to have advised their clients not to file proceedings as the risks of losing and/or of recovering their costs even in the event that they do win are too high and just advise their clients to threaten to instead.

See these BBC pieces about two of those threats:

Can your online reputation be bleached? - BBC News

CAB official accused of harassment by civil recovery firm - BBC News

From your description I am as sure as I can be that the threat you have received isn't even conference league in terms of being a genuine legal threat that the so-called claimant intends to follow through with.

[VanessaW]

Hi Vanessa, that is a wonderful response and extremally helpful for me going forward. I have now contacted the Free Speech Union to see if they can help. Ultimately I want to bring this to the attention of as many people as possible and if you have any contact's in the media you think would be interested please feel free to share with me. Although there are differences in our claimants motive they are both using the exact method to inflict as much pressure as they can so it would be a good idea to share ideas.

I've given you my phone number in the previous post if you feel the need to chat.

Haroon Siddique at the Guardian is interested in SLAPP cases - Strategic lawsuits against public participation. He's written a lot on this topic and wrote this article concering my case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-10000-courses

There is the anti-SLAPPs co-alition which many journalists are members of. Search on this topic and you will find MSM that are covering it.

The problem with defamation is that many publications won't cover it, as they fear a defamation claim themselves. You will note the Guardian article about my case is very carefully worded to stop a defamation threat!

These SLAPP cases are very effective at shutting down commentary in the public interest. I have effectively been muzzled in the consumer protection work I do in the "wealth creation" industry. That works in favour of the claimant and others in this sector who do not want me disrupting their lucrative marketing funnels!

The government and the SRA are working on ways to identify SLAPP cases much earlier in the legal process and bring in legislation to shut them down earlier, but it's slow and it won't happen in time for our cases.

Until that happens, despite being innocent unti proved guilty, defamation defendants are dragged through the courts at great expense to both their finances and their mental wellbeing. In defamation, the claimant appears to hold all the cards until the moment the judge hands down his judgment and that makes it even more frightening to be a defendant in one of these cases imho.

Someone mentioned a strike out earlier. This is a very high risk strategy according to my legal team and there are serious costs implications. It's not as simple as it sounds on paper.

With my case, I want to make it about the greater good of consumers and the sector I am in, and try and use it as a platform for awareness and positive change. I am immensely grateful to everyone who has supported me in this including the LB community!

[jaguarsuk]

One thing to consider is a counter claim or even a claim against them if they withdraw after care, which they have stated they are contractually obliged to provide.

[echat11]

As a forum who hosts countless complaints from people about numerous (and often less-than-reputable) companies, we've been on the end of numerous solicitors' threats for defamation, both before and after the 2013 Defamation Act. So many in fact, I lost count of how many years ago.

Despite all the threats and bluster, often from provincial solicitors, not a single claim has ever been filed in court against us or (at least to our knowledge) any of our members. As unversed as provincial solicitors are in defamation law, they are at least bright enough to have advised their clients not to file proceedings as the risks of losing and/or of recovering their costs even in the event that they do win are too high and just advise their clients to threaten to instead.

See these BBC pieces about two of those threats:

Can your online reputation be bleached? - BBC News

CAB official accused of harassment by civil recovery firm - BBC News

From your description I am as sure as I can be that the threat you have received isn't even conference league in terms of being a genuine legal threat that the so-called claimant intends to follow through with.

RLP even used the Magna Carta in their letters they sent to individuals, although getting their historic dates wrong wasn't a good look, poor research, that's what happens when local libraries close.

[atticus]

The fact that the owners of this site receive lawyers' letters should serve as a reminder that what is written here is public, and may well be read by the other party to your case.

[Torrent2000]

As a forum who hosts countless complaints from people about numerous (and often less-than-reputable) companies, we've been on the end of numerous solicitors' threats for defamation, both before and after the 2013 Defamation Act. So many in fact, I lost count of how many years ago.

Despite all the threats and bluster, often from provincial solicitors, not a single claim has ever been filed in court against us or (at least to our knowledge) any of our members. As unversed as provincial solicitors are in defamation law, they are at least bright enough to have advised their clients not to file proceedings as the risks of losing and/or of recovering their costs even in the event that they do win are too high and just advise their clients to threaten to instead.

See these BBC pieces about two of those threats:

Can your online reputation be bleached? - BBC News

CAB official accused of harassment by civil recovery firm - BBC News

From your description I am as sure as I can be that the threat you have received isn't even conference league in terms of being a genuine legal threat that the so-called claimant intends to follow through with.

Unfortunately this is not the case for me. I have as of today been officially served papers for writing a critical review of a service that I received.

[EXC]

What court did they file the claim in?

[echat11]

How did you pay? Credit Card / debit card? And how long ago was the procedure carried out?

Also, the comments, 'if you don't remove the review, then we'll remove after care' is just plain ridiculous.

[Torrent2000]

What court did they file the claim in?

High Court of Justice, Kings Bench Division.

[Torrent2000]

How did you pay? Credit Card / debit card? And how long ago was the procedure carried out?

Also, the comments, 'if you don't remove the review, then we'll remove after care' is just plain ridiculous.

It was half bank transfer and half debit card. Getting a refund is the last thing in my mind, its the court fee's to defend it that will incur the most cost. Because if I ignore it, then they will get a default judgement and if I fight it then it will cost me thousands of pounds. SLAAPS are basically intended for you to lose either way, that is why it is unbelievable that it is allowed to be abused.

[EXC]

Ok, well with the little information we have (and I would take the advice of Atticus and not provide any more) there's a couple of things that occur to me.

Firstly, Trust Pilot have a well established process for dealing with complaints about potentially defamatory reviews. As your review was apparently still showing at the point the company threatened you with proceedings, it appears that the company either didn't engage in the process that was freely available to them (therefore not complying with the overiding objective of not using proceedings as a costly last resort) or they did and Trust Pilot found the review to have been acceptable and to have complied with their rules.

That's not an absolute defence of course but goes to your point about the company using proceedings as unreasonable & overbearing reputation management.

Secondly, that they apparently withdrew their contractual obligation of aftercare as a condition to you removing the review, it goes to the same point.

[echat11]

It was half bank transfer and half debit card. Getting a refund is the last thing in my mind, its the court fee's to defend it that will incur the most cost. Because if I ignore it, then they will get a default judgement and if I fight it then it will cost me thousands of pounds. SLAAPS are basically intended for you to lose either way, that is why it is unbelievable that it is allowed to be abused.

That might be so, but you were unhappy with the 'results' of the procedure, so getting a refund would have been a consideration.