ZFarm still trading ?

[Rob Gaskin]

I have used PM's to advise people about suppliers and for the record I don't access other people's PM's - in fact I don't know if I could anyway.

 

[SeanDezart]

On another forum I used to frequent, it was pointless sending a PM to a fellow member as the chief moderator read all PM's

I have 'total' access on our French forum and can't read PMs.....and I wouldn't want to either !

 

[grolls]

Private message is exactly that, one persons views to another in a private arena and not broadcasted to create a claim for defamation. I hasten to add this type of claim is very expensive to run so unless the person or company suffering defamation has significant funding then the chances of them running a claim if they are already bankrupt would be reduced.

Going on to say, why on earth would Z club members or non members be willing to risk such a claim or in deed try to promote it, this would be madness. If the company has gone belly up its for a whole host of reasons and could include, poor service, poor management, poor advertising or simply supply and demand has dried up. Either way we will never know and to comment on publicly would be rather silly regardless if he had the funds to sue or not.

Personally, The club should never ever in to this type of arena as it does no more than discredit itself. If your going to have a discussion or share your views, do it in private or face the consequences.

 

[SeanDezart]

So.....in your view, members here owe more to keeping quiet in fear of what might be (or not) than recommending (or not) people known through personal experience ?

Are you suggesting that FB should be prosecuted for libel rather than its users for comments publicised thereon ?

 

[zedhed]

a) Not sure that that is the interpretation here.

b) I thought those were burgers in Pulp Fiction.

c) looking forward to ending puberty spots an' all......one day.

Lol but seriously guys get it together, no one's going to sue you for telling the truth about anything because their solicitor would tell them it's a waste of money..

Put it this way companies like trip advisor, ebay and amazon would have to shut down their businesses they're all based on feedback.

 

[Rob Gaskin]

Lol but seriously guys get it together, no one's going to sue you for telling the truth about anything because their solicitor would tell them it's a waste of money..

Put it this way companies like trip advisor, ebay and amazon would have to shut down their businesses they're all based on feedback.

And my point is that I can't openly go online and state that a Z Club member wasn't happy with a job done. Just the same as I wouldn't go online and say that a mate had a bad experience at a hotel.

 

[grolls]

So.....in your view, members here owe more to keeping quiet in fear of what might be (or not) than recommending (or not) people known through personal experience ?

Are you suggesting that FB should be prosecuted for libel rather than its users for comments publicised thereon ?

The club would be forced legally have to reveal the IP address and any contact details they hold for the person that passed comment, this I have done before in another arena. Regardless if the club could be sued or not they would have to enter in to the legal minefield at a cost if only for legal advice and official correspondence.

The Club would then I suspect hand over the details upon request to any solicitor requesting it as to save costs. It would be then for you to face the music although there would no doubt be some legal arguments over why posts are not monitored by the club as they own the site, this I have seen before.

As for Facebook, anyone brave enough with big finances feel free to challenge, but in what country? Now there's the first hurdle.


In short, why slag someone off publicly, are we not bigger than this? Got a comment, do it in private is my view

 

[uk66fastback]

Not referring to the company in question here but in some cases, there is one side's story, the other side and the truth lies somewhere in between.

You can't use the club forum to air a grievance about a company in my view. In an ideal world you should be able to if you are telling the truth but do you want to go to court and defend the defamation charge - along with the club - and back that up your 'opinion' with hard evidence?

The world we live in sadly.

 

[MikeB]

I suppose the problems will occur when people stray from the facts of a case into opinion and possibly conjecture. There are numerous examples on here, do a search for Z Farm and you'll see what I mean, other suppliers as well.

My experience across several Club forums is that all operate the same way, where PMs are the accepted way of passing on info

 

[STEVE BURNS]

If people believe they have had a rough deal from someone why oh why have they not gone to court to redress the situation
I will again state that even if there is a 1% chance of anyone being sued due to a post by another member on the open forum of this forum that small chance is 100% unacceptable

 

[STEVE BURNS]

I have 'total' access on our French forum and can't read PMs.....and I wouldn't want to either !

Nor would I want to read PMs and as an admin of this site I as couple of others do have access to all things relating to the make up of the site and of all the working of it
Lets not beat around the bush every super admin to every forum or site has access to every thing because they have the access to the coding to attempt to maintain the site

 

[Moriarty]

Under UK libel law even a PM (private written conversation between two individuals) if untrue/malicious could be considered as libellous....if it is recorded (written) and "could" be seen by others (published, printed, leaked etc) it is open to litigation. It DOES NOT have to be in the public domain, although most high profile cases are.

See
— Tony Weir, Tort Law p.162

A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter.

Or

A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published. Unfortunately for webmasters, when libel lawyers say "published", they mean communicated to one person (not including the person defamed). You can libel someone by writing about them on a personal blog, providing at least one person accesses the defamatory material.

That is not to say that a defamatory publication on your personal blog carries the same risk as a defamatory publication on, say, the BBC website. Libels on high-traffic sites are more likely to be discovered by the person attacked than libels on low-traffic sites. Also, potential libel claimants may let a libel pass if it hasn't been widely disseminated - knowing that a court case would itself ensure the widest possible audience for the slur.

 

[zedhed]

September 2015

Name and address of petitioner: COLEGIO 67 S.L.CALLE MAR WGEO, 32, 28220 MAJADAJONDA, MADRID

Like I said.....

Sean do you have any links to this public information you can post here?

 

[STEVE BURNS]

Under UK libel law even a PM (private written conversation between two individuals) if untrue/malicious could be considered as libellous....if it is recorded (written) and "could" be seen by others (published, printed, leaked etc) it is open to litigation. It DOES NOT have to be in the public domain, although most high profile cases are.

See
— Tony Weir, Tort Law p.162



Or

Confirms my thoughts even more and makes me realize I am not kidding myself

 

[zedhed]

Confirms my thoughts even more and makes me realize I am not kidding myself

Note the untrue/malicious bit. If true and statement of fact, then it's just a supplier review. The key is that truth bit. No need to protect anyone from the truth.

What I've learnt is that you should always find out more about suppliers before using them. When you talk to people about their experiences, you really need to talk to those who are truly independent and who have actually used the supplier.

It is in your interest as a consumer of these services to do so.

The club should remain neutral but they shouldn't stop this kind of exchange between members because they exist to uphold member interests. However they can be reasonably expected to delete posts which are obviously unfair and untrue or from questionable sources or with questionable motives.

What you shouldn't have though, is a situation where a supplier or those closely linked to them forces the club or members to act against the interests of other members by suppressing information which could help members make the best supplier choice or avoid choosing the wrong supplier, and suffering the consequences.

In answer to your other Qs, I've already posted about my experiences. With regards to rectifying some possible damage done to my car, so far, no, so far I have not taken any legal action to get this resolved, but I'm not ruling it out. I hope to have my car up on the ramp at a nearby garage shortly, where I will have a better look as I have no inspection ramp and it's a low car ...

 

[zedhed]

In short, why slag someone off publicly, are we not bigger than this? Got a comment, do it in private is my view

No one is slagging anyone off (that can loosely be called libel) but you can put a term on signing up saying "i agree that any PM or post contains the personal views of the sender and cannot be taken as the view of the club." That should do it

Are we not bigger? Well it depends on whether you feel you're making a contribution or not by recommending a product or supplier. To me and i suspect anyone else that's a key benefit of joining a club.

 

[zedhed]

But surely, as the owners (and prospective owners) club forum, we should be able to have open discussion about experiences with those providing services to our community, good or bad? It could obviously help point people in the right direction (as generally good experiences get talked about) - and help others avoid making potentially costly mistakes. By not addressing the bad, we are failing to provide a balanced service to readers of the site, and not helping to hold people to account when they maybe need it.

You've hit the nail on the head there. I suspect a lot of people (like me) have come a cropper on that point.

In this particular case though, the fact that the Z Farm has gone bankrupt relatively under the radar a few months ago sends a clear message about that business. Obviously, we don't know the circumstances (or they aren't public domain) but it clearly means Duncan faces a challenge in rebuilding trust if restarting under another name.

Hi Ritchie, bankruptcy is almost always public domain, but it could be voluntary just dug up the link:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2407416

Should we be checking eBay for our missing parts then?

 

[STEVE BURNS]

What you shouldn't have though, is a situation where a supplier or those closely linked to them forces the club or members to act against the interests of other members by suppressing information which could help members make the best supplier choice or avoid choosing the wrong supplier, and suffering the consequences.

Do not understand what is implied by that

 

[Rob Gaskin]

........ just dug up the link:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2407416

You knew that at post 14

 

[Dale]

Note the untrue/malicious bit. If true and statement of fact, then it's just a supplier review. The key is that truth bit. No need to protect anyone from the truth.

But who deems what is true? There is no guarantee that what is written on the internet by someone is true. There are lots of liars and/or exaggerators unfortunately.

Would you trust a 'certificate of authenticity'?