Moral Money: our reader is torn between fighting for accountability or moving on
Dear Moral Money,
I bought a very popular electronic device that failed after 21 months. I considered this unacceptable. It’s worth noting that although this is a very popular electronic item, there appears to be only one supplier.
After weeks of “fob-off” emails, I took the company to the small claims court, citing the Consumer Rights Act.
They defended themselves, so a hearing was arranged at a County Court. I provided what I considered to be compelling evidence that this was an inherent manufacturing defect, given the many, many reports of the same problem online.
Now, one month before the hearing, the company has offered to pay what I have claimed, including my costs, on the condition that I agree to a non-disclosure agreement: “…on the basis that our payment is free from any admission of guilt, fault or liability and that you will sign a settlement agreement with confidentiality obligations.”
What would you do?
I should add that the money involved is minimal.
– Anonymous
Dear reader,
There is something quietly admirable about your determination. Many people grumble when a piece of technology fails prematurely, but far fewer are willing to pursue the matter all the way to court.
Taking on a large company as an individual is rarely an easy undertaking. The imbalance in time, legal resources and patience often means that ordinary customers simply give up. In that sense, you have already achieved something important. You refused to be fobbed off and insisted on being taken seriously.
It is also understandable that you feel frustrated by the final twist in this saga. After weeks of dismissive correspondence and the looming prospect of court, the company has suddenly offered to pay everything you claimed, including your costs, but only if you sign a settlement agreement that includes confidentiality obligations. In other words, they will pay up, without any admission of liability, on the condition that you do not discuss the outcome.
From their perspective, this is entirely predictable behaviour. Companies often prefer to settle disputes quietly rather than risk a court judgment that could be cited by others. If, as you believe, there are lots of reports online of the same fault, the last thing they will want is a public record suggesting the defect is inherent. A settlement agreement allows them to make the problem go away while preserving their legal position.
From your perspective, however, it may feel unsatisfying. You have invested time and energy gathering evidence and preparing for court. There is a natural temptation to see the process through, if only to force some acknowledgement that the product was faulty in the first place. It can feel as though accepting the settlement lets the company off the hook.
To better understand the practical implications, I asked The Telegraph’s consumer law expert, Gary Rycroft, for his view. He pointed out an important feature of the small claims system that is worth keeping in mind: because your case sits on the small claims track, the usual rule is that each party pays their own legal costs regardless of who wins. In other words, even if you were to lose the case, the company would not normally be able to recover its legal costs from you.
That does change the emotional calculus slightly. You are not facing the kind of financial risk that accompanies larger civil cases. If you feel strongly about the principle, you could continue with the hearing, knowing there is unlikely to be a significant hit to your wallet, but what you will have to spend is a lot more of your time.
Principle, while noble, is not always the best compass for how we spend our energy.
You originally set out to recover the cost of a product that failed after 21 months and to assert your rights under the Consumer Rights Act. In practical terms, taking the money has achieved that aim. The company is offering to repay your claim and your costs. While they may not be admitting fault, they are nevertheless paying the money.
It is also worth recognising that companies rarely make such offers out of goodwill. The timing suggests they may not relish the prospect of defending the case before a judge. Your persistence has clearly been enough to make them reconsider.
The confidentiality clause is the price they are asking for, drawing a line under the matter. You must decide whether the satisfaction of seeing the case argued in court outweighs the convenience of closing the dispute now.
Personally, I find myself sympathetic to the “little guy” taking on a faceless corporation. Too often, large companies rely on customers giving up. Your willingness to challenge them is commendable and, in a small way, helps keep standards higher for everyone.
However, life is also short, and time is a precious resource. Fighting a symbolic battle over a modest sum may deliver a fleeting sense of vindication, but it also prolongs a dispute that has already consumed more of your life than the original purchase ever deserved.
You have already achieved something important. The company that initially fobbed you off is now offering to pay your claim in full. That, in itself, is a quiet victory.
If I were in your position, I would take the money, sign the agreement and move on. Sometimes the most satisfying outcome is not forcing the other side to admit defeat, but recognising that persistence has already brought you the result you wanted.
All the best,
– Sam