Consumer action

[Morag]

Hi - has anyone any experience of taking a French (large) company to court over fraud?  I'd welcome any advice

Thanks

 

[Teamedup]

I once contacted the local office of the DGCCRF and they went and sorted something out. I didn't get any benefice, but it hadn't been about the money anyway.

 

http://www.finances.gouv.fr/DGCCRF/

[Morag]

Thanks for that TeamedUp - just drawn a blank with the DDCCRF on the grounds that 'well you're the only ones who are involved, so you'll have to pursue the company yourself' .  Anyone fancy taking on PBM (aka Reseau Pro, Simbpla, Brossette, etc....)?

M

[BJSLIV]

Its unusual for a major company to indulge if "fraud" when dealing with a member of the public.

Usually such accusations come about where a transaction has gone wrong because of  a misunderstanding or lack of clarity by either the buyer or the seller.

I fear that you  you would only run up large bills to little avail.

Have you thought of escalating your dispute up the chain of command within the company?. If you feel really strongly you could tackle the parent company back in the UK.

 

[Anton Redman]

[quote user="Morag"]

Hi - has anyone any experience of taking a French (large) company to court over fraud?  I'd welcome any advice

Thanks [/quote]

1. In contrast a UK action you will not be awarded costs so even if you win so it is an expensive act.

2. Why can you not escalate then problem with the French organisation you are dealing with ?

[Hegs]

If you have no luck with the more direct approach, set up a website detailing your complaint against the company and send them a link to it. Be careful you can justify what you say on the website.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Fraud is a criminal case not a civil action - if the company have truly committed fraud, you should take the case to the Police.

[Teamedup]

TonyFD does sound like they have taken this case to exactly the right authorities. It is the DGCCRF who deal with fraud. And they are who I would contact if I thought I was a victim of fraud.

[Morag]

As you say, Tony, fraud is criminal.  What the company did was contrary to chunks of the Code de la Consommation, but on the subject of involving the police - do you think they would believe us?  See what you think.

After being pressed for months on whether timber frame timber was really properly treated NF EN335 Class 2, it issued 3 'attestations de conformite' certifying that the more than 1 mile of timber we had bought was treated.  Unfortunately, they didn't quite get the story straight because they claimed it was the bright yellow treatment they'd used....  our wood was nice and blonde!  3 days later they admitted most of it wasn't treated at all, but only after I insisted on an independent lab test - shame they didn't read their own internal paperwork when we first asked. 

What has caused us the major problem is that most of the wood was then the load bearing structure of our house.    The firm brought in to try and retrospectively treat the wood has caused more damage to the existing building - around 14k of euros!   The saga has not reflected well on what is supposed to be a very reputable company and now you know why we are looking to take this further.

There is no question of misunderstanding of what the treatment should have been or what the timber should have been used for - my partner has been in timber frame construction for 30+ years and the nationally-available 'Batimob' timber frame system offered the right kind of wood for the job. While I might not be fluent, my French is good enough, but I've had to learn a whole lot of vocab I'd rather not know!

 

 

 

 

[Nick Trollope]

[quote user="Morag"]

See what you think.

After being pressed for months on whether timber frame timber was really properly treated NF EN335 Class 2, it issued 3 'attestations de conformite' certifying that the more than 1 mile of timber we had bought was treated.  Unfortunately, they didn't quite get the story straight because they claimed it was the bright yellow treatment they'd used....  our wood was nice and blonde!  3 days later they admitted most of it wasn't treated at all, but only after I insisted on an independent lab test - shame they didn't read their own internal paperwork when we first asked. 

What has caused us the major problem is that most of the wood was then the load bearing structure of our house.    The firm brought in to try and retrospectively treat the wood has caused more damage to the existing building - around 14k of euros!   The saga has not reflected well on what is supposed to be a very reputable company and now you know why we are looking to take this further.

There is no question of misunderstanding of what the treatment should have been or what the timber should have been used for - my partner has been in timber frame construction for 30+ years and the nationally-available 'Batimob' timber frame system offered the right kind of wood for the job. While I might not be fluent, my French is good enough, but I've had to learn a whole lot of vocab I'd rather not know!

 [/quote]

 IANAL but;

I wouldn't say this is fraud - to be fraudulent, the legal system would need to prove that they intended to diddle you out of money - not likely. More likely is that you would have a very good case to sue them for all your losses. I'd suggest you ask an Avocat.