web site for non payers?

C

computerman

Registered User
Messages
339
A little advice please!!!

Having been recently screwed by a client, and assuming that there are many more out there like me!!, would it be possible to create / legal to create a website/forum/blog, listing companies that are bad payers?

Suppliers etc like my self could then look at an alphabetical list, see if their new customer is listed and then make an informed decision as to whether to deal with them or not?
 
There is a difference between Bad and slow payers and Judgments. That is a superb idea. If the offender was given a week to pay or else their names would appear on the list might just speed up the process of the delaying tactics.
 
Yes, I thought that this would be a very useful service. However, I don't see how you could get around the abuse of the site and the defamation suits.

I haven't found Stubbs any good. what do you see if you register? A list of judgements in alpha order? But there are lots of bad payers who don't have judgements.

Brendan
 
Just wondering ... what would the legality behind listing companies on a defaulters' website be? Surely a legal judgement would have to be made before they could be publicly named and shamed.

If a Joe Soap set up a site listing defaulters could they be asking for trouble?
 
What if mr soap registered a site (dot com - not a dot ie )and had it hosted outside the state. A disclaimer was written on the front page along with a note stating that anyone who acesd the site had first to register and accept liability for any information that they posted.

Proof could be requested e.g. copy of original invoice and a statement issued 60 days later(scaned and posted to the site as a jpeg).

Any other suggestions?
 
I should say, that mr soap is not looking for judgements or anything else, just a list of people who pay late. ....... a kind of service for the little people! an internet joe duffy!!!!!
 
computerman said:
What if mr soap registered a site (dot com - not a dot ie )and had it hosted outside the state. A disclaimer was written on the front page along with a note stating that anyone who acesd the site had first to register and accept liability for any information that they posted.
Click to expand...

You'd still have responsibility.

Proof could be requested e.g. copy of original invoice and a statement issued 60 days later(scaned and posted to the site as a jpeg).
Click to expand...

Proof of what? How would these prove that something wasn't paid? Plus they could easily be mocked up etc.

an internet joe duffy!!!!!
Click to expand...

The key difference is Joe Duffy generally gives the accused the right to respond - will you?
 
Im not Mr Soap!!!

Of course everyone deserves the right to respond, the advantage with a website is that they can respond anytime where as a live radio show is restricted to the time that its on air.
 
I'm reminded of all those ratings sites e.g. ratemyteacher or ratemysolicitor - while undoubtedly a few of the ratings were true and accurate, you will need deep deep pockets to defend yourself.
 
rmelly said:
You'd still have responsibility.



Proof of what? How would these prove that something wasn't paid? Plus they could easily be mocked up etc.



The key difference is Joe Duffy generally gives the accused the right to respond - will you?
Click to expand...


Usually no smoke without fire
 
computerman said:
Im not Mr Soap!!!

Of course everyone deserves the right to respond, the advantage with a website is that they can respond anytime where as a live radio show is restricted to the time that its on air.
Click to expand...

For it to be anyway fair, you would need to notify them at the time of the item being posted to the site or in advance of it being posted - otherwise you'd be relying on them hearing about it by word of mouth or by accident which isn't fair.

The point about responding anytime cuts both ways - once on the web it's there until taken down. The same is generally less true of radio, although joe duffy is available via podcast.
 
rmelly said:
key difference is Joe Duffy generally gives the accused the right to respond - will you?
Click to expand...

Well you could give them the same right by telling them of your intentions and the right to pay their debt or else posting it on the Web.
 
Brendan said:
Yes, I thought that this would be a very useful service.
Click to expand...

Even though the idea has merit, I do not think the service would be useful.

Many problems with payment can be down to partial fault on the seller's side. For example, paperwork may not have been filled in correctly (missing PO number), or they may be late in sending an overdue invoice and thereby come under pressure for payment. In many cases, it is kind of a grey area, where some kind of collaboration between seller and buyer is required to resolve the situation.

Aside from the libel issue (which is probably the biggest obstacle), I can't see how a website could distinguish between the genuine cases and 'grey area' ones.
 
mercman said:
Well you could give them the same right by telling them of your intentions and the right to pay their debt or else posting it on the Web.
Click to expand...

That's a start, but if they deny they owe the money, then do you publish or not? Surely it's difficult for a business or individual to prove they DON'T owe some other business money.
 
Why not use the tried and tested method of taking up trade references before extending credit to a new customer.
 
callybags said:
Why not use the tried and tested method of taking up trade references before extending credit to a new customer.
Click to expand...

I had assumed that everyone does this anyway - no?

It doesn't always work though - we have had glowing references for people who turned out to be chancers quite a few times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top