Defamation Act 2013

[Surfer]

This comes into effect from 1st January 2014 and removes responsibilty for a defammatory posting from the webmaster and puts the onus on the poster. In other words if you knock a company, the company has to go after the poster and not the owner of the host site. So in a way good news. I wonder if Haymarket will allow people to name and shame companies, but also allowing thsoe companies to give feedback?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Essentially not a lot has changed, It has always been the case that posters have to be responsible for what they post. There have been some notable cases where individuals have been brought to book where a 'victim' has perused it, If I understand it correctly What has changed is that the web site cannot be ultimately held responsible for comments and post made by others (sort of don't shoot the messenger)

However this new act does not exempt web sites from liability if its policies or editorial content is defamatory, or contrary to any of the equality legislation or racial hatred etc.

I also suspect that it wont prevent site operators from being held responsible if they don't take down or moderate repeat defamatory posts.

It also dose not prevent site operators from having posting etiquette resisting certain types of posts. So don't expect Haymarket to relax their stance on naming and shaming.

There are other sites or ways to post such comments.

I still welcome the increase in the responsibility on posters to act and post sensibly.

 

[otherclive]

I hope that Haymarket don't change their Forum policy as it would encourage too many emotive rants where the poster may not be as objective as they should be. Name and shame can take on the semblance of a lynch mob and just giving a company right of response doesn't necessarily redress the lack of objectivity in someone's post. There are other and better ways to take companies to task.

 

[Surfer]

By the same token it can be used to one's advantage if one does not embellish the facts and states the true facts as any dealership that has been named will be very foolish to pursue it if the facts are correct. I am a firm believer in name and shame based on facts but giving the opportunity for the delaership to respond.
As per my damp thread, naming the shaming the dealership should come into play should the dealership fail to carry out the repair, replacement or refund within a reasonable time which IMHO would be about 4 weeks or a month. After all there is no issue with naming and shaming a manufacturer.
As the dealership is now doing something about our caravan due to intervention by the finance company, even if we were allowed at this point, I would not consider naming and shaming.

 

[Damian]

I can assure posters that the current rules will NOT change.
This forum will not become a platform for individual moans and gripes about companies or dealerships.
A caravan owners contract is with the supplying Dealer and that is where disputes must be directed.
Companies and dealers are NOT required to enter into forum led disputes and this forum will NOT be a part to that kind of "Trial By Disgruntled Owner".

Name and Shame postings WILL be removed as they have in the past.

 

[Parksy]

By the same token it can be used to one's advantage if one does not embellish the facts and states the true facts as any dealership that has been named will be very foolish to pursue it if the facts are correct. I am a firm believer in name and shame based on facts but giving the opportunity for the delaership to respond.

Who decides whether or not the 'facts' are indeed true?
Supposing a forum moderator was given the task of establishing the true facts of the matter. How could the hapless moderator even begin to discover what had actually taken place?
If a recently joined forum member Joe Bloggs wrote about a terrible experience on a caravan site, with untrained staff, rats in the kitchens and toilets overflowing what method would be the best one to use to find out whether or not the complaint was genuine or whether Joe Bloggs owned a rival caravan site down the road from the one that he was complaining about?
I've been away from my keyboard for most of today and I haven't had chance to study the new legislation to find out what effect if any it will have on us, but as Damian already mentioned, the rules are not about to change and unless you have the correct answers to my questions above perhaps you can now see why.

 

[ProfJohnL]

..... but giving the opportunity for the delaership to respond.

It has always been the case that dealers or companies were welcome to join the forum, and they could if they so wished respond to issues with their products. However as history has shown, very few have actively contributed to this forum.

They will have their reasons for keeping quiet, but almost certainly they will have taken legal advice which generally suggests that businesses should refrain from using general forums especially contributors real identities are hidden. it can all too easily become a bunfight.

It only needs one careless response to open the proverbial can of worms, and as we know sometimes a viper may have been secreted amongst the worms.

As Damian has stated, you must always resolve the matter through the proper contractural route, and not air it all in its detail right or wrong in public.

 

[Dustydog]

By the same token it can be used to one's advantage if one does not embellish the facts and states the true facts as any dealership that has been named will be very foolish to pursue it if the facts are correct. I am a firm believer in name and shame based on facts but giving the opportunity for the delaership to respond.

Who decides whether or not the 'facts' are indeed true?
Supposing a forum moderator was given the task of establishing the true facts of the matter. How could the hapless moderator even begin to discover what had actually taken place?
If a recently joined forum member Joe Bloggs wrote about a terrible experience on a caravan site, with untrained staff, rats in the kitchens and toilets overflowing what method would be the best one to use to find out whether or not the complaint was genuine or whether Joe Bloggs owned a rival caravan site down the road from the one that he was complaining about?
I've been away from my keyboard for most of today and I haven't had chance to study the new legislation to find out what effect if any it will have on us, but as Damian already mentioned, the rules are not about to change and unless you have the correct answers to my questions above perhaps you can now see why.

You can if you wish tell it how it is on Ukcampsite and trip advisor. Obviously Lord Hezza doesn't own them.
Down my local , discussion on politics and religion is absolutely banned. Yet we are not short of discussion topics.

 

[Parksy]

You can if you wish tell it how it is on Ukcampsite and trip advisor. Obviously Lord Hezza doesn't own them.
Down my local , discussion on politics and religion is absolutely banned. Yet we are not short of discussion topics.

UK Campsite have been known to remove or edit reviews which they consider to be unfair but UK Campsite have built up such a database of reviews it's usually a simple matter to look through a number of site reviews and see one highly critical review amongst several positive reviews for the same site and draw your own conclusions

Haymarket's revamped Caravan Sitefinder accepts reviews in which the less than positive aspects of caravan sites are shown as well as the positive reviews, but the Practical Caravan forum covers every aspect of touring caravan ownership.
Trying to sort the wheat from the chaff to maintain fairness and balance could be a moderators nightmare although the new act should remove the ever present possibility of legal action against forum admin.
The embargo on 'naming and shaming' has nothing to do with who owns the website, and it's doubtful if Lord Hezza is even aware of our existence.
Most if not all caravan related forums including the general message boards of UK Campsite and the highly respected Caravan Talk forum moderate their forum content in much the same way as we do on here with no naming and shaming unless there is positive easily verifiable proof of the facts of the matter in question.
Anyone who has been a forum member for five or six years will remember some of the hateful comments which appeared on this forum at times, so Dustydogs pub landlord is wise to ban all talk of politics and religion in his local when there are lots of other interesting subjects up fpr discussion. There are a myriad of websites and newspaper reply boxes when the political spleen can be well and truly vented, not to mention Facebook where you can say pretty much whatever you want to about anything at all.

 

[Surfer]

However there is no issue naming and shaming a brand like Lunar on any forum including this one?

 

[Parksy]

No sane person could justifiably deny that every caravan maufacturer
no matter which builds at least some caravans which have faults of one
kind or another or that their products are always without exception 100% up to the standard that they were designed to meet.
The SOGA delivers the anomally that manufacturers
are not responsible to the retail end users of their products for poor design or build quality, so when caravan
manufacturers are named on forums in connection with faulty or sub standard new products they would be hard pressed to prove conclusively in a British court of law that they were being defamed.
A dealer or perhaps a caravan park, in fact any business which is responsible to their customer for the quality and durability of their goods or services could argue in a court of law that a forum comment in which they were named had defamed them.
Unfortunately the law which generally speaking governs what we can and can't state on the internet is not really about what we on the forum may regard as right, it's all about libel or defamation.

 

[Raywood]

I think the advice given here is generally correct. What the law is trying to do is protect the site owners from malicious postings in the first instance. however they are still going to be liable if a libelous posting is allowed to remain there once the problem has been drawn to attention.

 

[Parksy]

That's why website forums appoint moderators Ray, we're cheaper than lawyers

 

[Raywood]

Anything is cheaper than lawyer. Just to let you know how expensive libel solicitors are, the last case I dealt with before I retired ran up just under £200,000 in costs and that never got to court.

 

[Parksy]

I know Ray, my youngest brother is a solicitor but he specialises in property law.
He does ok for himself