Debt relief from telephone operator

No one can do without a mobile phone at the time of modern technology, because it is one of the most essential elements of today’s communication. So there is no wonder that operators are trying to earn on these everyday people’s needs, in as much as possible. However, at a time when information spreads across the Internet, it is becoming increasingly difficult and the only social group of people who can easily be manipulated by retirees. Therefore, when an older lady appeared in the door of one of our branches with a worried look on her face and a payment order in her hand, we did not hesitate to help her immediately.

Her problem arose precisely from the above facts

Her problem arose precisely from the above facts

According to the order for payment, which we advised her to appeal, she was to pay EUR 1,234.02 to the telephone operator. The petitioner sought compensation for the mobile phones, the difference being the difference between the sales and stock price of the mobile phone. Our client owned 13 pieces of SIM cards.

As mentioned above, we have helped our clients to develop resistance, in which we pointed out the consumer nature of the legal relationship between it and the petitioner. We further pointed out that the amount of the claim claimed is unfounded and that the claimant did not take into account all payments of € 429.65. It was to be expected that the claimant would deduct that amount from the amount requested. In the proceeding he then claimed a claim to pay € 1,026.34.

In the next steps of this dispute, we have shown to the court that the defendant repays EUR 30 per month to the defendant through the First Debt Relief.

The court also took into account the difficult situation of our client

money,cash account

In addition to the fact that her husband died, as a pensioner receives a pension of 400 euros a month, which is to be honest, it is hard to enjoy today. At the same time, the Court found it proven that the conditions for claiming damages were not fulfilled by the plaintiff. He also stated that the defendant does not have the obligation to reimburse the applicant for the discount on the purchase price of the mobile phone if the defendant breaches the obligations of any contract, contract or any supplement thereto.

Finally, it should be pointed out that, despite the success of our client before the court, she has not been granted the right to reimbursement of costs. But what is most important about this case is the fact that, despite the non-pink situation in which our client found herself, we have been able to help her, and thanks to this unpleasant event, she can only look at the life experience she has mastered. skip.