I have suffered a bad experience with Vitogaz despite not or ever have being their customer. I would be interested to learn if you have had a bad experience with Vitogaz whilst not being their customer.
A brief outline . . .
I prevented Vitogaz from stealing an aerienne gas tank belonging to Antargaz to which company I was contracted together with 800 Euros of gas within the tank belonging to me. As a consequence, Vitogaz issued criminal proceedings against me without my knowledge, without being charged and without the right to file a defence.
I would be interested to learn if anybody has suffered a similar experience with Vitogaz?
Hi @Charlie3 and welcome to SF
Perhaps you might like to explain a bit more about the nature of your bad experience so that others can contribute…
Thank you for your reply.
I have provided a brief outline which may be of assistance.
Does your property insurance include assurance protection juridique against which you can launch a claim?
Thank you for your reply.
Under my assurance protection juridique, I launched a claim.
My lawyer advised that the claim would have little chance of obtaining compensation as I could not prove that I suffered a financial loss or moral prejudice.
but were you convicted and did you seek to have it set aside… compensation is a different matter and as your legal advice suggested, you could not actually prove financial loss since you prevented the loss.
Even if all sorted arguably some compensation could be due for stress/anxiety - not sure the French system is big on that sort of thing though.
I would have thought a reputational prejudice, stress etc.
What, exactly, happened?
Why has Antargaz not assisted you?
I do know that in the aviation oil industry, one company may ‘inherit’ another supplier"s tanks even branded still with the other supplier’s name and the ‘inheriting’ supplier will continue to use them.
Hello Graham, Billy and Karen,
Thank you for your replies.
It seems that a moral prejudice, i.e. stress, anxiety, reputation etc has to be proved. Further, it appears that a moral prejudice has to be accompanied by a fiscal prejudice, i.e. a financial loss.
The Prosecutor of Nanterre advised that the criminal case against me was dismissed with no further claims as it appeared that the claim was temerary.
Antargaz declined to assist advising that Vitogaz was a competitor and that I was to establish why Vitogaz wanted to collect the gas tank.
You’d think they might just be at least a little interest as the tank is (presumably) their property.
At least the charges were thrown out.
One to put behind you?
Thank goodness for that. At least their frivolous and vexatious claim has not damaged your otherwise unblemished good standing.
I’d personally move on. Anything beyond that is likely only to benefit the lawyers