Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

[Diana M]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

The Vodafone account notes that I obtained confirm that the contract was opened in a carphone warehouse store, though Vodafone have always refused to supply me with any details of this and haven't confirmed this when questioned.

I'm not sure how you can "assert that Vodafone have been negligent in allowing a contract to be opened with insufficient documentation" when the account was opened in a Carphone Warehouse store where presumably the documents were presented.

As I understand it all new mobile phone contract applications are credit checked at the point of sale in the Carphone Warehouse store through a system which links to Vodafone's system. It would usually check the Electoral Roll on the CRA file against the information given to the Carphone Warehouse.

I have no idea what documents they ask for but proof of address might be one, such as a photo driving licence or bank statement etc.

Were you on the Electoral Roll at your parents' address (where the Default was registered) or at your term-time uni address at the time you completed that questionnaire?

If the account was opened in a different name to you and at a different address (not your parents or term-time uni address given to the 'market researcher') then why didn't that flag up on the Vodafone/Carphone Warehouse credit check unless Carphone Warehouse didn't carry out proper checks?

https://selfhelp.carphonewarehouse.com/SelfHelp/request.do?view()=c%7B43171eb0-ce14-11de-e56d-000000000000%7D

Consider whether the reason Vodafone hasn't given you information of the account opening may be because they weren't directly party to it if it was done in a Carphone Warehouse store in person with one of their advisers?

From what you say Vodafone has refunded you (via your bank) all the charges they collected by Direct Debit which I presume would have been for line rental, air time, texts etc. but was there also a handset which would have had a trackable IMEI number?

Perhaps when that letter from the Legal Team said the account "will be left cancelled and collectable" it meant that once/if the perpetrators of the fraud are convicted then Vodafone will be in a position to "collect" the money they've lost from them (i.e. the fraudsters under the Proceeds of Crime Act etc).

From what I've read on the internet (so not reliable ) there was a massive fraud which may have resulted in Vodafone loosing a lot of money which they intend to recover.

You need to aim at the right target before you accuse them of being negligent in court.

The Default marker may be a different issue.

Di

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Yes, I agree with Diana regarding the allegations of negligence in general, unless you are able to prove on balance of probabilities that they were negligent. Personally, I think its a bit of a stretch to interpret that the letter from their legal team might suggest that Vodafone will collect the debt from the fraudsters. If that were the case, then (a) mentioning that in the letter would be of no relevance because it would have no effect on Abbie and (b) why is the default marker still being reported and the account information not being removed?

Below of a letter I have used before in relation to breach of data protection and negligence (insofar as relating to the default and inaccurate information). I'd amended to reflect what your circumstances as an example but there are of course some stuff in brackets that you might want to change or update/amend. It is by no means the best example but gives you an idea of how to set out an LBA for breach of DPA and negligence so don't simply copy and paste it - you should adapt to suit your needs if you are wanting to still press ahead with court proceedings. I attached word version at the end of the post.

------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Vodafone account number: [Insert reference number]

I write with reference to the above matter.

This letter before action is sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (the ‘Practice Direction’) as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The purpose of this letter is to place Vodafone on notice that I consider it to be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 by inaccurately reporting a default to credit reference agencies in connection with a fraudulent account. I also believe Vodafone to be negligent by causing or permitting the default be reported to credit reference agencies without reasonable belief. [Furthermore, the way in which Vodafone have acted by instructing third party debt collectors on various occasions to recover the alleged debt also gives rise to an actionable claim for harassment.]

Background and nature of the claim
As you are aware, for over two years I have been grappling with Vodafone in respect of a fraudulent account that was set up in my name in or around [DATE] (the ‘Account’). The Account was set up without my authorisation and as a result of an alleged non-payment, Vodafone have [terminated the contract and] reported the Account to credit reference agencies as having defaulted. At no point prior to the existence of the Account being created have I been a customer of Vodafone. [On the contrary, I was, and still am, contracted to another mobile service provider.]

[Except for the defaulted Account, my credit file is in an excellent condition free from any adverse entries. Naturally, the default or other adverse information reported by Vodafone to the credit reference agencies has caused considerable distress and inconvenience the result of which, has prevented me from applying for a mortgage and/or other credit at a favourable interest rate.] Given the seriousness of my complaint, it is my contention that Vodafone is under a duty to investigate my complaint in order to reasonably satisfy itself that the Account was not fraudulent before reporting the default to credit reference agencies. By notifying the credit reference agencies of the default, Vodafone owes a duty of care to ensure that the information reported is accurate. To date, I have received no supporting evidence from Vodafone indicating that the Account is not in any way fraudulent. In the circumstances, by causing and/or permitting the default to be reported to credit reference agencies without conclusive proof that the default is accurate, Vodafone are in breach of its duty of care (see Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another [2014] UKSC 21). This unlawfulness is further compounded by the fact that Vodafone have admitted in a letter dated [INSERT DATE], that the Account may be linked to a previous mobile phone scam back in 2014 (of which I am led to believe Vodafone were made aware by the Metropolitan Police Mobile Crime Unit in 2014) yet it insists that the I remain liable for the Account.

Enclosed Documents
Although Vodafone are already in possession of the relevant evidence which I intend to rely on in support of my claim, I have nonetheless enclosed the following key documents for your perusal:

· Document 1
· Document 2
· Document 3
· Document 4

Action required
In the spirit of reaching an amicable agreement and to obviate the need to commence legal proceedings, I propose that Vodafone, in full and final settlement:

· immediately notify all credit reference agencies to remove all adverse entries in connection with the Vodafone account reference [number]. For the avoidance of doubt, the Account shall be permanently removed so that it no longer exists on any file of information credit reference agencies may hold about me;

· [pay [£amount] by way of compensation which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the length of time and resource I have spent in relation to this ongoing dispute] OR [pay [£amount] which is calculated at a rate of [£5.00] per day up to and including the date of this letter, which I consider to be a reasonable sum in respect of Vodafone’s statutory breaches and/or negligence.];

· [provide an assurance that Vodafone (including any third parties acting on its behalf), shall not attempt to recover or otherwise pursue any monies in connection with the Account.]

The above offer shall remain open for acceptance until 4:00pm on [14 days] at which point the offer shall be revoked. If you do not accept this offer or deny the allegations set out herein, please provide a detailed response by the above mentioned date. If I do not hear back from you either way, I shall have no other choice but to commence legal proceedings and without further notice to Vodafone. If that is the case, Vodafone’s liability will likely further increase as I will be seeking additional costs incidental to the application including interest at a rate the Court sees fit.

I look forward to hearing from you by [DATE].

Yours faithfully,


[Your Name]

Enc.
[List the documents you enclose]

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Di, thanks for your response. Yes I agree, I probably can't assert that they were negligent in opening the account with insufficient documentation as I am not sure what was presented in CPW at the time. My case now purely relates to Vodafone's handling of the situation from when the fraud was first discovered. I was on the electoral register at my parents house through out University but registered for council tax at my term time address. With regards to the default marker, I have no other business with Vodafone and they have confirmed that the default marker is correct and that it is for the £800+ that was recalled by my bank when they did their fraud investigation.

Thanks for the template Rob, I will revise my letter this week and post on here again before sending.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Rob,

Just looking through your template on my lunch and have a few questions. Firstly, where you say 'Furthermore, the way in which Vodafone have acted by instructing third party debt collectors on various occasions to recover the alleged debt also gives rise to an actionable claim for harassment...' I have not received any communications from any third parties regarding collection of the outstanding, though I believe this has been mentioned as a possibility in letters sent to me from Vodafone (I will check tonight when I get home).

Secondly, I am still struggling to quantify my claim. In the case mentioned in your template the following was initially awarded:

• £8,000 for injury to his credit rating;
• £6,880 for the extra interest which he had to pay; and
• £101, 794 for the loss of capital gain arising from his inability to purchase the Spanish property

I would like to know how the £8000 was calculated or was it just picked as an estimate value for the distress caused? I have searched online for a breakdown but can't find it. I am not sure what the £6880 interest is but I guess it may have been charged on his loan in relation to this case. I have not had to pay out any interest or anything other than (potentially) increased insurance premiums and a further years worth of renting accommodation. As for the loss of capital gain, this seems similar to my position in that we were unable to purchase a property in April 2016. Do you know how this was calculated? I was planning on calculating this as the difference in house price from when we got the initial mortgage agreement in principle until now. For example:

If the houses we were looking at were around the £180,000 mark and the governments house price index shows a 4.9% increase from June 2016 to June 2017, then our loss would be roughly 5% of £180,000. So £9000. Would this then have to be halved as its a loss shared between me and my partner?

Then the other issue with claim would be quantifying the rent as a loss. I imagine it would not be fair to claim for the full amount spent on rent as some of that would have been spent on the mortgage (accommodation) anyway. Do I need to work out a percentage of that rental cost that could be classed as 'dead money'. Or should I put the full cost in? I would like to claim the maximum I am reasonably entitled to in order to send a message to Vodafone but at the same time, based on the workings above, that now could be as much as tens of thousands of pounds. Would that move it away from the small claims court?

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

OK so had a quick look at the docs I have scanned in and there are several letters stating:

'You have 14 days to pay - please call us now on 03333 040 170 (standard call charges apply). If you don't, we'll have to do two things:


1 Register your account as a bad debt with a credit reference agency. This means you may find it difficult to get loans, credit cards and other phone contracts in the future.
2 Instruct a debt collection agency to collect the payment for us.'

To this date I have not been contacted by any debt collection agencies.

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

The letter is simply an example of what you might say, I don't have all of the knowledge that you do so if the contents of the example is not true, then remove it or amend it as you feel necessary. Most of the things I put in brackets are optional and wasn't sure if they were true or not but to also get you thinking as to whether those things occurred.

Like I said before, it is difficult to quantify your claims for breach of the DPA/negligence. If I recall, the £8,000 was a sum put forward by Durkin and wasn't challenged by HFC so that stood. The other claims of loss were not granted because the Scottish courts had already ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove those losses, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction (I think) to look at those claims. So I wouldn't get too engrossed into the other losses that were being claimed.

If the houses we were looking at were around the £180,000 mark and the governments house price index shows a 4.9% increase from June 2016 to June 2017, then our loss would be roughly 5% of £180,000. So £9000. Would this then have to be halved as its a loss shared between me and my partner?

Perhaps one argument as to your loss but in order to prove it, you have to show that on balance, the default would have more likely than not had an effect on you being given a mortgage. A recent default is arguable that it would prevent (in most cases) applications for mortgages being rejected but there is also an argument that you wouldn't get rejected from every mortgage provider, though the default is more than likely to have an effect on the interest rates. So you might want to look at perhaps what you might have been given as a favourable interest rate against one which is for those who may have a poorer credit history - if there are any mortgage providers out there who do this! You could then claim the difference on a property that you would have likely been given for a mortgage.

Then the other issue with claim would be quantifying the rent as a loss. I imagine it would not be fair to claim for the full amount spent on rent as some of that would have been spent on the mortgage (accommodation) anyway. Do I need to work out a percentage of that rental cost that could be classed as 'dead money'. Or should I put the full cost in? I would like to claim the maximum I am reasonably entitled to in order to send a message to Vodafone but at the same time, based on the workings above, that now could be as much as tens of thousands of pounds. Would that move it away from the small claims court?

Are you paying more in rent now than you might have been had you been given a mortgage for a property? If so, you could claim the difference between the two as one option. Alternatively you could claim a specified amount of money for the loss of opportunity to get yourself on the property ladder and having 'owned' a percentage of the property that would have been taken out on a mortgage. Again, there's always two sides to an argument and not doubt Vodafone would seek to rebut this type of argument.

The problem you have is that all of this is speculation and ordinarily you would make an unspecified claim and then suggest to the court that you believe your damages would be in the range of X to X. However, unspecified claims now cost £10,000 to issue which is a hell of a lot and I am sure you wouldn't want to be paying that much money for this type of claim. Therefore, you should think what is a reasonable amount of money in terms of compensation given your circumstances, taking into account that the higher the compensation, the higher you will pay in fees and the more likely that Vodafone will challenge your claim.

Alternatively, the £5 per day as damages seems like a reasonable starting point (this sort of tactic was raised in another DPA thread) or you might even be able to stretch it to £10 per day in your case and the issues you have had but its your call.

Lots to think about and its best to make sure you get it right first time than look silly and having to backtrack if you get things wrong. You should also consider reducing your claim for compensation if necessary in order to get the desired outcome, which is to remove the default from your credit file that CRAs hold about you.

My view of things is in no way the only way nor is it correct (each lawyer has a different view of things). Ultimately, it will be down to a judge to decide whether the compensation you seek is at all proportionate to the claim.

If I am being honest, and given the facts that I know so far, anything between £1,000 - £2,000 would not be unreasonable. If you start claiming more than this, then you are going to likely need some evidence or strong arguments as to why your claim warrants this amount of compensation.

P.s. if the damages claim goes over £10,000 then it falls outside of the small claims track.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Thanks for your ongoing support Rob, I have been through the letter and drafted as follows (modified sections highlighted in bold):

I write with reference to the above matter.

This letter before action is sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (the ‘Practice Direction’) as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The purpose of this letter is to place Vodafone on notice that I consider it to be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 by inaccurately reporting a default to credit reference agencies in connection with a fraudulent account. I also believe Vodafone to be negligent by causing or permitting the default be reported to credit reference agencies without reasonable belief. Furthermore, the way in which Vodafone have acted by threatening on various occasions to instruct third party debt collectors to recover the alleged debt also gives rise to an actionable claim for harassment.

Background and nature of the claim

As you are aware, for over two years I have been grappling with Vodafone in respect of a fraudulent Account that was set up in my name in July 2014 (the ‘Account’). The Account was set up without my authorisation and as a result of an alleged non-payment, Vodafone have terminated the contract and reported the Account to credit reference agencies as having defaulted. At no point prior to the existence of the Account being created have I been a customer of Vodafone. On the contrary, I was, and still am, contracted to another mobile service provider.

Except for the defaulted Account, my credit file is in an excellent condition free from any recorded adverse entries. Naturally, the default and/or other adverse information reported by Vodafone to the credit reference agencies has caused considerable distress and inconvenience the result of which, has prevented me from applying for a mortgage and other credit at a favourable interest rate. Given the seriousness of my complaint, it is my contention that Vodafone is under a duty to investigate my complaint in order to reasonably satisfy itself that the Account was not fraudulent before reporting the default to the credit reference agencies. By notifying the credit reference agencies of the default, Vodafone owes a duty of care to ensure that the information reported is accurate. To date, I have received no supporting evidence from Vodafone indicating that the Account is not in any way fraudulent. In the circumstances, by causing and/or permitting the default to be reported to credit reference agencies without conclusive proof that the default is accurate, Vodafone are in breach of its duty of care (see Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another [2014] UKSC 21). This unlawfulness is further compounded by the fact that Vodafone have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence of fraud on the account, citing normal usage to UK landlines and mobiles as one of the justifications for this. However, Vodafone’s own account notes, obtained by myself following a request for information under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 dated 19/10/2016, show that this account was referred to the fraud team several times due to high usage in Spain and Portugal. Vodafone have since admitted in a letter dated 03/04/2017 that the Account may be linked to a previous mobile phone scam back in 2014 yet it insists that I remain liable for the Account.

Enclosed Documents

Although Vodafone are already in possession of the relevant evidence which I intend to rely on in support of my claim, I have nonetheless enclosed the following key documents for your perusal:

· Overdue payment – final notice dated 28/07/16
· Letter from Vodafone Fraud Team dated 28/11/16
· Vodafone 689728830 Crystal Account Notes
· Vodafone 689728830 Siebel Account Notes
· Letter from Vodafone UK Legal Team dated 03/04/17

Action required

In the spirit of reaching an amicable agreement and to obviate the need to commence legal proceedings, I propose that Vodafone, in full and final settlement:

· Immediately notify all credit reference agencies to remove all adverse entries in connection with the Vodafone account reference 689728830. For the avoidance of doubt, the Account shall be permanently removed so that it no longer exists on any file of information credit reference agencies may hold about me;

· Pay £5000 by way of compensation which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the effects of the damage to my credit score and the length of time and resource I have spent in relation to this ongoing dispute OR £4170 which is calculated at a rate of £5.00 per day up to and including the date of this letter, which I consider to be a reasonable sum in respect of Vodafone’s statutory breaches and/or negligence;

· Provide an assurance that Vodafone (including any third parties acting on its behalf), shall not attempt to recover or otherwise pursue any monies in connection with the Account.

The above offer shall remain open for acceptance until 4:00pm on 27/10/17 at which point the offer shall be revoked. If you do not accept this offer or deny the allegations set out herein, please provide a detailed response by the above mentioned date. If I do not hear back from you either way, I shall have no other choice but to commence legal proceedings and without further notice to Vodafone. If that is the case, Vodafone’s liability will likely further increase as I will be seeking additional costs incidental to the application including interest at a rate the Court sees fit.

I look forward to hearing from you by 27/10/17.


******

The main additions are; mentioning the threats to instruct third party debt collection agencies, the mention of Vodafone's inconsistencies in their notes/fraud investigation, the documents I have chosen to include, the compensation amount and the addition of the comment referencing the effects of the bad credit score and the dates as I plan on sending this letter on Friday.

Do you think the documents are sufficient? I have extensive records of all communications but feel these are the most important. The overdue payment - final notice letter is an example where they threaten to instruct debt collectors. The letter from the Vodafone Fraud team simply states that there is no fraud found. The two account note documents show the full account from opening to closing, including the early referrals to the fraud team, the point at which I first contacted them (failed to pass DPA checks but reported the fraud), the results of the fraud investigation and any and all follow up contacts. The letter from the Vodafone Legal team is the one that mentions the link to the court case. I'm not sure if anything else would be needed?

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Looks fine, but I would suggest the following amendments

As you are aware, for over two years I have been grappling with Vodafone in respect of a fraudulent account that was set up in my name in July 2014 (the ‘Account’).

Small change the word 'account' as it was capitalised when it should not have been.

how that this account was referred to the fraud team several times due to high usage in Spain and Portugal (which I might add that I was in fact in the UK [working] when the phone was used abroad and can prove this)

Inserted the above, but you may want to tweak it or remove it if you can't prove or explain your whereabouts at the time the phone was used.

Your enclosed documents does not include the correspondence from the bank confirming the DD mandate was fraudulently signed. I would include this as part of your relevant documents as it is one of the most important, if not the most important document that would help to support your claim that the account was fraudulent.

· Pay £5000 by way of compensation which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the effects of the damage to my credit score and the length of time and resource I have spent in relation to this ongoing dispute OR £4170 which is calculated at a rate of £5.00 per day up to and including the date of this letter, which I consider to be a reasonable sum in respect of Vodafone’s statutory breaches and/or negligence;

The above is an either/or situation not both, hence I put in the word 'OR' which was the intention to suggest that you could calculate your compensation in one of these ways. If your seeking £5,000 then you might be asked how you arrived at that amount so be prepared, the latter option at £5 per day might be considered more reasonable but is up to you.

Finally, have you considered the court fees you are going to pay on this? Between £3,000 - £5,000 it will cost you £185 to issue the claim and then a further £335 to pay the hearing fee if it gets to that stage - are you happy paying those fees?

One thing that might be reasonable is to suggest in your letter that, if they agree to settle within the 14 day period, you will accept a lower sum of compensation for early settlement, however if you are forced to issued a claim then you will seek the full damages as outlined. You might want to amend the last paragraph to say something like the below:

Should you choose to accept the terms of the offer within the stipulated period, I am prepared to agree a smaller compensation sum of £2,085 by way of early settlement. If, however, I do not hear back from you by [date] or you reject my offer then I shall have no other choice but to commence legal proceedings without further notice to Vodafone. In this case, I will seek the full amount of damages I believe I am entitled to, which is £4,170 as set out above as well as any costs incidental to the claim and including interest at a rate the Court sees fit.

If you have a letter from Vodafone's legal team I would suggest you direct the LBA to that address it came from and make sure to put the attention of Vodafone legal team or whatever they call themselves.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Thanks again Rob, I will make the necessary amendments. I will go with the £5.00 per day and also prepare a breakdown for distress caused, damage to credit score, harassment by way of threatening letters and the issues with the mortgage/continued rent in case I need it at any point. I will also amend the last paragraph so it reads pretty much as you suggested, as I would accept a lesser amount to gain a quicker resolution. I am happy to pay the full court fees and will be sending the letter this week.

Will keep you posted!

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Removed

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I don't think you need to include this in the letter, not necessary at this stage, only if it went to hearing. I would remove the post anyway since there are authorised Vodafone employees who use this forum and you don't want it to be used against you in any way.

If the matter falls into small claims tack you wouldn't be able to recover costs of time spent on the case, unless you are pleading aggravated damages (which you may as well anyway).

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Thanks Rob, I have removed the original post. Do you think that asking for '£5.00 per day by way of compensation which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the effects of the damage to my credit score and the length of time and resource I have spent in relation to this ongoing dispute' is enough detail at this stage? It just seems a bit arbitrary for if the courts ever have to decide, But I am no expert and not sure at what stage this sum would be scrutinised?

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I would say it is reasonable yes and would reflect the length of time this dispute has been going on for plus the obvious problems you might have in obtaining credit at all or at the very least, at a favourable rate. I was searching for some data protection cases yesterday and came across a Scottish court case of a neighbour dispute. One neighbour had installed CCTV and began recording the others - the court held there were several breaches of the DPA and calculated those breaches at £10 per day over the course of around 3 years or just under. The total award came to £8,634 per each person.

The case judgment can be read here -> https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...0-ff0000d74aa7

The circumstances in that case are obviously different to yours but again, there is a lack of authority as to guidelines on the amount of awards. Also note that the Scottish case is not binding on England and Wales cases, but is persuasive authority. I've extracted what the judge said at the end below.

[113] The Act does not give guidance as to levels of compensation. The pursuers have claimed sums which are calculated based on a nominal amount of £10 per day for each of them, multiplied by the number of days which such data processing has taken place in breach of the Act (namely since the equipment was installed in October 2013 to the raising of the action), under subtraction of one month per year to allow for when they were likely to be absent from the property, for example on holiday.


[114] This method of calculation is not held out as based on anything but pragmatism. No authority exists for compensation in these circumstances. Such case law as exists relates to individual, one-off errors, such as loss of a file, and is not similar. It is necessary for the pursuer to formulate a claim, however little guidance there may be, and I cannot say that the sum of £10 per day per head is an unreasonable one. Having regard to the evidence of the effect of long-term surveillance and resulting stress, I accept that this is a reasonable, and probably moderate, basis of claim and that the methodology is logical. This aspect would benefit from authoritative decision.


[115] Counsel adopted a neutral position, as he was equally hampered by the lack of authoritative guidance. He did not seek to dispute this method of quantification, or the sums sought.


[116] I have no doubt that an award of compensation to each of the pursuers is merited. They have suffered a relatively extreme breach of the Act. The effect on their daily lives has been long-running and debilitating. There is no reason to distinguish between them, as their experience has been a joint one and the distress of the one is likely to affect the other.



[117] I will award the sums sought. These are stated at 912 days, approximately two and a half years, at £10 per day, less four weeks a year for their absence. I do not comment on the correctness of this approach, simply that it appears stateable and logical. The sums sought are £8,634 each. Interest is sought at half the judicial rate from date of decree only. I will award each of them such a sum. Parties did not agree the position on expenses. I will therefore invite them to do so, failing which a hearing on expenses can be appointed. Parties should contact the court to arrange a hearing if this remains necessary.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Morning Guys,

My LBA is complete and will be sent today! Thanks again for everyone's help and advice!

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Guys,

So my LBA will be delivered today and they will have 14 days to respond. Do you think its worth emailing the same LBA to CEO with a covering email? My last pre action letter was ignored despite being sent by recorded delivery, the only response I have had came from an email to the CEO's office. Plus it would give me an electronic record that they have received the letter, along with my proof of delivery. Not sure if its worth doing or not so happy to take advice.