UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSION

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

He's also changed his accounting date.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Aye I noticed that, any ideas why that would be?

[Mandid]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Glad it is over for everyone and hope we get to know his fate in 2016. If I hear back from my TS guy I will update here. Thankyou from the bottom of my heart for your tireless efforts to swat this guy Amethyst. You are truly dedicated and wonderful.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Bless you Mandid, sorry I haven't been on this thread for a while xx

A few people still haven't had their costs out of Mr Howard. I would suggest that now would be a good time to remind him and take enforcement action if necessary. Mr Howard has just lost his bid for a judicial review against the ASA and presumably will be reevaluating his business plan at the moment.

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

As you'll be aware UK Services & Support Ltd launched Judicial Reveiw proceedings against the Adverising Standards Authority on its decision to uphold its original ruling after Richard Howard had appealed. The application was contested at a hearing at Royal Courts of Justice a couple of weeks ago where the court refused permission.

We're working on obtaining a transcript of the refusal order which was handed down verbally but in the meantime we have obtained copies of the other documents including the application, claim grounds, acknowledgement and summary grounds of defence.

Briefly there were 3 claim grounds:

1) Definition of average consumer (used in the ASA adjudication)
2) Procedural unfairness (on the way ASA handled the re-investigation)
3) Irrationality (of the ASA's decision).

Both the application and the claimant's witness statements were filed out of time (so that could possibly be the reason the application was dismissed) but in mitigation Howard claimed he couldn't afford the filing fee until Trading Standards had un-seized some of his assets, even though the initial filing fee was just £140.

As I suspected ASA's defence is more interesting than the claim, and is scathing. It basically accuses him of repeatedly and knowingly attempting to mislead the court. It's a great read. Unfortunately there are no exhibits or annexes but I've scanned this page for now just for the e-mail at the bottom which is vintage Howard.

Due to the large file sizes I'll post the documents up in the next couple of posts.

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Application and Claim Grounds (in 3 parts).

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Defence.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Interesting to see Mr Mercer making an appearance, I really did think he was just another invented name ( http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/...-opgard-mercer )

Ahh actually was that Charles Mercer ?

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Defence.

Oh that defence is a wonderful read.

It is almost like Richard treated his Judicial Review application in exactly the same way he treated his money claims against consumers.... and just expected the ASA to roll over.

[Nibbler]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

I get the feeling the author of that defence would have said some rude things about the claimant had it not been unacceptable to do so.

As it is, describing in places the grounds as 'hopeless' is not far off in legal language.

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Oh that defence is a wonderful read.

It's a killer.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

lol, as if...



Because losing 26 times ( at least) in court when trying to force payment from 'customers' is no indication at all that you are a bit of a crook is it.

[Amethyst]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Just noticed the ASA used Bates, Wells and Braithwaite. Excellent.

I am concerned that as the Bill progresses, we have an extraordinarily egregious example of exactly the points that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, covers in his new clause, and that is the news that the law firm Schillings is showering defamation writs on the citizens advice bureau—one of the most prestigious and respected of all the voluntary organisations that we all have relationships with—as well as the law firm Bates Wells and Braithwaite, the Justice Gap website and the consumer websites Legal Beagles and Consumer Action Group.

Why is Schillings doing that? It is because there is an extremely unpleasant practice now taking place in our retail industry—developed, I am sad to say, under a Labour Government—called civil recovery. In essence, 90% of all shoplifting in our stores is organised by gangs. About 8% or 9% is done by in-house stealing. The tiny 1% is done—frankly, for the most part—by rather sad people. I am not condoning shoplifting; none of us would. Quite a lot of people who walk out of Tesco or Boots have not put in the correct barcode. We have all had that problem now since we have had to, as it were, do our own till accounting. Then the people are pulled back into the shop, taken into a little room and told that they could face prosecution, but Tesco, TK Maxx, Boots or Primark will not prosecute. Instead they will ask for names and addresses and a few weeks later a company in Nottingham called Retail Loss Prevention, which is owned by one person—Mrs Jackie
Column number: 193
Lambert—sends a threatening letter to the person saying that unless they immediately pay £150 or £180, they may face prosecution.

Most of the people are children or adolescents, often from families without much structure. They are terrified out of their wits. Retail Loss Prevention—this Jackie Lambert person—says that this practice has been approved by the Association of Police Chief Officers and is thoroughly legal. It is not. It is a threat to obtain money, because the point of detention is not to go forward and hand the shoplifter—if that is the case, and we are not condoning it—over to the police for prosecution. There have been 750,000—

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../120626s01.htm

[wales01man]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Very true just a money earner for RLP and other companies that needs outlawing

[EXC]

Re: UK Services & Support Ltd BRITISHPassportServices Copycat Website issues DISCUSSI

Just noticed the ASA used Bates, Wells and Braithwaite. Excellent.

Indeed and UKS&S used Jury O'Shea LLP who published this the day after the hearing, oddly enough knocking the MOJ for its press release about Falcon & Pointer.

http://www.juryoshea.com/2016/01/fal...inter-limited/

We saw exactly the same thing last year with a website operated providing what are legitimate services in respect of assistance in getting a passport. The website however has been branded, quite incorrectly, as both misleading and indeed allegedly fraudulent. That website does not fall into the category of copycat or the things that the National Trading Standards eCrime Unit were trying to stop but that, as it were, did not stop the National Trading Standards eCrime Unit or indeed The Advertising Standards Authority from branding it as misleading.

I make no comment about whether Falcon and Pointer Limited is or isn’t guilty of the misdemeanours alleged. What, however, I think we should all object to is the investigating body making a presumption of guilt without even the pretence of some kind of quasi-judicial investigation and independent assessment.

In the case of our client last year, press releases were splashed across the internet effectively claiming that our allegedly scamming client was guilty of all sorts of things even though it hadn’t been near a Court.

Obviously Howard hadn't had time in his busy schedule to inform his lawyers of the 20 odd cases he'd lost.

Oh and Edward Mercer is a partner at Jury O'shea.