*** WON *** 123456 UK Passport Offices *** DISCONTINUED ****

[Amethyst]

Thread for 123456. Sorting docs.



Complaint made to ICO.

Agreement - end of July 2014.

[didactosaurus]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

So, if I understand correctly, in this case UKS&S have until the 12th May to pull out at no extra cost to themselves other than the initial £25 fee?

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Charges

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

So, if I understand correctly, in this case UKS&S have until the 12th May to pull out at no extra cost to themselves other than the initial £25 fee?

Sadly, yes that's how it works, although you can ask for costs if they withdraw after defence/bundles etc entered - we used to call it wasted costs, but in small claims, low value, litigant in person, it's not going to be massive. I think we're looking into unreasonable behaviour costs against them so that could all help.

[didactosaurus]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Unreasonable behaviour sounds very feasible, Amethyst. If this was a one-off case, it wouldn't look dodgy for him to pull out - however, seeing as there's a number of us in the heap and it's a commercial matter, lots of evidence to support such a contention.

Any thoughts on these statements of truth? I know 123456 is interested in these - I suppose we all would be. Would a standard statement then a list of names and court case numbers (which can easily be proven to be genuine) suffice, or would each individual have to submit a signed statement?

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

We'll have to do a signed witness statement, and it would have to be signed with a statement of truth. I'm going to ask Tom later about it. Bare in mind that a group of people who have court claims against them all saying a site mislead then into paying isn't as persuasive as the ASA stating it IS misleading so though it seems like a good idea it wouldn't be a killer blow.

[didactosaurus]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Would the ASA be prepared to include/add the BPS site to their ruling on the UKPO site? Or at least provide a letter to that effect?

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Currently they are re-investigating UKS&S websites following the appeal made by UKS&S so all new information/complaints will I'm sure help them, although they won't say that. They won't provide a letter without complaints and an investigation taking place, and then they'd only publish their decision and consumers would use that as persuasive to court.

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Allocation & Hearing

[TheCarGuy]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Currently they are re-investigating UKS&S websites following the appeal made by UKS&S so all new information/complaints will I'm sure help them, although they won't say that. They won't provide a letter without complaints and an investigation taking place, and then they'd only publish their decision and consumers would use that as persuasive to court.

Could the original ASA ruling be used as evidence in court, or is it useless as a new investigation is ongoing?

[TheCarGuy]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Allocation & Hearing

The copies of documents that must be sent to all other parties and the court.. When do you have to do that? Do you bring them to the hearing or do you have to send them prior to the hearing?

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

It is standard 14 days before the hearing unless directions say otherwise, in this case it's before 2nd March. YOu always send stuff to the court before the hearing so the judge can read through it first and make directions if necessary.

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Could the original ASA ruling be used as evidence in court, or is it useless as a new investigation is ongoing?

The ASA ruling is still in force and can be used as persuasive on the misleading side of things.

[didactosaurus]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

The ASA ruling is still in force and can be used as persuasive on the misleading side of things.

That's exactly what we're planning to do. In the lovely 4-page letter I sent them before the claim landed, one point was to the effect that the ASA found the UK Passport Offices site (UKPO) misleading, and as it is owned and run by UK S & S, that evidences that their sites have been found to be misleading - and thus, the BPS site is equally misleading. It's a moot point but a strong one as the sites are materially similar.

I was also planning to enter in defence the letter from TLT solicitors to the ASA arguing their interpretation of the 'average consumer' - in one section their own solicitor states that the BPS site is 'content-heavy' and focussed on 'selling' their 'services', as opposed to the Government official site. I think that's a cock-up of galactic proportions, and I would dearly love to use that against them. What do you think, Amethyst?

EDIT: Although I wonder if it's wise to bring the fact BPS are appealing the ASA ruling to the court's attention? Might shoot ourselves in the foot there...

[Amethyst]

Re: *** 123456 v BritishPassportServices ( bundles 2nd march - hearing 19 May )

Ahh I should check threads before I email people xx As I said it will be easy to claim misleading on the UKPO site before the ASA Adjudication so all good The TLT letter includes a number of screenshots and does kind of show how 'tricky' the wording used is. PErsonally I don't think Mr Howard has an issue with Grammar and spelling at all, I think he has cleverly manipulated the wording so it doesn't quite make sense on a quick glance and if you were translating if English wasn't your first language it would just lose the negatives completely.