Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

[mrroper]

I'm posting this on a few sites (three - for now), but quite handy if you've ever had problems with the above company and feel as though you want them to explain a few things.


I've had a lot of problems with Drydens (which show no signs of going away any time soon).


It seems that Drydens really don't like to be asked to provide copies of advocate's reports or explain why they've lied in documentation they've sent to the court - especially if you keep asking by email.


So much so that I seem to be blocked from sending any more.


Many of their email addresses can be found in the public domain anyway, and can be found on a simple google search.


So, if you've been wronged by this company - and chances are that you have if you've been unfortunate enough to have to have dealings with them - here's one way of getting back.

[wales01man]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

What reports and why do you say they lied in Court?

[teaboy2]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Stating that anybody has lied in court without providing anything to support your statement could be deemed libelous, in which Drydens FairFax could pursue you for.

I recommend you either link to or post up your supporting evidence of edit your post so that you are not making such statement as though it were a statement of fact.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Stating that anybody has lied in court without providing anything to support your statement could be deemed libelous, in which Drydens FairFax could pursue you for.

I recommend you either link to or post up your supporting evidence of edit your post so that you are not making such statement as though it were a statement of fact.

Well :-

1. They changed their argument well after the 14 day deadline.

2. They refused to clarify whether they'll be amending their argument (because they originally filed under the wrong act of legislation), despite being pressed on this point well before the hearing at least three times over.

3. The NoA document they'd submitted was notably different to the one I had - it had a different date, was missing a whole page and had been 'half'-scanned to try and hide the fact that there should've been three pages and not two.

4. They'd submitted a download copy of current T&Cs as opposed to the years-old ones that should have attached - the fact that they'd deliberately left out the last page (which has the date the document was drafted).


Looking back, I believe that the judge was either not interested in the case and wanted to rush it through to get her dinner, or had severe trouble in reading anything and was trying to hide the fact (one moment in particular gave this away).

Every time she was required to look at documentation (whether mine or theirs), she was either looking away, squinting and just not listening to what the both of us were trying to highlight on the paper.

I can say that as far as findings go, none of them had been based on documents she'd 'looked at' and the only evidence she'd even considered was theirs - even though mine had already been sent in on time.

I'll post up evidence about all this in due course - I'd been thinking about going public about the whole thing anyway.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

What reports and why do you say they lied in Court?

They've said their advocate made a report of the hearing - because I had a number of points about the hearing I wanted to clarify, which they won't answer.

[wales01man]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Where in the above is Lying in Court this seems to be before the case was in court,
Every chance the judge read the papers beforehand that you wiil probably never know.
As teaboy says take care with what you post on a public forum.
Everyone on LB with few exceptions hates DCAs so don't put them in a position to sue you for libel

[teaboy2]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

As walesman points out, their is a clear difference between lying in court and prehearing changes to arguments and points rasied concerning the written evidence they supplied. To them, its likely the documents are, to best of their knowledge, true copies of documents - We see this time and again in similar cases. But it doesn't mean they lied in court, no matter how much we wish it did.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Where in the above is Lying in Court this seems to be before the case was in court,
Every chance the judge read the papers beforehand that you wiil probably never know.
As teaboy says take care with what you post on a public forum.
Everyone on LB with few exceptions hates DCAs so don't put them in a position to sue you for libel

Point taken - I should've worded it better (I've edited it now).

Actually, the advocate - who was a local-area rep - had just been shunted the case, though when I'd said in the pre-court meeting that I believed that the T&Cs were current ones and not ones from years ago, he'd actually said 'can you prove that?'.

I then said 'yes', did so, and then he hurriedly changed his stance to say that the fundamental T&Cs hadn't changed substantially in all that time (even though the first page of them proved that the T&Cs couldn't possibly have been dated back as far as the contract was taken out).

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

As walesman points out, their is a clear difference between lying in court and prehearing changes to arguments and points rasied concerning the written evidence they supplied. To them, its likely the documents are, to best of their knowledge, true copies of documents - We see this time and again in similar cases. But it doesn't mean they lied in court, no matter how much we wish it did.

Well, it is very strange that the 'omitted' documents all had clear reasons for being missing - almost as if it were intentional.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

As walesman points out, their is a clear difference between lying in court and prehearing changes to arguments and points rasied concerning the written evidence they supplied. To them, its likely the documents are, to best of their knowledge, true copies of documents - We see this time and again in similar cases. But it doesn't mean they lied in court, no matter how much we wish it did.

The problem with that is that they weren't true copies - there were evident and clear differences that a blind man could spot (but not a blind judge, it would seem).

It wasn't even so much the money that annoyed me - they only got a fraction of what they were out for.

It was because the evidence pack they'd sent in was so transparently 'flawed' - conveniently so - and the judge (complaint's already in about that) for giving them far too much leeway.

[teaboy2]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

The problem with that is that they weren't true copies - there were evident and clear differences that a blind man could spot (but not a blind judge, it would seem). - To the best of their knowledge they were true copies of the originals (the person that found them would not have seen the original signed by you), or reconsitituted. So no not liars.

It wasn't even so much the money that annoyed me - they only got a fraction of what they were out for.

It was because the evidence pack they'd sent in was so transparently 'flawed' - conveniently so - and the judge (complaint's already in about that) for giving them far too much leeway.

Welcome to the world of courts, judges and jesters.

Now just because you say, this, that or the other, it doesn't mean they lied in court. They only have to prove beyond reason that an agreement existed and what the terms and conditions where.

You said, they didn't get all they wanted. Well that's probably because the judge was satisfied there was an agreement of sort (or you had admitted as such), but at the same time was no satisfied as to what the terms and conditions where, or they lost the majority of what they were claiming on a mere technicality.

To be honest, its kind of hard for us to see where your coming from without knowing the details of the judges decision and case.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Welcome to the world of courts, judges and jesters.

Now just because you say, this, that or the other, it doesn't mean they lied in court. They only have to prove beyond reason that an agreement existed and what the terms and conditions where.

You said, they didn't get all they wanted. Well that's probably because the judge was satisfied there was an agreement of sort (or you had admitted as such), but at the same time was no satisfied as to what the terms and conditions where, or they lost the majority of what they were claiming on a mere technicality.

To be honest, its kind of hard for us to see where your coming from without knowing the details of the judges decision and case.

I'd never denied that there was airtime - in fact, I had offered to settle that with Three Mobile that some 14 months before, on condition that they either let me continue the contract from where it left off, or let me out of the contract they'd had.

However, Three Mobile wouldn't waive the termination fees, even though I'd told them then that I knew they were legally unenforceable (as confirmed in the hearing - Section 11 of the T&Cs is the central section for that), and because they terminated the contract and not me.

I'd never wanted to terminate the contract with them - I returned a handset (which they stopped stocking after a short time, because of a high rate of customer returns), and then they tried to claim water damage on it.

I asked them to send out/email out a list of eligible replacements/details of renewed contract terms, rather than them calling me incessantly - however, they'd only discuss this by telephone and refused to send anything out.

Just think - all this bother could've been avoided if they'd just done what I'd asked in the first place.

Still, it doesn't stop me incessantly pursuing them for this 'advocates report' that Drydens have carelessly mentioned (because Drydens had sent along some local-area gopher on their behalf).

Makes me think that there's something in there that they really don't want me to see - besides, I'm not comfortable with the notion of information about me being with-held from me.

[mrroper]

Re: Drydens Fairfax - touchy, touchy...

Welcome to the world of courts, judges and jesters.

Now just because you say, this, that or the other, it doesn't mean they lied in court. They only have to prove beyond reason that an agreement existed and what the terms and conditions where.

You said, they didn't get all they wanted. Well that's probably because the judge was satisfied there was an agreement of sort (or you had admitted as such), but at the same time was no satisfied as to what the terms and conditions where, or they lost the majority of what they were claiming on a mere technicality.

To be honest, its kind of hard for us to see where your coming from without knowing the details of the judges decision and case.

I'd never denied that there was airtime - in fact, I had offered to settle that with Three Mobile that some 14 months before, on condition that they either let me continue the contract from where it left off, or let me out of the contract they'd had.

However, Three Mobile wouldn't waive the termination fees, even though I'd told them then that I knew they were legally unenforceable (as confirmed in the hearing - Section 11 of the T&Cs is the central section for that), and because they terminated the contract and not me.

I'd never wanted to terminate the contract with them - I returned a handset (which they stopped stocking after a short time, because of a high rate of customer returns), and then they tried to claim water damage on it.

I asked them to send out/email out a list of eligible replacements/details of renewed contract terms, rather than them calling me incessantly - however, they'd only discuss this by telephone and refused to send anything out.

Just think - all this bother could've been avoided if they'd just done what I'd asked in the first place.

Still, it doesn't stop me incessantly pursuing them for this 'advocates report' that Drydens have carelessly mentioned (because Drydens had sent along some local-area gopher on their behalf).

Makes me think that there's something in there that they really don't want me to see - besides, I'm not comfortable with the notion of information about me being with-held from me.

But when I do get round to uploading scans of the documents, I'll detail exactly what I mean and where the discrepancies in said documents are.