WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

lol, ummm no. And good that its just been refused point blank, I was getting a bit worried as they were taking so bloody long.

I'd be asking him for the money again now, and cc Mike Andrews at trading standards ( as Richard will likely come back and say you need to contact him before you can be paid).

[Mandid]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Amethyst I haven't heard a dickie bird off Mike Andrews since I forwarded him that email. I have been beginning to think Howard was taking the pee with that reply. Like saying contact the primeminister for your money as you have got no chance. Like his last V sign to me. Do you seriously think Mike Andrews would be involved in sanctioning what cheques he signs? I am confused

[tyke1601]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Surely unless his business is in liquidation or administration he will control funds in and funds out. Has Howard been intimating that he is unable to process payments out of his company's account?

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

To be fair to him, part of his bail conditions are that he can't take/spend money - BUT he can clear stuff with TS, it isn't down to the customer - he's just trying to be awkward, hence why cc'ing Mike visibily on an email to him might be an idea.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

pmsl, just read your email to him.... if you cc Mike maybe be a little more formal xxx

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

This is a redacted copy of the appeal made my Richard Howard, and the appeal refusal.

APPEAL

2015-08-25 08_05_26-Appelant's notice Pg 2.jpg (JPEG Image, 695*×*1000 pixels) - Scaled (87%).png2015-08-25 08_05_08-Appelant's notice Pg 3.jpg (JPEG Image, 695*×*1000 pixels) - Scaled (87%).png

REFUSAL



2015-08-25 08_02_03-Passport lunatics court claims.png2015-08-25 08_02_23-Passport lunatics court claims.png

[Nibbler]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Very very good.

[EXC]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

I love the ''any problem'' quote the judge referred to.

[Nibbler]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Yes, it sounds like his temper was wearing a bit thin by that paragraph, and the resulting sarcasm is only thinly veiled.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

I quite like the fact that the court bought up Vidal v Google of its own accord. We didn't respond to the appellants notice ( it didn't get as far as requiring a respondents notice) everything in that refusal for appeal is from the circuit judge reading the appeal and the previous case papers. So for him to bring that up in detail is a pretty damn good sign for the future of DPA breaches where there was no actual loss /damage but you were put at risk of loss /damage - .... eg. Ashley Madison for instance.

[Nibbler]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/311.html

Need more coffee before I can recall if I've already read that.....

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

You will have.

105 - The present case falls on the Benkharbouche rather than the Chester side of the line. What is required in order to make section 13(2) compatible with EU law is the disapplication of section 13(2), no more and no less. The consequence of this would be that compensation would be recoverable under section 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of the DPA. No legislative choices have to be made by the court.

[tyke1601]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Can someone enlighten me about Mike Andrews role in all this and give me his email address? Howard not responding to emails and it's time to send the dogs in.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

I emailed you his address ?

Mike Andrews is part of the trading standards team dealing with the BPS case, as Richard Howard is currently under bail conditions he has to clear any payments in or out of the business with Trading Standards ( as they have seized his assets ). Richard should clear anything with TS, but he is tending to come back to people wanting payment of their costs telling them to ask Mike. I don't believe Mike can make the payment but he can tell Richard it is okay to pay it.

I would get your warrant of control applied for if you don't get a response by end of play tomorrow.

[Mandid]

Re: WON !!!! tyke1601 vs BPS - Hearing 1st June - WON COUNTERCLAIM DAMAGES !!!!!!

Morning I have spoken to Andy Butters this morning to clarify what is going on regarding court costs for the people who have won and had them awarded. Basically he said they have blocked him using his accounts from his ill gotten gains and at this moment we would be wasting our time and money trying to enforce the court costs. He said they are hoping to prosecute in early October and will be seeking compensation for people. I asked if he meant the court costs but think he meant for those people who actually paid and have complained, he wasn't very clear on this. He has told me to hang fire were his words until after the court case and said the court cost still legally stands but we would be wasting our money at present pursuing them.

Hope this helps anybody expecting there court costs anytime soon.