**WON*** Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) *** CASE DISMISSED ***

[Amethyst]

On 07/08/14 attempted to book an appointment at the passport office in Newport.

We started to complete the British Passport Services web site and realised we were on wrong site when large amounts of money were quoted. No financial details were given to BPS so we exited the site and telephoned HM Passport Office Newport and made our appointment for 23/08/14 at 13.00. This appointment was confirmed to us via email by HM Passport Office and we have a copy of this. BPS claim they made this appointment for us, they did not.

BPS claim that xxxxxxxxxxx signed the contract using a mouse, however we used an IPad to half complete the form (prior to realising we were on wrong site) no mouse on IPad, not D Woodlands Signiture.

BPS claim to have I P address as part of contract, this is neither of our I P Address.

We did not receive a service from BPS and therefor feel we have no obligation to pay.
Other discrepancies are that xxxxxxxxxxxx is no relation to xxxxxxxxxx and date of travel is fictitious.

Also it is worth noting that in no form either Email, text or post was an invoice issued until Nov 27th 2014 when a barrage of mail and calls started.

Need to check telephone number used to book appt at Newport PO.

The amounts don't add up - BPS appear to have added a fictional child into the mix, then removed it again for the claim - the invoices are for £235 odd and the claim is for £170 odd which is standard 117 plus charges....

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) Claim date 24 Feb

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) Claim date 24 Feb /AOS DONE

Acknowledgement submitted today

DEFENCE DUE by Sunday, March 29, 2015 ( so Friday 27th March )

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) Claim date 24 Feb /AOS DONE

[MENTION=62800]Pagibig[/MENTION]

Defence due by Friday so need to work on it this week xx

Draft to get started

replaced in next post.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) Claim date 24 Feb /AOS DONE

Can you check through this and make any amendments necessary - then you can submit it hopefully through Moneyclaim online (if it doesn't fit then let me know and I'll try shrink it a bit - it allows for 122 lines but is a bit random in how much it accepts)

1.Save where otherwise accepted within this Defence, the Particulars of Claim are denied. In particular, the Defendant denies entering into an effective and binding Agreement with the Claimant as alleged by the Particulars of Claim, or at all.

2. The Defendant, along with her friend, visited the Claimant's website on 07 August 2014 while looking online for information on how to renew their Passport's at Her Majesty's Passport Office ("HMPO") for a forthcoming holiday.

3. The Defendant believed the site was the official HM Passport Office website and started to complete the on-line application form. At the end of the form the website asked her to pay around £235. The Defendant didn't believe this sounded correct and exited the website to make further enquiries. The Defendant did not complete the process of the online form and did not enter into an Agreement with the Claimant.

4. The Defendant contacted the HM Passport Office Newport directly and made an appointment for 23rd August 2014 at 13.00. The Claimant did not make this appointment.

5. The Claimant has sent a copy of the alleged agreement. It contains numerous incorrect details and the Defendant has not seen this agreement previously.

5. The Claimant, trading as British Passport Services, operates a “copycat” website which claims to offer access to Government services for which the Claimant is not an official Government provider, specifically in relation to UK Passports. The Claimant used misleading advertising, words, and conduct to induce the Defendant to enter into an alleged Agreement to provide “services” in relation to obtaining a Passport, contrary to the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

5. The Defendant had no intention of entering into any contract with the Claimant and in fact only wanted to book an appointment directly at the HM Passport Office to obtain a passport. She was misled into believing the Claimant’s website was the official HM Passport Office website and completed a form online to book an appointment. The Claimant’s advertising, conduct, express words, or overall presentation of the Claimant’s website was such that it deceived the Defendant, and was likely to deceive the average consumer.

6: The Defendant has the right to rescind the alleged Agreement, if valid, by virtue of the misrepresentation.

6. The Defendant will, amongst other evidence, rely on the ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority (“the ASA”) against the Claimant dated 17th September 2014 in relation to the Claimant’s website www.ukpassportoffices.co.uk. Specifically, the Defendant will be relying on the ASA’s ruling that: The Claimant’s website misleadingly implied that it was the official website for HMPO; and The Claimant’s website was misleading, because it did not make clear that the fee charged by the Claimant was a service charge only, and that an additional fee was payable to HMPO to obtain a passport. The Defendant notes that the Website is now materially different in format and content, however at the time of the ruling was virtually identical to the website www.britishpassportservices.co.uk .

7. The alleged Agreement was conducted through the Defendant’s website, www.BritishPassportServices.co.uk. The alleged Agreement, if valid, amounts to a Distance Contract as set out in Regulation 5 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Regulations”).

8.The Claimant failed to give confirmation of the alleged Agreement in a Durable Medium, contrary to Regulation 5 and Regulation 16(1) of the 2013 Regulations. The alleged performance of the alleged “services” under the alleged Agreement took place without such confirmation being sent in a Durable Medium, contrary to Regulation 16(4) of the 2013 Regulations. Any performance of the alleged “services” is in breach of the alleged Agreement, contrary to Regulation 18 of the 2013 Regulations, such that the Defendant is not liable to pay for those alleged “services”.

9.Further or alternatively, the alleged “service” was not completed before the Defendant cancelled the alleged Agreement, such that the Defendant can only be liable for those “services” that were actually supplied.

10.Further or alternatively, the Claimant failed to supply information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2 to the 2013 Regulations, such that the Defendant is not liable to pay for any alleged “services” that were in fact carried out prior to the cancellation of the alleged Agreement.

11. The Claimant has not provided a breakdown of how the sum claimed has been calculated. The sum claimed relates in no way to any previous documentation received from the Claimants at all.

12. If the Claimant has added additional costs, fees and charges to the Claim, which are not provided for under the alleged Agreement. As such, they are not enforceable.

13.Further or alternatively, if the relevant fees and charges are incorporated into the alleged Agreement (which is denied) by virtue of a specific clause (“the Relevant Clause”), then those fees and charges are excessive and disproportionate, and the Relevant Clause is therefore contrary to the requirement of good faith, and causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the Defendant as a consumer, contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCRs”).

14. Further or alternatively these charges are penalties and are therefore unenforceable at common law.

15. Since exiting the website in August 2014 the Defendant heard nothing from the Claimant until November 2014. She has now received numerous calls, letters, text messages from the Claimant.

16. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed, or at all.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Letter back from BPS

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: complaints@britishpassportservices.org.uk
Subject: Defense: xxxxxxxxxx vs UK Services & Support Ltd/Court Case/xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Ms xxxx,

Thank you for acknowledging our Court Claim.

We hope that like us you are looking forward to an impartial Judge putting an end to this dispute by deciding based on the facts and English law which party is correct.

The court has now furnished us with a copy of your defense which we have read and have a few questions about and so would you be kind enough to book an appointment via www.BookPhoneCall.com so that we can discuss this matter with you? There will of course be no charge for this telephone call.


As mentioned before issuing proceedings we still have the desire to resolve this matter without having to go to trial and we did select "yes" to the question regarding whether we would be interested in resolving this matter via the courts mediation service. If you have also advised the court that you would be interested in working with us to resolve this matter then the mediation team will in touch in due course. We are more than happy to fit in with a time and date that suits you and will ensure that one of our agents are available for the call anytime between 9pm to 5:30pm Monday to Friday.

If you did selected "no" to the mediation service but are interested in potentially settling this matter without needing to attend a hearing simply click here and send this email to the court.

On another note should at any point you wish to settle this dispute simply visit: .settleinvoice.org.uk

If the £315.20 (cost breakdown here >>) is paid before the hearing date you will not need to attend a hearing nor would a County Court Judgement be logged against you should the Judge side with us.

Kind Regards

British Passport Services
Charles Mercer
Collections Department
Tel: 0161 663 0072
Fax: 0203 0120 254
E-mail:

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

and new charges list

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Plus N180 received

[ostell]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Sorry to butt in but it would seem that he is trying to work another scam by pretending that the company has a mediation team that complies with the court requirements. Another opportunity to get money and give false advice.

Best of luck with all those cases. Hope he gets really trussed up, especially found fraudulent so that those that have already paid can get their money back

[Kati]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Sorry to butt in but it would seem that he is trying to work another scam by pretending that the company has a mediation team that complies with the court requirements. Another opportunity to get money and give false advice.

Best of luck with all those cases. Hope he gets really trussed up, especially found fraudulent so that those that have already paid can get their money back

??? A mediation team ???

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Ahh I didn't read it that way, I thought it referred to the court service's mediation team ''If you have also advised the court that you would be interested in working with us to resolve this matter then the mediation team will in touch in due course. '' but yes can see it might sound intimidating to an unwary LIP.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

Remember the claim is for £197.60.... as are all the claims regardless of how much BPS was saying they owed prior to the court action. In Pagibig's case the ORIGINAL invoice was for £235.... as it was two people booking appointments.... he seems to have forgotten that in the claim but just sent the charges list ... which of course makes the defendant think the amount has risen SINCE the court claim was bought.



In Angi's case he submitted a claim for £527, it went to default judgment and he put in default judgment of £197.60 ... saying Angi had paid the other £315 odd.... which was pure fantasy.

He's not taking any care whatsoever and is just abusing the court system as a production line to bring him a regular income.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

any news on a court date on this yet?

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

29th June 1pm Taunton.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pagibig v UK PAssport Offices (UKS&S) DEFENCE by FRIDAY 27th March

All set for Monday, witness statements went in a couple weeks back.