Tweet
Attached Files
Loading...
-
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsTags: None -
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
Thanks a lot Sharon. What happens next? -
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
Hiya
Okay your Defence is due before Thursday, April 2, 2015 ( you did put your acknowledgement of service through didn't you?)
so start getting that together, here's a starting point... it will need amending to suit YOUR experiences but it doesn't need every bit of he said, she said stuff in as that comes later in the Witness Statements, this just brings up the legal issues.
IN THE xxxxxxxxxx COUNTY COURTCLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN
UK Services & Support LtdCLAIMANTAnd
xxxxxxxxxxxDEFENDANT
DEFENCE
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 visited the Claimant's website on xxx June 2014 while looking online for information on how to renew her Passport at Her Majesty's Passport Office ("HMPO")
Misrepresentation
3. The Claimant, trading as British Passport Services, operates a “copycat” website, www.BritishPassportServices.co.uk (“the 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.
4. 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; it caused the Defendant, and was likely to cause the average consumer, to take a transactional decision she would not have taken otherwise.
5. The Defendant has the right to rescind the alleged Agreement by virtue of the misrepresentation. ( ANY ATTEMPT TO CANCEL ?? )
6. The Defendant will, amongst other evidence, rely on the ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority (“the ASA”) against the Claimant dated 17 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 charges 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 .
Mistake
7. Further, or in the alternative, the alleged Agreement was entered into by mistake and is thus void.
8. The Defendant was mistaken as to the identity of the Claimant due to the Website’s misleading nature; the Defendant adopts and repeats the paragraphs above in this regard.
9. The Defendant and Claimant were not operating face to face and the Defendant reasonably believed that she was contracting with HM Passport Office. It was her intention to purchase a passport. The identity of the contracting party was important to performance of the Defendant’s intended contract as only HM Passport Office can offer such a service.
Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
10. 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”).
11. The Defendant realised that she had not been on the official HMPO website when she received a SMS text message from the Claimant stating that her payment had been declined. The Defendant had not at any time attempted to make payment to the Claimant??????
12. The Defendant exercised her right to cancel the alleged Distance Contract under Regulation 29 of the 2013 Regulations, and within the Normal Cancellation Period under Regulation 30 of the 2013 Regulations when she sent the Cancellation Email. The Defendant therefore has no obligations under the alleged Agreement, as set out by Regulation 33 of the 2013 Regulations (or otherwise). The alleged debt is therefore not due to the Claimant.
13. 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”.
14. Further, or alternatively, the alleged “service” was not started and/or completed before the Defendant cancelled the alleged Agreement, such that the Defendant can only be liable for those “services” that were actually supplied.
15. any point about attempted cancellation???
16. 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.
Restrictions on Cancellation Method
17. The Claimant seeks to rely upon a clause within its Terms and Conditions that stipulates “It is agreed that the only recognized cancellation method is calling our Cancellation Helpline on 02036000145 and entering your 5 digit cancellation code/applicant ID. You agree that requests to cancel via email, text message or calling our main helpline numbers are not accepted...” (“the Cancellation Term”)
18. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Cancellation Term was incorporated into the alleged Agreement (the validity of any such agreement being denied, as above). The Defendant avers that this terms is particularly onerous/unusual and should have been explicitly and clearly brought to the Defendant’s attention.
19. Further, or alternatively, if the Cancellation Term was incorporated (not admitted), the Defendant avers that it is an unfair term 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”). The Cancellation Term, inter alia, inappropriately excludes/limits the legal rights of the Defendant (Schedule 2, 1(b)) and/or seeks to irrevocably bind the Defendant to a term with which she had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract (Schedule 2, 1(i)).
20. The Defendant intends to rely upon the Claimant’s updated Terms and Conditions which now allow cancellation by telephone, email and post.
21. The Defendant notes that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the Cancellation Email prior to commencing any “services” (see above) and, further, allegedly responded to it (receipt of the response email is denied by the Defendant). Despite being aware of the Defendant’s intention, they proceeded with the “services” in any event. Any legitimate business interest and/or administrative benefit which the Claimant may seek to rely upon to justify the imposition of such an onerous term must therefore be challenged in the circumstances.
22. The Defendant accordingly submits that the Cancellation Term is unenforceable.
Extra Charges
23. 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.
24. 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 the UTCCRs.
25. Further, or alternatively, these charges are penalties and are therefore unenforceable at common law.
Harassment
26. Since June 2014 the Defendant has received numerous calls, letters, text messages from the Claimant. The Defendant has responded on a number of occasions to inform the company she had cancelled and had never received any services from the Claimant. Her communication with the Claimant has had no effect other than to increase the amount claimed.
27. The Defendant has experienced alarm and distress which has been caused by the Claimant’s misleading actions which caused the Defendant to enter into the alleged Agreement, which resulted in: -harassment of the Defendant by the Claimant for payment of monies which are not due; and -the alarm and distress associated with the foreseeable Claim and court proceedings which the Claimant has brought against the Defendant.
Data Protection Act
28. The Claimant made the Personal Data of the Defendant freely available through the internet without any controls over who can gain access to that Personal Data from the date the defendant submitted their data to the Claimant. The web address which contains that Personal Data is printed on the Claim Form, and has been submitted to (and disclosed to) Her Majesty’s Court Service through the County Court Bulk Centre. Unidentified third parties could also access the Personal Data without any controls if they can ascertain the correct web address. All that is required to ascertain the correct web address is a name, or part of a name. This is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. The Claimant has amended this following complaints and changed the access on 24th February 2015 to require the applicant's date of birth to be entered in order to access the data.
29. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed, or at all.
I believe that the facts in this defence are true.
Signed:________________________________
Date: ________________________________#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
That's absolutely fantastic Sharon. Thanks very much indeed! :tongue2:Comment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
That's okay, go through and make amendments to fit you case and post it back up for a check through before sending ok xx#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
Once Maude has added/made her amendments I'd just like to suggest some slight changes.Comment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
Suggest away xxx
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb
It's looking pretty good but I spose you've had enough practice lol.
Subject to Maude's input, my amendmants/additions in red.
Para 4. I've changed because it sounded like Maude consciously entered into a transaction when she didn't.
Para 8. Referenced paragraph numbers.
Para 9. Grammar.
Para 11. Need to quote date of text.
Para 12. Need to date of cancellation e-mail.
Para 15. No need for this as it's already covered in para 12.
Paras 17 & 18. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Para 17 implies that the cancellation term (method of cancellation) is in the T&Cs but para 18 implies it isn't. Needs clarifying.
Para 21. Grammar & additions.
Para 26. Addition.
Para 27. Additions.
Para 28. Additions.
Originally posted by Amethyst View PostComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Hi all. I've amended the defence and have attached it I hope!
IN THE xxxxxxxxxx COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN
UK Services & Support Ltd
CLAIMANT
And
xxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT
DEFENCE
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 visited the Claimant's website on 5th June 2014 while looking online for information on how to renew her Passport at Her Majesty's Passport Office ("HMPO")
Misrepresentation
3. The Claimant, trading as British Passport Services, operates a “copycat” website, www.BritishPassportServices.co.uk (“the 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.
4. 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; it caused the Defendant, and was likely to cause the average consumer, to take a transactional decision she would not have taken otherwise.
5. The Defendant has the right to rescind the alleged Agreement by virtue of the misrepresentation. The defendant attempted to cancel the appointment by text message and received confirmation of cancellation.
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 .
Mistake
7. Further, or in the alternative, the alleged Agreement was entered into by mistake and is thus void.
8. The Defendant was mistaken as to the identity of the Claimant due to the Website’s misleading nature; the Defendant adopts and repeats the paragraphs above in this regard.
9. The Defendant and Claimant were not operating face to face and the Defendant reasonably believed that she was contracting with HM Passport Office. It was her intention to purchase a passport. The identity of the contracting party was important to performance of the Defendant’s intended contract as only HM Passport Office can offer such a service.
Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
10. 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”).
11. The Defendant exercised her right to cancel the alleged Distance Contract under Regulation 29 of the 2013 Regulations, and within the Normal Cancellation Period under Regulation 30 of the 2013 Regulations when she sent the Cancellation text. The Defendant therefore has no obligations under the alleged Agreement, as set out by Regulation 33 of the 2013 Regulations (or otherwise). The alleged debt is therefore not due to the Claimant.
12. 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”.
13. Further, or alternatively, the alleged “service” was not started and/or completed before the Defendant cancelled the alleged Agreement, such that the Defendant can only be liable for those “services” that were actually supplied.
14. 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.
Restrictions on Cancellation Method
15. The Claimant seeks to rely upon a clause within its Terms and Conditions that stipulates “It is agreed that the only recognized cancellation method is calling our Cancellation Helpline on 02036000145 and entering your 5 digit cancellation code/applicant ID. You agree that requests to cancel via email, text message or calling our main helpline numbers are not accepted...” (“the Cancellation Term”)
16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Cancellation Term was incorporated into the alleged Agreement (the validity of any such agreement being denied, as above). The Defendant avers that these terms are particularly onerous/unusual and should have been explicitly and clearly brought to the Defendant’s attention.
17. Further, or alternatively, if the Cancellation Term was incorporated (not admitted), the Defendant avers that it is an unfair term 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”). The Cancellation Term, inter alia, inappropriately excludes/limits the legal rights of the Defendant (Schedule 2, 1(b)) and/or seeks to irrevocably bind the Defendant to a term with which she had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract (Schedule 2, 1(i)).
18. The Defendant intends to rely upon the Claimant’s updated Terms and Conditions which now allow cancellation by telephone, email and post.
19. The Defendant notes that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the Cancellation text prior to commencing any “services” (see above) and, further, allegedly responded to it (receipt of the response text is denied by the Defendant). Despite being aware of the Defendant’s intention, they proceeded with the “services” in any event. Any legitimate business interest and/or administrative benefit which the Claimant may seek to rely upon to justify the imposition of such an onerous term must therefore be challenged in the circumstances.
Not sure about this para. If he had made an appointment at all the Passport office had no knowledge of it as when (Maude) called them they said ‘we have had lot of calls like this, it is a scam company, just ignore it’
20. The Defendant accordingly submits that the Cancellation Term is unenforceable.
Extra Charges
21. 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.
22. 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 UTCCRs.
23. Further, or alternatively, these charges are penalties and are therefore unenforceable at common law.
Harassment
24. Since June 2014 the Defendant has received numerous calls, letters, emails and text messages from the Claimant. The Defendant has responded on a number of occasions to inform the company she had cancelled and had never received any services from the Claimant. Her communication with the Claimant has had no effect other than to increase the amount claimed.
25. The Defendant has experienced alarm and distress which has been caused by the Claimant’s misleading actions which caused the Defendant to enter into the alleged Agreement, which resulted in: -harassment of the Defendant by the Claimant for payment of monies which are not due; and -the alarm and distress associated with the foreseeable Claim and court proceedings which the Claimant has brought against the Defendant.
Data Protection Act
26. The Claimant made the Personal Data of the Defendant freely available through the internet without any controls over who can gain access to that Personal Data from the date the defendant submitted their data to the Claimant. The web address which contains that Personal Data is printed on the Claim Form, and has been submitted to (and disclosed to) Her Majesty’s Court Service through the County Court Bulk Centre. Unidentified third parties could also access the Personal Data without any controls if they can ascertain the correct web address. All that is required to ascertain the correct web address is a name, or part of a name. This is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. The Claimant has amended this following complaint and changed the access on 24th February 2015 to require the applicant's date of birth to be entered in order to access the data.
27. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed, or at all.
I believe that the facts in this defence are true.
Signed:________________________________
Date: ________________________________
I'd appreciate any feedback please.Comment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Hi Maude xx I'll go through this in the morning ok xxx#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Here we go, should fit on MCOL okay.... Have had to remove the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 bits as it didn't come into force until 13th June 2014. There's plenty other stuff in there - cancelled, no service provided, misrep etc. so is all fine xxxx
-----------------------------------------
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 visited the Claimant's website on 5th June 2014 while looking online for information on how to renew her Passport at Her Majesty's Passport Office ("HMPO")
3. The Claimant, trading as British Passport Services, operates a “copycat” website, www.BritishPassportServices.co.uk (“the 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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; it caused the Defendant, and was likely to cause the average consumer, to unwittingly enter into an alleged agreement without her informed consent. The Defendant has the right to rescind the alleged Agreement by virtue of the misrepresentation.
7. The Defendant had no intention, or wish, to enter into any agreement for supply of other services which are alleged to have been provided. No information about these other services was given, and in fact the Defendant still does not know what these alleged services are.
5. 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 .
6. The Defendant exercised her right to cancel the alleged Distance Contract in that she cancelled the appointment by SMS text message and received confirmation of cancellation. The Defendant therefore has no obligations under the alleged Agreement. The alleged debt is therefore not due to the Claimant.
7. In any event the Claimant had not performed any of the alleged services before the Defendant cancelled. No appointment had been made at HM Passport office. The Defendant telephoned the real HM Passport office and was informed there was no appointment in her name. She then had to book her own appointment with the HM Passport Office, which she did directly by calling 0300 222 0000.
8. 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.
9. 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 UTCCRs.
10. Further, or alternatively, these charges are penalties and are therefore unenforceable at common law.
11. Since June 2014 the Defendant has received numerous calls, letters, emails and text messages from the Claimant. The Defendant has responded on a number of occasions to inform the company she had cancelled and had never received any services from the Claimant. Her communication with the Claimant has had no effect other than to increase the amount claimed due to the Claimant charging for each inbound and outbound e-mail, text, letter & telephone call.
12. The Defendant has experienced alarm and distress which has been caused by the Claimant’s misleading actions which caused the Defendant to enter into the alleged Agreement, which resulted in: -harassment of the Defendant by the Claimant for payment of monies which are not due; and -the alarm and distress associated with the foreseeable Claim and court proceedings which the Claimant has brought against the Defendant.
13. The Claimant made the Personal Data of the Defendant freely available through the internet without any controls over who could gain access to that Personal Data from the date the defendant submitted their data to the Claimant. The web address which contains that Personal Data is printed on the Claim Form, and has been submitted to (and disclosed to) Her Majesty’s Court Service through the County Court Bulk Centre. Unidentified third parties could also access the Personal Data without any controls if they could ascertain the correct web address. All that was required to ascertain the correct web address is a name, or part of a name. This is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998 and breaches the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Data Protection Principles, as set out in s.4 and Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Claimant has amended this following complaints to it and the Information Commissioner's Office and restricted access on 24th February 2015 to require the applicant's date of birth to be entered in order to access the data.
14. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed, or at all.#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Wonderful and thanks again for your time and effort.
she received today a copy of a Notice of issue. Would that have been sent from the court of him and is it normal Court business or more bullying tactics?Comment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
It's normal, well, for UKS&S cases it is, because Richard Howard mucked up a big batch of court claims and put the defendants details in the box meant for the claimants solicitors details, defendants are receiving the paperwork from the court that should have gone to the claimant.... nothing to worry about xx
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Wonderful and thanks again for your time and effort.
she received today a copy of a Notice of issue. Would that have been sent from the court of him and is it normal Court business or more bullying tactics?Comment
-
Re: Maude123 v UK Services & Support - claim issued 24th Feb defence due BY March 29
Oops sorry double post! :tinysmile_hmm_t2:Comment
Support LegalBeagles
LegalBeagles is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.
See more
See less
Comment