*** WON **** Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Links are a bit tricky on paper but yes point taken. Still once the judge has read it he can't un read it, lol. As I said I know its a bit naughty.

I've sent rebecca a copy of Ann's Skeleton arguments too for reference.

[EXC]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Still once the judge has read it he can't un read it, lol. As I said I know its a bit naughty.

True lol.

[cards down]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Links are a bit tricky on paper but yes point taken. Still once the judge has read it he can't un read it, lol. As I said I know its a bit naughty.

I've sent rebecca a copy of Ann's Skeleton arguments too for reference.

Complete random one here but could the witness statement be accompanied by an identical digital copy where the links would highlight quite well?

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Hi all,

I returned from holiday early Saturday morning and have worked all weekend. I have taken today off to finish anything I need to do in readiness for Court on Thursday.

I will be submitting my Witness Statement (Skeleton Arguments) to the Court by email, and going by the above which I have briefly read through if it is sent over with the links would the Judge not be able to open any links to be able to consider my Statement? In the modern and environmentally aware times we live in now, does the Court work like this or are they still working from paper alone?

I have looked through my Statement and can see a couple of typos which I will correct, and looking at the points others put in their statements I could elaborate on the harassment side. My partner on many occasions commented that he had been contacted again from BPS demanding payment. I wish he could produce evidence of this but unfortunately as he has changed employment he is unable to. Clearly when they were no longer able to contact him they contacted me by post as they had not kept on record my phone number or email address! Eddie is of a very strong character and just commented casually to me, however if that had been me I would have gone to pieces.

As a large international company like Santander PLC had advised not to pay, I really assumed wrongly that BPS surly would not be able to take things as far as they have. When BPS were no longer able to make contact with my partner and I received the letter demanding payment it made me feel sick in the stomach but again I really did not think BPS would be able to issue a Claim Form on me as they BPS to my mind were deemed to be fraudulent by Santander.

Amethyst, I am going to send you an email shortly if that is ok?

Kim

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Ahh have just this second emailed you, bit freaky !

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

So what we need is

1) send in the Skeleton argument for the set aside application and why the defence has a reasonable chance of success

accompanied by

2) the draft defence and witness statement + exhibits for the claim.

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

Hi Ya,

Yes spooky indeed! I have just sent you an email. I will get on with the skeleton arguments now.

Think being away for almost 2 weeks has made the brain go a little slow!!!!!

As always a big thank you.

Kim

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

I made a start on some notes to add to the skeleton

SKELETON ARGUMENT
for the SET ASIDE HEARING at xxxxxam on 14th MAY 2015.

1: The application before the court is to set-aside the judgment made in default made against the Defendant on 7th March 2015.

2: On xx January 2015 I received a County Court Claim form from Northampton County Court Business Centre. I am a Litigant in Person and this is the first time I have ever had to deal with a County Court Claim against me. I believed I had 28 days to respond to the claim form, and as I was due to travel abroad from xxxxxxxxxx 2015 to xxxxxxxxxxx 2015 I decided to enter my defence to the claim on my return.

3: However upon my return I discovered that a judgment in default was entered against me on xxxxxxxxx.

4: I realised my error in not submitting my defence prior to travelling and immediately telephoned the court and they advised me to complete an application to set aside the Judgment.

5: I submitted my application to set aside the Default Judgment on xxxxxxxx and it is that application that is being heard today.

6: My draft defence was submitted to the Court and served on the Claimant on xx March 2015 as ordered by District Judge xxxxxx sitting at Northampton County Court Business Centre.

7: I submit to the court that I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that the judgment by default should be set aside pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 13.3
13.3 Cases where the court may set aside or vary judgment entered under Part 12
(1) In any other case, the court may set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12
if-
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why-
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the
matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set
aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.
8: On 8th March I received an Order from the County Court at Croydon asking me to file my draft defence to the claim with the Court and serve on the Claimant before 23rd March 2015.

9: My draft defence was submitted to the Court and served on the Claimant on xx March 2015.

10: DEFENCE

11: Why we have a reasonable prospect of success......

1. RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT
2. Mr Howard's Witness Statement commences with a description of his Business Model. I would submit that this is largely irrelevant to the case, however there are some points I feel I should bring to the Courts attention.
3. At no point was I offered any of the services described my Mr Howard. I had no requirement for anyone to attend the HMPO on my behalf as I live in London and would not find it difficult to attend the HMPO in London myself.
4. The only service required was the booking of an appointment. However I intended to book this directly with the official HMPO and had no intention or desire to use a third party. I made an error of Judgment in using the telephone number provided by the Claimant on his Website when trying to book an appointment, however once I had telephoned the Claimant I should have been made aware that BritishPassportServices was not the official HMPO. Additionally the Claimants website misled me into believing the telephone number I was using was that of the official HMPO.
5. At all times during the telephone conversations I relied on the positive assertions by Andrea Vassell that I was speaking to the HM Passport Office.
6. It is my case that there was no recorded message of any kind at any point during the calls the Defendant made to the Claimant. The Claimants have added a recorded message to the beginning of calls since January 2015, however at the time I telephoned the Claimant there was no recorded message and the telephone was answered directly by Andrea Vassell who stated she worked for the Passport Office.
7. When I asked Ms Vasell about the charge she stated it was the 'Passport Fee'
8. The Claimant sent me a text message with a link to the booking form. This link took me directly to a form to complete my name, address, email, travel dates and other information required to obtain a passport renewal. There was nothing within this text message which said that the Claimant was a third party and not the official HMPO.
9. The Claimant states that ''The Defendant Claims she contacted us to notify she will not use our service but there is no cancellation record on the Defendants account. We have only received one email from the Defendant saying that they contacted the police on 17th October and no other communications have been received from them"
10. This is clearly untrue as evidenced by their own exhibits which show;
    Email received - 17th October 12.56pm - form fillout for passport complainces
    Email received - 17th October 4.51pm- re formal request for solicitors details
    Email received - 17th Octiober 4.51pm - re formal request for solicitor details
    Form Received - 20th October 4.14pm - re Report to Police/Fraud Accustation
    Form received - 4th December 5.07pm - re customer wants to cancel
    Form received - 4th December 5.07pm - non payment
11. Within the Claimant's exhibits there are copies of some emails sent regarding the appointment being made at the HMPO in London. These emails do not state anywhere that the company is not the passport office. In fact I was completely unaware that I had not been communicating with the official HMPO until my partner contacted me following his experience at the bank.
12. The claimant claims in his witness statement that he sent the Defendant a "copy of the signed contract sent via durable media which is e-mail.''. The Defendant did not receive the contract in a durable form. The exhibit clearly shows that no copy of the signed contract was contained in the email. Rather, there is a link to it on a webpage, which is not a durable medium.
13. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills Implementing Guidance for the
    Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges Regulations)
    (Skeleton Exhibit 2) provides that: ''An email is a durable medium. However,
    information contained via link to a website which may change, and which is
    embedded in an email is not.''
14. I also rely on Admissibility – Directive 2002/92/EC on insurance
    mediation – Concept of a “durable medium” in Inconsult Anstalt v the Financial
    Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) 2010 (Skeleton Exhibit 3) which held that:
    ''The Court therefore limits itself to concluding that in order to qualify as a
    “durable medium”, an Internet site must allow for the unchanged reproduction of
    the information stored, that is, the information must be stored in a way that makes
    it impossible for the insurance intermediary to change it unilaterally.''
15. The link to the alleged contract is hosted on the documentsarchive.org.uk website which research by the Defendant has established is owned and operated by the Claimant. (EXHIBIT X)

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

I think we need a skeleton for the set aside hearing.... then separately a copy of your witness statement, exhibits and defence

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

WITNESS STATEMENT (WORK IN PROGRESS)

IN THE CROYDON COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: B6QZ9976
BETWEEN
UK Services & Support Ltd
CLAIMANT
and
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT


WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx of ADDRESS 66 Harewood Gardens, South Croydon, Surrey CR2 9BJ will state as follows:

2. I am an Account Manager for a large UK skincare company and the defendant in these proceedings. I make this witness statement in support of my Defence in this case.

3. The matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where any matters contained in this witness statement are not within my own knowledge, I have stated the source of my information.

4. On 6th October 2014 whilst trying to obtain a VISA to travel to Turkey for my partner xxxxxxxx, I realised his passport was due to expire within the next 6 months.
5. I carried out a Google Search for the HMPO in Victoria to make an appointment for my partner to attend their offices the same or next day to obtain a passport as we were travelling to Turkey on Wednesday 8th October 2014.

6. I telephoned the number given on the website and a lady answered. I asked her if I was speaking with the Passport Office to which she confirmed that I was, and asked if she could assist. She stated her name was Andrea Vassell.

7. I informed her of the situation and the urgency of obtaining a Passport either that or the very next day for my partner in order that we could obtain his VISA and travel to Turkey as planned on Wednesday 8th October 2014.

8. Ms Vassell proceeded to tell me that to continue I must give her my email address and she would email me some details of forms to complete online and that she would call me back after she had received them. I asked if it would be ok for me to complete the form as the passport was not for me. She said that it was fine for me to fill out the form on his behalf.

9. I received an email and I immediately completed the form although I was unable to sign this as requested on screen. I telephoned and spoke to Ms Vassell to explain I was unable to sign the form she confirmed that this was ok and sometimes it can be difficult to sign the form on screen.

10. My partner soon after telephoned me and informed me that the passport office had telephoned him and advised that he would be sent their bank details and the fee of £117.50 would need to be paid before they could confirm his appointment or start work on his application.

11. My partner came home however could not find his online banking details so made his way to our local branch of Santander in Addington Road Selsdon where he tried to transfer the fee at the counter. My partner said he waited to what felt like a considerable amount of time and was then called into a side room where he was advised not to pay this fee as it was a scam (I believe was the word used)

12. My partner was then invited to make an appointment with the HMPO directly.
13. Further on 10th October 2014 Santander wrote to my partner to confirm that the transaction had been stopped and offered security advice [EXHIBIT A]

14. When my partner telephoned me and explained what had happened, I was confused as I was convinced I had found and had communicated with HMOP directly. Why would my partner need the services of a 3rd party when all he needed was an appointment at the official HMOP to obtain a same day passport.

15. My partner was then telephoned by BPS and advised that the payment was urgent as they could not start work until the payment was received. My partner explained what had happened when he tried to make payment at Santander.

16. I then telephoned the number I had used earlier and spoke to Ms Vassell and informed her that Santander had intercepted the payment and that we would not be in need of their services and that we wrongly assumed that we had been speaking and corresponding with the official HMPO. Ms Vassell's tone and attitude towards me was then abrupt and said I would not be able to cancel as they had started working on the application already. However, it was clearly stated to my partner that no work would be carried out until payment was received.

17. On 7th October 2014 my partner attended the official HMPO in London Victoria and was issued with his passport on the same day.

18. My partner and myself now strongly believe we were misled and deceived into understanding that we were dealing with the official HMPO service, contrary to Regulation 27(A) of The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

19. The form I had submitted contained my partners details and he was contacted on many occasions by telephone SMS and email requesting payment. He also received an email asking for his legal representation as he was in breach of his contract.

20. My partner then changed his employment and the Claimant was no longer able to contact him as his work phone number and email changed.

21. Around the same time I then received a letter addressed to me from BPS together with an invoice dated 4th December 2014. On this invoice it has a note which gives you the cancellation details. This was not offered to me by Ms Vassell at any time and this was the 1st time I was aware that a dedicated telephone line had to be used in order to cancel. Also I noted that the form had somehow been signed. This does not resemble my signature and as stated (9) I was unable to sign the screen when filling the original form out online.

22. I telephoned the phone number on the invoice and said that this was harassment and again informed them what happened when my partner had tried to make payment and as they had advised us that they were fraudulent, no work had been carried out and they had been contacted only a couple of hours after the original form had been completed I would not be making payment. I was informed that my payment was still due.

23. I did not have any further correspondence until I received a Claim Form dated 23rd January 2015 addressed to Mr Kim Russell. For some reason I truly thought I had 28 days to respond. However I tried to respond after the 14 days to find out that a Judgement had already been issued. This is the reason it has now come to a hearing to ask that the Judgement be set aside.

24. When serving the Defence in person at 12 Deer Pak Road, it would appear that this is only a mailing address and BPS (UK Services and Support Ltd) do not have offices there.

25. Since receiving the Claim Form I have been researching this company and have found the following information which I include to validate my Defence further.

26. I have since been looking into the Claimant’s business and discovered that another of the Claimant’s websites ‘UK Passport Offices’ was the subject of an Advertising Standards Authority adjudication (ref A14-273276) which found that the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices). The ASA required that the site be removed or changed.

27. That website is still live and although it has been amended now, at the time of the adjudication looked exactly the same as the website BritishPassportServices. Although the ASA Adjudication is under appeal by the claimant I have confirmation from the ASA that the ruling still stands.

28. In March 2015 I read an article in the Mail on Sunday about the Claimant’s company and discovered that many other people were receiving County Court claims and being subject to harassment and intimidation as a means of extracting fees from consumers.

29. By using online research I also discovered a large number of other customers of UK Services & Support Ltd were receiving County Court Claims in a similar manner. There is even a list on the Claimant's website of County Court Judgments obtained by default against its customers though I cannot check the veracity of this list.

30. On researching further I discovered that several consumer websites have numerous testimonials of others who have been misled by the Claimant. These include Which? (Consumer's Association), MoneySavingExpert (Martin Lewis) and LegalBeagles.info (Consumer law help forum).
31. I do not believe I have any liability to the Claimant. I received no services from the Claimant. I cancelled any agreement I was misled into entering into and had no intention to contract with the Claimant whatsoever.

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT
32. Mr Howard's Witness Statement commences with a description of his Business Model. I would submit that this is largely irrelevant to the case, however there are some points I feel I should bring to the Courts attention.

33. At no point was either my partner or myself offered any of the services described my Mr Howard. We had no requirement for anyone to attend the HMPO on my partners behalf as we live in London and would not find it difficult to attend the HMPO in London ourselves.


34. The only service required was the booking of an appointment. However I intended to book this directly with the official HMPO and had no intention or desire to use a third party. I made an error of Judgment in using the telephone number provided by the Claimant on his Website when trying to book an appointment, however once I had telephoned the Claimant I should have been made aware that BritishPassportServices was not the official HMPO. Additionally the Claimants website misled me into believing the telephone number I was using was that of the official HMPO.

35. At all times during the telephone conversations I relied on the positive assertions by Andrea Vassell that I was speaking to the HM Passport Office.


36. It is my case that there was no recorded message of any kind at any point during the calls the Defendant made to the Claimant. The Claimants have added a recorded message to the beginning of calls since January 2015, however at the time I telephoned the Claimant there was no recorded message and the telephone was answered directly by Andrea Vassell who stated she worked for the Passport Office.

37. When I asked Ms Vassell about the charge she stated it was the 'Passport Fee'


38. The Claimant sent me a text message with a link to the booking form. This link took me directly to a form to complete my partners name, address, email, travel dates and other information required to obtain a passport renewal. There was nothing within this text message which said that the Claimant was a third party and not the official HMPO.

39. The Claimant states that ''The Defendant Claims she contacted us to notify she will not use our service but there is no cancellation record on the Defendants account. We have only received one email from the Defendant saying that they contacted the police on 17th October and no other communications have been received from them"


40. This is clearly untrue as evidenced by their own exhibits which show;
Email received - 17th October 12.56pm - form fillout for passport complaints
Email received - 17th October 4.51pm- re formal request for solicitors details
Email received - 17th Octiober 4.51pm - re formal request for solicitor details
Form Received - 20th October 4.14pm - re Report to Police/Fraud Accusation
Form received - 4th December 5.07pm - re customer wants to cancel
Form received - 4th December 5.07pm - non payment

41. Within the Claimant's exhibits there are copies of some emails sent regarding the appointment being made at the HMPO in London. These emails do not state anywhere that the company is not the passport office. In fact I was completely unaware that I had not been communicating with the official HMPO until my partner contacted me following his experience at the bank


42. The claimant claims in his witness statement that he sent the Defendant a "copy of the signed contract sent via durable media which is e-mail.''. The Defendant did not receive the contract in a durable form. The exhibit clearly shows that no copy of the signed contract was contained in the email. Rather, there is a link to it on a webpage, which is not a durable medium.

43. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills Implementing Guidance for the Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges Regulations) (Skeleton Exhibit 2) provides that: ''An email is a durable medium. However, information contained via link to a website which may change, and which is embedded in an email is not.''



44. I also rely on Admissibility – Directive 2002/92/EC on insurance
mediation – Concept of a “durable medium” in Inconsult Anstalt v the Financial
Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) 2010 (Skeleton Exhibit 3) which held that:
''The Court therefore limits itself to concluding that in order to qualify as a
“durable medium”, an Internet site must allow for the unchanged reproduction of the information stored, that is, the information must be stored in a way that makes it impossible for the insurance intermediary to change it unilaterally.''

45. The link to the alleged contract is hosted on the documentsarchive.org.uk website which research by the Defendant has established is owned and operated by the Claimant. It is owned by RAPTOR SMS – the company has changed its name to ‘Five star Doggie Day Care’ and the Director of the company is Mr Richard Howard.

46. Point 7 in the Claimant’s Witness Statement refers to the Breach of Data Protection. The Claimant appears to have stated the current position as though he has always worked in that way however the Claimant amended their systems on or around the 25th February 2015 following complaints by consumers to the Information Commissioners Office. Customer’s personal details until that date were accessible by other members of the public.

47. The first one I found was through a Google search while looking for information to assist with my defence of the Claim. I came across a Mr Robert Shepherd’s personal information. This concerned me and I checked to see if my details were also available publicly. I then tried a couple of random other names and obtained their personal information (which I deleted immediately) I typed the first name and initial of last name before the URL - so http://roberts.passportdetails.co.uk/ This gives you a screen with an application number and the individuals full name. You can then paste the application number at the end of the signedcontract.org URL http://roberts.signedcontract.org.uk/u37059

48. Up until 25th February 2015 this gave direct access to links to the full personal details of Robert Shepherd, his invoice and breakdown of charges list.

49. The same is true of my details, and many other peoples.

50. On 25th February it was changed to require a date of birth to be entered to access the documents and since around 1st March this changed to require a password submission to access the data. Therefore my personal details were publicly availably between 6th October 2014 when I was misled into completing the company's form online, and the 25th February 2015, a total of 6 months.

51. The Claimant also states that contracts can only be found on links with over 25 characters. This is also not entirely true as many contracts appear to have only 5 letters in order to download the pdf directly.


I believe that the facts in this statement are true.




Signed:________________________________

Date: ________________________________

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - rec'd WS - prep skel

IN THE CROYDON COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: B6QZ9976
BETWEEN
UK Services & Support Ltd
CLAIMANT
and


xxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT



SKELETON ARGUMENT of the DEFENDANT
for the SET ASIDE HEARING at 11am on 14th MAY 2015.

1: The application before the court is to set-aside the judgment made in default made against the Defendant on 7th March 2015. I ask that this Skeleton Argument be read in conjunction with my Draft Defence.

2: On 27th January 2015 I received a County Court Claim form dated 23rd January 2015 from Northampton County Court Business Centre. I am a Litigant in Person and this is the first time I have ever had to deal with a County Court Claim against me. I believe I have a reasonable chance of success in defending the claim against me.

3. I believed I had 28 days to respond to the claim form and at the time I was very busy caring for my daughter who has been seriously ill with ongoing medical problems caused by meningitis.

4: I realised my error in not submitting my defence in time and immediately telephoned the court and they advised me to complete an application to set aside the Judgment.

5: I submitted my application to set aside the Default Judgment on 19th February 2015 and it is that application that is being heard today.

6: My draft defence was submitted to the Court and served on the Claimant on 23rd March 2015 as ordered by District Judge Coonan sitting at the County Court at Croydon.

7: I submit to the court that I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that the judgment by default should be set aside pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 13.3

13.3 Cases where the court may set aside or vary judgment entered under Part 12
(1) In any other case, the court may set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if-
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why-
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the
matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set
aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

8: On 8th March I received an Order from the County Court at Croydon asking me to file my draft defence to the claim with the Court and serve on the Claimant before 23rd March 2015.

9: My draft defence was submitted to the Court and served on the Claimant on 23rd March 2015.

10: I believe my DEFENCE has a reasonable prospect of success and I would ask the court allows the case to be heard.

11. This is a case surrounding a misleading third party website offering the ‘service’ of booking an appointment with the HM Passport Office in return for payment of £117.60. Booking an appointment with the HM Passport Office is a free service if you use the official Gov website or telephone number.

12. Another of the Claimant’s websites ‘UK Passport Offices’ was the subject of an Advertising Standards Authority adjudication (ref A14-273276) (EXHIBIT A) which found that the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices). The ASA required that the site be removed or changed.

13. Although the ASA Adjudication is under appeal by the claimant I have confirmation from the ASA that the ruling still stands (EXHIBIT B). That website is still live and at the time of the adjudication looked materially the same as the website BritishPassportServices (EXHIBIT C).

14: By using online research I also discovered a large number of other customers of UK Services & Support Ltd were receiving County Court Claims in a similar manner. A freedom of information request to the HMCTS evidenced that over 101 claims were bought by the Claimant in December 2014 (EXHIBIT D) There is even a list on the Claimant's website of County Court Judgments obtained by Default against it's customers (EXHIBIT E) though I cannot check the veracity of this list.

15. On researching further I discovered that several consumer websites have numerous testimonials of others who have been misled by the Claimant. These include Which? (Consumer's Association), MoneySavingExpert (Martin Lewis) and LegalBeagles.info (Consumer help forum).

16. The large number of people who are misunderstanding this website clearly demonstrates that the website is very easy to misinterpret and that it is not reasonable for British Passport Services to continue with its policy of suing customers for having had the misfortune to come across his website/s.

17. I am aware that the Claimant, despite having bought hundreds of claims against consumers since December 2014, has only attended one hearing. This was case B7QZ6275 at Cambridge County Court on 7th May 2015 before Deputy District Judge Raggett.(EXHIBIT F) The Judge found against the Claimant due to his website being misleading.

18. I am aware of two further hearings where the Court found against the claimant, however the Claimant did not attend those hearings.

19: I am also aware that the Claimant has discontinued a number of cases shortly before the hearing.

20: I do not believe I have any liability to the Claimant. I received no services from the Claimant. I cancelled any agreement I was misled into entering into and had no intention to contract with the Claimant whatsoever. The Claimant appears to be using the court process to intimidate consumers into making payment for services they either did not receive or were misled into using his company to supply.

I believe the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true


Signed __________________________

Dated ________________________

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - 11am

Just wanted to wish you the best for your hearing tomorrow xxx We're all 100% behind you. It would be nice if its done and dusted with tomorrow but if you do get permission to proceed with your defence then it is likely it will go to a further hearing, so fingers crossed.

[enaid]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - 11am

Good luck and well done this far Rebecca.
Enaid x

[EXC]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - 11am

Good luck and let us know how it went.

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - set aside hearing - 14th May - 11am

Judgment set-aside. CCJ will be removed within a month at the longest.

Waiting on directions now for the full hearing.