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

[enaid]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - CCJ SET ASIDE !!! - waiting for full hearing date

Barely time to boil an egg and this was sorted, well done and good luck for round 2 xx

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - CCJ SET ASIDE !!! - waiting for full hearing date

Thank you for all your help and support.

Will let you know as soon as I have directions from the Judge.

Regardless, whatever the outcome, My partner and I are going out for a celebratory meal and drink tonight!!! However, with RH you just never know if there will be another round to go or not!!!!!

All my thanks

Xxx

[EXC]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - CCJ SET ASIDE !!! - waiting for full hearing date

Excellent, well done.

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - CCJ SET ASIDE !!! - waiting for full hearing date

Hearing of claim listed for 6th August.

[Amethyst]

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

I;ve added in some updated bits - but otherwise I think your original WS for the set aside hearing is absolutely fine for the full hearing - we probably went a tad overboard for the set aside hearing but all helps now xx extra exhibits are on http://legalbeagles.info/wp-content/...s/exhibits.doc


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


WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of ADDRESS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 partnerxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

24. When serving the Defence in person at 12 Deer Park 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. On researching how to deal with a County Court claim I discovered the Claimant also owns other websites that are very similar to www.britishpassportservices.co.uk, including www.ukpassportoffices.co.uk, which was the subject of an Advertising Standards Authority adjudication (ref A14-273276) (EXHIBIT X) 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 at the time of the adjudication looked the same as the website BritishPassportServices (EXHIBIT F). The Claimant appealed the ASA Adjudication and asked for an independent review. On 1st July 2015 the ASA published their findings and the original adjudication was upheld (EXHIBIT X)

28 Since submitting my defence I have become aware of a number of other consumers who have been sued by the Claimant. 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. I am aware that the Claimant brought over 770 county court claims against consumers between November 2014 and March 2015 (EXHIBIT X) A majority of these claims appear to have been settled or resulted in a Judgment by Default.

31. The Claimant has only appeared in one hearing, UK Services & Support v Alexander Yates, and I have attached a copy of the Judgment given in that case (EXHIBIT X).

32. This was case B7QZ6275 at Cambridge County Court on 7th May 2015 before Deputy District Judge Raggett .(Exhibit X) The Judge found against the Claimant due to his website being misleading.

33. I am aware that there have been a number of other unreported cases in the County Courts which have been dismissed by the Court or found in favour of the Defendant (EXHIBIT X)

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

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT's WITNESS STATEMENT DATED xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ( for the set aside hearing )

35. 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.

36. At no point was either my partner or myself offered any of the services described by the Claimant. 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.

37. The services purported to have been delivered are detailed below;

a) Use of online booking form
The Claimant's witness statement claims that ''The defendant visited our third party
website www.BritishPassportServices.co.uk on 6 October 2014 and decided that they
wanted to take out our Appointment Booking Package''. This is not the case. The
Defendant did not require any services from the Claimant, she simply wanted to apply
to Her Majesty's Passport Office for her partner’s passport. She only decided to book an
appointment on the advice given during her initial phone call to the Claimant when
they misrepresented themselves at the official passport office and informed her this
was how to go about renewal of her passport. The Defendant now understands that in
order for her to obtain a new passport no appointment was necessary.

b) Booking the Passport Office Appointment
The Defendant now understands that the information required to actually book an
appointment on the official Passport Advice Line is only an individual's name and
mobile telephone number. The rest of the information requested by the Claimant on
their online booking form is unnecessary and superfluous.

c) Letter, SMS and Email Confirmation
This 'service' was unnecessary as it is the HM Passport Office that send a text
message to confirm appointments. Notwithstanding the Defendant did not require an
appointment.

d) Document Checking Service
As above this is 'service' was unnecessary. In any event the information provided by
the Defendant is not entered into any form. It is apparent from the Defendant's
investigations that the Claimant simply receives the completed form then telephones
the official Passport Advice Line on 0300 222 0000 and pretends to be the Defendant,
or a colleague/partner of the Defendant, in order to secure an appointment.


e) Directions to Passport Office
As above this is 'service' was unnecessary. The Defendant did not request, require or
have any knowledge that she was ‘purchasing’ any such service. She has a sat nav and
is quite capable of searching on Google Maps for her own directions.

f) Queue Jumping Membership
Once again this 'service' was not requested, required or provided. On investigating
this ‘service’ further it appears that customers use appointments cancelled by other
BPS customers. The Claimant's terms & conditions for this 'service' require the
customer to lie about who made the appointment and conceal their identity at the
Passport Office in order to gain access to the appointment slot.

g) Passport Application Form Posted
No passport application form was required from the Claimant nor was one received.

h) In summary none of the above or any other services were required and/or received.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40.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.

41. 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.

42. 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"

43. 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 October 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

44. 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

45. 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.

46. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills Implementing Guidance for the Consumer Contracts (Information Cancellation and Additional Charges Regulations) 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.''

47. 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.''

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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

51. 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.

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

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.




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

Then after your holibobs, a couple days before the hearing we can submit a skeleton argument. No need to worry about that yet xx

[Amethyst]

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

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Thank you! Well I have arrived at court. No sign of him yet!!!!

[Kati]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Good luck xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Phew... not that I'd expect him to show up, but if he was going to attend any it would be yours as you're so close to Wimbledon ( relative to all the other hearings up and down the country )

Are you in a bulk listing? or is it just you at 10.30 ?

Wonder if you'll get the same judge from the set aside hearing.

[Amethyst]

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

Just realised we forgot to mention the £155 set aside application fee .............. if you win ask the judge to order it from the claimant as well as your day costs.

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Just in the bulk listing! Bit of a confusion when I got here as they had UKSAS listed but not me???!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Gawd, that doesn't help with the nerves ! He probably sent a dodgy letter to the court about adjourning it if it looks like you are going to win..... the judges so far haven't been impressed by that effort.

Hope you don't have to lurk about waiting too much. Interesting place for some earwigging and people watching though xx

[Rebecca Smith]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

I had already thought of that! Is there anything else that can be claimed like time preparing documents etc? Don't think you can claim for stress can you?

- - - Updated - - -

Have already been Earwigging and people watching!!!! Not gonna comment on here!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Have already been Earwigging and people watching!!!! Not gonna comment on here!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Rebecca Smith v UKS&S - full hearing on 6th August

Not in small claims, unless the judge awards costs for unreasonable behaviour of the other party... doesn't hurt to ask (AFTER). Probably you'd only get time off work/travel/parking etc - ie costs for the day ( and the set aside app fee)

But just in case it is CPR 27.14(2)(g) which states that the court may summarily assess a party’s costs and order them “to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably”