Passport service site pressing for payment

visidigi

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31660829

Money-Saving-King

visidigi wrote: »

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31660829

I have no sympathy with this bit:

"Chantelle Parker Mills said she worked out it was not the official site and pulled out before entering payment, and booked her own appointment with the official Passport Office.

She said the company had been extremely aggressive.

UK Services and Support Ltd which runs Britishpassportservcies.co.uk went on to sue her, and succeeded because when court documents arrived - giving Ms Mills 14 days to respond - she ignored them.

In cases like this, if one side does not turn up, the other side automatically wins. This is called a default judgement. The case has not been looked at by a judge at all."

She ignored documents from the small claims court, how stupid!

gazter

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

I have no sympathy with this bit:

"Chantelle Parker Mills said she worked out it was not the official site and pulled out before entering payment, and booked her own appointment with the official Passport Office.

She said the company had been extremely aggressive.

UK Services and Support Ltd which runs Britishpassportservcies.co.uk went on to sue her, and succeeded because when court documents arrived - giving Ms Mills 14 days to respond - she ignored them.

In cases like this, if one side does not turn up, the other side automatically wins. This is called a default judgement. The case has not been looked at by a judge at all."

She ignored documents from the small claims court, how stupid!

is there ever a defence for not defending? Just wondering, if i sued ten people, but without real grounds to do so, and five failed to respond the court documents, and i automatically won, is there any way of overturning this?

tomtontom

gazter wrote: »

is there ever a defence for not defending? Just wondering, if i sued ten people, but without real grounds to do so, and five failed to respond the court documents, and i automatically won, is there any way of overturning this?

They could apply to have the judgments set aside, if they claimed they had not received the papers. They would have to pay for this but applications are usually granted. They would then have the opportunity to defend the claim. Obviously if they had received the papers then they would be committing perjury!

DoaM

gazter wrote: »

is there ever a defence for not defending? Just wondering, if i sued ten people, but without real grounds to do so, and five failed to respond the court documents, and i automatically won, is there any way of overturning this?

You would likely lose the 5 that were defended. Depending on timing (e.g. if the first 5 were the defended ones) then you may be classed as a vexatious litigant and have the other claims automatically struck out.

fermi

Exposed: The shameless copycat website's boss who threatens wary customers with court - but don't swear, he'll charge you £10 for it

The Mail on Sunday give it a whole 3 page spread.

vikingaero

What a lovely chap Mr Howard is - Chav to the core. Whilst he might have a modicum of talent he has no morals.

elsien

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

I have no sympathy with this bit:

"Chantelle Parker Mills said she worked out it was not the official site and pulled out before entering payment, and booked her own appointment with the official Passport Office.

She said the company had been extremely aggressive.

UK Services and Support Ltd which runs Britishpassportservcies.co.uk went on to sue her, and succeeded because when court documents arrived - giving Ms Mills 14 days to respond - she ignored them.

In cases like this, if one side does not turn up, the other side automatically wins. This is called a default judgement. The case has not been looked at by a judge at all."


She ignored documents from the small claims court, how stupid!

If I remember correctly, the firm had been sending out fake court documentation which the person checked with the court and discovered they were fake. So it's not difficult to see why they were then caught out by a later set of real court papers. Bit of a nasty trick.

Money-Saving-King

elsien wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the firm had been sending out fake court documentation which the person checked with the court and discovered they were fake. So it's not difficult to see why they were then caught out by a later set of real court papers. Bit of a nasty trick.

Small claims documents are obvious. I've received them myself.