DeVere Lose Court Case in Bournemouth

Guys_Dad

Actually, thinking about this case, there must have been hundreds of people who have paid charges to Devere here where they don't have proper authority to make these charges.

Even with any reluctance of the defendant in this case to be named, this seems to me to be a perfect case for the local newspaper to report in order that anyone who has been scammed can demand their money back.

This is, after all, a money saving site. The reps here did great work with providing the defendant with a winning case and it is not unreasonable in return that he agrees to allowing his story to be published in the local press.

At a stroke, hundreds of people could be helped, rather than the singletons we help here or in court.

I am with the others who are reluctant to give Devere a soft ride and would ask any of the regulars who may have attended court or Mr X himself to consider contacting the local newspaper to help others who have been scammed to get a refund.

sexon

While there may be reasons for private individuals identity to be kept private, at least there is a case number and the court can confirm further details. That alone will help others previously stung by Devere. It's like dealing with a bully, you fight back, they wince and start crying and you feel sorry and hug them. No way, classical Stockholm syndrome. There is no shred of evidence that they will change their aggressive behaviour. What about justice to people who have paid tickets to Devere. They lack good public relations and are too arrogant to see this as a watershed moment to really change their image. There is clearly poor leadership here, the modus operandi will not last long, people are fighting hard, thanks to mse, prankster and pepipoo.

I was arrested once, but so courteously I thanked the officer ��

HO87

sexon wrote: »

I thought the DVLA individually inspect these contracts, my !!!!, how did they miss this one then. Does this mean that keeper details were obtained unlawfully?

Probably, although Devere are likely to argue that it was done unwittingly. The DVLA do not carry out checks themeselves but rely entirely on the inspection regime the BPA have in place - such as it is.

Having read some BPA inspection reports one gets the impression that its rather like having your maiden aunt along for tea and scones one afternoon. She'll ask a few awkward questions, like "Well, Berty have you got yourself a young woman yet?", slightly embarrassing but easily fobbed off by reference to an imaginary friend. Hardly the sort of rigorous check that is likely to uncover ingrained wrong-doing and sure to engender a "...and thank you for the hospitality you extended to me during my visit" addition to the "report".

Then again, as far as the contract is concerned I suspect, that the BPA staff/contractors probably have no idea what they are looking at (each PPC is likely to use a different model, different format etc) and secondly they make no real checks to ascertain who the owner is. Bear in mind that they will only inspect a sample of enforcement sites (at each operator), and could legitimately have missed this one in any event. I seriously doubt that they ever carry out Land Registry searches (If you are reading this Steve Clark I'd love to be proved wrong) and have therefore only the operator, their esteemed member's, word for it.

Commonsense dictates that it would be extremely easy for the unscrupulous to fudge something to cover a hole or a number of holes - although I hasten to add that I am not in any way suggesting that this is what happened in this case.

The BPA (and POPLA) and the courts perpetuate this situation by accepting and encouraging the use of Witness Statements. It is reasonably clear that this has been widely exploited to prevent the uncovering of clauses that lay bear the truth behind enforcement (and the collapse of the PPC's case were those clauses to be revealed) but would also allow circumstances such as I have suggested and those like Devere's to go completely unchecked.

That is wholly unacceptable and if the BPA is to retain any last modicum of respect, as an organisation, then they should take steps to ensure that this practice ceases forthwith. I am not holding my breath.

sexon wrote: »

If Devere genuinely make changes, then thats good. But when you call them, they are so rude, they need to change wholesale.

Much as I am prepared to accept their account that they have been misled by their client (who in turn was probably misled by theirs etc etc ad infinitum) the due diligence argument holds true for me. The point that has been made repeatedly is that this could all have been resolved, or at least nipped in the bud, with the expenditure of just £3.

Hot_Bring

HO87 wrote: »

Probably, although Devere are likely to argue that it was done unwittingly.

Unwittingly or not, ignorance is not considered a defence in the eyes of the law ...... it might be in the eyes of the BPA, DVLA and IPC though.

HO87

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Unwittingly or not, ignorance is not considered a defence in the eyes of the law ...... it might be in the eyes of the BPA, DVLA and IPC though.

But what is being referred to?

I would respectfully suggest that Devere could be quite legitimately ignorant of the fact that the party they had contracted with was not the landlord. That is not a question of the law.

sexon

I see several angles to this. Unlawful access to data by producing and relying on defective contracts, information commissioner...fraud act...

DVLA and BPA will have to look into this am sure.

Counter claims for this site going back six years plus 8% interest. The issue is, do defendants have to fight for it or Devere see sense and approach and make offers.

Push them into bankruptcy ��

bazster

I agree it's highly unlikely any offence could be proved if Devere genuinely believed he had contracted with the correct party. I'm not aware that strict liability applies to any of the possible offences.

BenefitMaster

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Ermmmm, am I missing something, or isn't it a cornerstone of The English Justice system, that justice should be open and transparent ?

There was a reason why Devere asked for this, but for legal reasons I can't tell you why.

What I can say is that last week I represented two different parties against Devere, on two different dates, with two satisfactory results but for legal reasons I can only report on one of them.

Let the Lawyers among us draw conclusions and explain this...

Northlakes

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a lawyer to work that one out!

bod1467

Settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement?