DeVere Lose Court Case in Bournemouth

bazster

Isn't Devere the geezer who does his dirty work on a pushbike? Whether it is liveried I have no idea!

The_Deep

I am in two minds about non-disclosure agreements. They are usually offered when a company, hospital trust, Police, wish to cover up wrong doings. Often they secure a better deal for the wronged party, and in many cases they are contrary to the interests of consumers.

If anyone on here has been party to a CA with De Vere, they need to examine their conscience. Whether by design or not, this company has ripped off thousands of people, and to help them keep this from those people is not only morally reprehensible, but also contrary to the spirit of this board. .

bod1467

And for those struggling to work out the acronym ...

CA = Compromise Agreement

The_Deep

Confidentiality Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement

bod1467

Ah. I stand corrected. (Although in the case of an out-of-court settlement, compromise agreement has the same effective meaning).

4consumerrights

The_Deep wrote: »

I am in two minds about non-disclosure agreements. They are usually offered when a company, hospital trust, Police, wish to cover up wrong doings. Often they secure a better deal for the wronged party, and in many cases they are contrary to the interests of consumers.

If anyone on here has been party to a CA with De Vere, they need to examine their conscience. Whether by design or not, this company has ripped off thousands of people, and to help them keep this from those people is not only morally reprehensible, but also contrary to the spirit of this board. .

I can assure you that those who are bound by the confidentiality agreement have a perfectly clear conscience in this matter and obviously cannot disclose any details for legal reasons.

As a trustee of the BMPA -
I am not even privy to what was discussed in court!

The case covered by the confidentiality agreement will quite simply not be discussed.

I can assure you though that there is a lot of work going on that is quite simply not discussed on the forums and indeed many regulars do defences off forum.

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

If anyone on here has been party to a CA with De Vere, they need to examine their conscience. Whether by design or not, this company has ripped off thousands of people, and to help them keep this from those people is not only morally reprehensible, but also contrary to the spirit of this board. .

What a load of tripe, tosh and sanctimonious claptrap.


I'll expand on that...


Anyone on these boards with a modicum of intelligence, the ability to read, a degree of patience and the willingness to actually read the advice given can sort out pretty much any PPC.


A few cases under a CA make no difference in the greater picture, and for those people involved it deals with their situation....and what's wrong with that? Not everyone wants to be a martyr or an avenging warrior [keyboard variety or other], many just want to sort it and get on with their lives.


There are enough consumer rights activists on here who are willing to risk 'taking a bullet for the team' by adopting a hardline attitude wrt PPCs, so why try to shame those who don't??

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

What a load of tripe, tosh and sanctimonious claptrap.


I'll expand on that...


Anyone on these boards with a modicum of intelligence, the ability to read, a degree of patience and the willingness to actually read the advice given can sort out pretty much any PPC.


A few cases under a CA make no difference in the greater picture, and for those people involved it deals with their situation....and what's wrong with that? Not everyone wants to be a martyr or an avenging warrior [keyboard variety or other], many just want to sort it and get on with their lives.


There are enough consumer rights activists on here who are willing to risk 'taking a bullet for the team' by adopting a hardline attitude wrt PPCs, so why try to shame those who don't??

My point and it may be the Deep's as well, is that it would be good if all those who had fallen victim of this parking site could be made aware of the fact that their charges were not based on a legal contract. Now, can we expect Devere to trawl through their payments received and refund the money. Maybe a passing flying pig might be able to answer. And, if the confidentiality inferences are to the same case as on here, given that the case has been won and the judge has said it ain't confidential, then what prevents further publicity unless De Vere have said to someone involved "SShhh. Don't let it get out and I will pay you some money??"

I can't believe this last statement applying to any of the regulars.

But an article in the ,local paper would be a good start to helping those who have already been scammed.

4consumerrights

Guys_Dad wrote: »

My point and it may be the Deep's as well, is that it would be good if all those who had fallen victim of this parking site could be made aware of the fact that their charges were not based on a legal contract. Now, can we expect Devere to trawl through their payments received and refund the money. Maybe a passing flying pig might be able to answer. And, if the confidentiality inferences are to the same case as on here, given that the case has been won and the judge has said it ain't confidential, then what prevents further publicity unless De Vere have said to someone involved "SShhh. Don't let it get out and I will pay you some money??"

I can't believe this last statement applying to any of the regulars.

But an article in the ,local paper would be a good start to helping those who have already been scammed.

The confidentiality case was not this one - hence the secrecy. There were two cases which our experienced BMPA lay rep helped defendants the last week. One on the 1st October and one on the 3rd October.

I agree that for the one discussed on this thread and on Prankster's blog would be very good - an article in the press would be a good idea (if you can get it in!).

There have been suggestions in the past that this has been tried before but due to the alleged links Devere have in Bournemouth this has proved fruitless.

The_Deep

What a load of tripe, tosh and sanctimonious claptrap.

So, you think that when a hospital trust or Local Authority pays off an underperforming or otherwise unsuitable senior executive to avoid their blushes, that is acceptable? When a Police Force covers up misbehaviour, that is in the public interest.

There is nothing pious, priggish, or mealy mouthed about my post, did you look up the word before you used it?

We all know that CA's shield individuals and companies from misbehaviour. What possible reason therefore could anyone on this board have for allowing themselves to be bound by one with a PPC, even if as a result of one, the PPC paid someone else, (a paying client perhaps), a large sum of money.