DeVere Lose Court Case in Bournemouth

BenefitMaster

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 followed my clients instructions. I gave him advice on the matter. I was not alone, there was a second Lay Rep assisting me, and in the heat of battle we agreed that the CA was the best option.

And for the record, neither case last week came from the forums - both of them came from independent contact with the BMPA.

In both cases, the clients were entirely satisfied with the results, one stating that I went at Devere's representative like a mongoose with a snake.

The_Deep

and in the heat of battle we agreed that the CA was the best option.

The best option for whom? Your client or all the hundreds of other poor saps whom have been ripped off by the PPC. Getting your client an extra few quid by preventing others from knowing the truth does not cut it with sanctimonious old moi.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

and in the heat of battle we agreed that the CA was the best option.

The best option for whom? Your client or all the hundreds of other poor saps whom have been ripped off by the PPC. Getting your client an extra few quid by preventing others from knowing the truth does not cut it with sanctimonious old moi.

I cannot tell you what happened on the first case. The court has ordered this. If you don't like that, go and argue with the judge,

No such order prevents me from telling you about the second case, and that has been reported. Devere tried to silence that report, and failed without my having to address the court.

I can't tell you the terms of the first settlement - I have a duty of care to the client and to the court, and a binding undertaking to the judge. I accept my duty to the court - it means I can carry on going to court to fight for the little man's rights.

How many times have you been to court for an undefended layman against a million pound company and won? This is my fourth parking company in twelve months, and I'm currently undefeated against PE, Devere, CEL and another.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, seem to badmouth others on here...

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

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.

No I don't...but that's neither what I said nor what was implied.


We're talking about a Joe/Joanna Public wanting out from under a PPC court action.


Many legally minded people on here are always keen to explain how 'the courts are essentially a lottery and you can always lose', so who can blame someone for settling a case [albeit with a CA] and getting on with their lives.


Not everyone wants to be a hero, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that [except in your eyes].

Marktheshark

Just to point out, anyone hit by this shower can use this evidence to make a fresh County Court claim against them, even if they have won in court against you.
The evidence clearly shows they had no interest and authority on the land and they therefore have absolutely no defence.
Go after the principle, let them counter the agent if they so seem fit.

Where evidence later comes to light that proves the judgement would not have been granted if that evidence were available.
You have just as much right to sue them for all your money back.

Good enough for them as well.
You only have 7 years, crack on as they say...

BenefitMaster

Just so everyone is aware - I was the lead BMPA Lay Rep for this case. On the CA case, Bargepole was my assistant, on the case we are reporting, another BMPA rep was the assistant, but I was the lead because this happened on my turf in Wessex.

I was also the lead BMPA rep in Southampton for Lainniee's case, as well as several other cases. I'm the guy suing ParkingEye as reported by Parking Prankster.

Anyone trying to suggest that I am IN ANY WAY soft on the parking companies is barking in the wrong woodland...

Anyone who wants to sue Devere for the ticket they paid is more than welcome to contact the BMPA, and I'll prepare and bring a Group Action if necessary. And that still won't change the fact that there is a CA in place for one of the cases, nor will I seek to reopen that case.

Marktheshark

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Anyone who wants to sue Devere for the ticket they paid is more than welcome to contact the BMPA, and I'll prepare and bring a Group Action if necessary. And that still won't change the fact that there is a CA in place for one of the cases, nor will I seek to reopen that case.

That sound like a good offer, my better judgement would say they would be far better to pay up and avoid court on any claims.
I can see no possible defence for them.
If claimants decide that the action taken against them was tantamount to harrasment by tort, it could get rather expensive for them indeed.
To the tune of several thousand pounds a claim.

Redx

BenefitMaster wrote: »

I was also the lead BMPA rep in Southampton for Lainniee's case, as well as several other cases.

I'm the guy suing ParkingEye as reported by Parking Prankster.

please try and let us know the outcome of this action (Personal Costs Notification) at its conclusion, especially if you win and hopefully no CA clause

I for one really want you to win in court and beat them at their own game, so good luck (was wondering what had happened to your case a few days ago whilst reading this thread)

BenefitMaster

Redx wrote: »

please try and let us know the outcome of this action (Personal Costs Notification) at its conclusion, especially if you win and hopefully no CA clause

I for one really want you to win in court and beat them at their own game, so good luck (was wondering what had happened to your case a few days ago whilst reading this thread)

Currently listed for hearing on 18 December.

I will not be settling with a Confidentiality Clause under any circumstances, and I will appeal any such order if it is made.

sexon

May I calm tempers here.


From my reading of the posts above. There were two cases from Devere and it appears both were successfully defended. In the first case on 1 October a confidentiality clause was agreed but not in the second.


For those who want evidence to claim refunds etc, surely that second case is in the public domain and opens that avenue so I dont see what the issue is.


I think some of the language and accusations levelled against those who took their personal time to help the defendant is somewhat inflammatory, rich and unjust. They achieved a result and are sharing what they can.


Hindsight is never good in these cases, it appears there were circumstances that required this action, if we were not in the court room, it is hard to understand. So, please dont rush to judge, nor condemn unless you know more than has been shared here, in which case, please share it with us.


The key is Devere are on the ropes, you dont let a boxer recover, you deliver a knockout blow!


I want to know though, if they have taken down those signs. If not, they deserve no mercy.


And well done for achieving this, we need all publicity in the local papers. But i think the forum and prankster's blogs are good enough vehicle anyway.


Well done, am sure those you helped appreciate it.