Excel PCN NTK

Umkomaas

Absolutely super court report. Well done on seeing this through to a successful conclusion.

What the Excel rep said was telling, plus admitting to the fact he gets paid whatever the result. He can't go wrong.

A really nasty monkey off your back!

poundofcarrots

Certainly is Umkomaas. I'm delighted to be rid of it. Thanks for your help.

Will loiter here to help where I can.

Umkomaas

poundofcarrots wrote: »

Certainly is Umkomaas. I'm delighted to be rid of it. Thanks for your help.

Will loiter here to help where I can.

That would be really, really helpful. You've got first-hand experience to draw on, whereas most of the regulars here don't (largely because we're a bit too wise to PPC tricks and traps to get caught out! ).

Coupon-mad

Well done, I am a bit late to this party but hey, good court report!

At this, their rep, who was decidedly less cheery than in his initial approach said that he couldn't really counter this ruling other than to say that as it was also in a County Court, it was not binding.

The Judge did not say whether or not he could rule on that point but it might be something the experts here can clarify on and for others' use in future.

It was at appeal stage, so one step higher than county court decisions of first instance.

So you could have countered 'whilst not actually binding, it is persuasive, being an appeal case heard by a Senior Circuit Judge with the facts considered being completely on all fours with this case v the same Claimant, who are being disingenuous - and wholly unreasonable conduct - to keep trying the same trick about the law of agency, knowing mist ordinary people will not know about Excel v Smith'.