If there are people who have had problems similar to what i am dealing with. Can you start your own threads up and see if there is a pattern building up. I think Securitas has had long enough to get a grip on its priorities.

well, has set aside hearing date been set? we are not concerned about a pattern and nor will your court so although what is said here may aid others it isnt a class action so avoid trying to reading things into any other postings

I understand what you are saying. There must similar things going on.

there arent any posted here so dont go fishing for trouble. We have said it before, remain focussed on your case and what YOU can prove rather than worry about others and reporting tittle-tattle and conjecture.

there arent any posted here so dont go fishing for trouble. We have said it before, remain focussed on your case and what YOU can prove rather than worry about others and reporting tittle-tattle and conjecture.

If my experience is anything to go by then if there are others out there who are ex employees and have had previous problems with Securitas then this thread should give an idea of how to deal with these concerns. I admit they are not exactly the brightest of people.

then if they read this thread they should be encouraged to post up their story and we will do our best to advise accordingly.

then if they read this thread they should be encouraged to post up their story and we will do our best to advise accordingly.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Still ongoing.

There has been a bit of movement on this.

However for the past few weeks several letters have not been responded to by Securitas's legal reps.

They are Quality Solicitors Davidsons of Sutton Coldfield.

I did not want to put this on but all that is currently happenning is that i am recieving alot of paperwork from them

however none of it makes sense.

The person whos behalf i am dealing with this has not had a reply either.

A bit annoying but hey that is Securitas for you.

thread closed at the request of the OP.

alert the thread should it ever need opening again.

dx

Re opened for update

Complete update on this.

When i last updated this.

An application to set aside the default judgement was filed by securitas.

This was in June 2017.

There were various negotiations that went on behind the scenes but nothing happened.

In August of last year Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd managed to get a set aside.

Before the hearing their legal side wanted approx £2.5k in costs plus what they had claimed as a over payment.

However their application was accepted and costs were not allowed.

They had a barrister there and also had one of their managers there.

Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited were ordered to file a defence within 14 days and they did.

A allocation questionnaire came out and was filled in.

the claim was allocated as a small claim.

There were several pieces of correspondence etc that went to and fro.

Despite several emails to and from the companies legal representatives.

the only outcome was to pay them nearly £7000 to have the claim withdrawn and this thread to be withdrawn.

The last correspondence with them was last week when they would not budge and also threatened various legal claims including liable.

Their legal rep stated that they would be happy to receive the amount in cash outside my our bank.

they were told this is not possible and they refused.

We told them that we would meet them in court and take it from there.

Attending court today were

1 Barrister,

1 Manager,

Mobile manager for Securitas Mobile Southeast.

the opening lines of the judge were that as this claim has been paid it is now on running due to the counterclaim.

The claimant is now the defendant.

The other side explained they had paid without prejudice and under duress.

The judge said fine but you have to prove your case.

After a few minutes of sorting out the paper work.

It appeared that paper work that the other side were relying on was never received by the court as it had been sent via email and it had not been signed.

he judge gave the other side every opportunity to produce paperwork they were relying on.

in the end he struck out their claim.

We were asked about costs.

we did not ask for any as we had already recovered these.

all in all a good exercise by.

as the claim was not dismissed they may try and take another bite at it.

Best part is when Securitas arrived at the hearing the guards there were G4S.

This proves that if you fight your corner properly then you win in the end.

However i would have liked it to end without any bloodshed.

I will post the order up once it arrives and will post the email.

I would like to thank everybody on this forum for helping me on this.

Well done...thread title amended.

Regards

Andy

Thanks Andy.

the claim was struck out. That is that.

They cannot ressurrect it otherwise the judge would have told them they have xx days to resubmit their application and paperwork.

Also dont forget it was your claim so they cant restart it.

In essence they appealed, told they wre too late, started a claim and had it thrown out.

They have nowhere else to go unless the judge is suddenly taken away and locked up under the mental health act

We have been onto them about this.

However as usual their legal team has been as quiet as a sleeping baby. Their legal rep has so far not replied to emails sent to them.

With the experience we have had with this company. It is not surprising people have walked from their jobs.

If not walked then the managers have dismissed them under what ever excuse they can find under the sun.

When you talk to their head office then they have different ideas about what should and shouldn't happen.

You would have thought that at least their legal team had something better to do than this.

Since they are a large firm, using professional legal representation, with a background of seeking a set-aside of a default judgment, there is only so much latitude they'll get for trying to state “oops, there was a procedural slip in our dealing with this, it is only just that we get another chance.

They got their chance with the set-aside. If they then clanger’d again, that is their look out, even more so given they had the choice of getting professional help, and were legally represented at the hearing.

“Never say never”, but I can’t see how they can re-open this. The courts dislike endless re-litigation even where it is a litigant in person claiming it is unjust for them to suffer due to a procedural error. For a large company with a legal dept. and who has retained counsel : they’ve had their second bite of the cherry.

This is what I think as well.

The trouble at the moment is that there has been a lot of bad mouthing going of by the solicitors .

I will name and shame them.

They are Quality Solicitors Davidsons of 254 Lichfield Road Four Oaks. Sutton Coldfield B74 2UH.

If I was to release the email I received last.

You will get an idea of what sort of clowns they are and how intimidating they are.

I would scrub various details and so on.

I do not know how many other people this has happened to.

Their obligation is to represent their client as best they can.

Do you know if they are at fault, their client is, or both.

You won’t be able to ask them (well, you can ask but due to client confidentiality they won’t answer!).

Yet, even if they have sent you letters / mails you disagree with, they may just have been doing the best they could for their client (it isn’t unheard of for clients to put their solicitor in a bad spot and insisting they send you letters trying to get you to back down...... they then have to do so provided they don’t actually contravene the SRA’s rules).

Do the letters breach the SRA code of conduct?.

I believe what they were after is trying to intimidate and get the claimant to back out and open the way for a liable claim. This way their squeaky clean image remains and they can continue working as they want. I believe this is the only case that has been highlighted in public and has followed from the start to the end. At the moment this is coming up in google as the top link if searched for as Security Security Services.

It is not libel if the information is a true reflection of what has taken place. All employees and customers of any business are allowed to discuss their dealings with a business i.e it is fair comment on their interactions with the business. If the information was untrue and malicious that would be a different matter.

Libel is a very high fence to clear, even if what is written is untrue it is then down to whether it was done or said in good faith, was justifable as fair comment and was damaging (public domain issues)

I have been threatened with libel actions twice, once when I posted comments about a private tender for services put put to contract by my employer. The company involved didnt like it being publicised but I had a legitimate interest as a union rep and my members jobs were affected so legitimate interest/fair comment ( basically co taking over service didnt want competitors to know and was hoping employer would slap me about a bit to keep it quiet but they didnt)

Second time was when I gave a story to a journalist about conflicts of interest for a director of a development co and his seat on a trust whose land was about to be developed, probably by his co.

He threatened legal action against journo who refused to reveal his source but I told him to say it was me and then used fair comment argument. The dveloper/trustee then declared an interest and the project didnt go ahead anyway for other reasons so again not really actionable.

The journalist was later jailed for contempt of court in another famous case when he refused to name his sources when he published a story in a trade journal about a company's shenanigans. Ultimately the court decided it wasnt libel but poor old Bill became a cause celebre for his refusal to dob in the source

I don't think solicitors actually know the meaning of libel. Do they do it on thier own backs or do they do it on their clients say so ? I will post a copy of the email when I get a chance later over the weekend

I suspect solicitors do know the meaning of libel, and all about the Defamation Act 2013, too.

That won’t stop them acting on their clients instruction to “send them a strongly worded letter, threatening action”, if (when they remind the client : if it is truth / reasonably and honestly held belief, an action for defamation won’t succeed, do you still want us to send the threat of a claim?), the client still insists ......

Order from court state's

Before DJ xxxxxx sitting at xxxxxx Court.

Upon the court being informed that the claim and associated costs have been paid in full (£2,086.92) without prejudice to liability; and today's final hearing therefore proceeding solely on the defendants counterclaim for the return of that money.

Further the defendant having failed to file and serve its evidence in accordance with previous orders and the rules.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. COUNTERCLAIM BE STRUCK OUT.

Dated 29 January 2018