Davey vs Amex

[the_shadow]

Do any of these cards ever result in anyone coming round? I had the misfortune to deal with RMA a couple of years ago and I got a few of these 'The RMA Bogey Man is coming to get you' cards, but no one ever turned up. Let me guess... Mr Green, Mr Brown and Mr Grey? No imagination these people

 

What I found surprising was that even a small amount of resistance from me caused RMA to give up and pass the account to someone else. All well and good for me but the implication is that these tactics must have a degree of success, otherwise they wouldn't be using them. it is scandalous that DCA's are so unregulated.

 

They rely on collecting easy money, anything that appears difficult to collect on has to be weighed up with how much they will receive in the end and how much they paid for it.. these scumbags like scaring old grannies and single mums more than hot dinners in my humble opinions.

 

S.

[davey77]

Do any of these cards ever result in anyone coming round? I had the misfortune to deal with RMA a couple of years ago and I got a few of these 'The RMA Bogey Man is coming to get you' cards, but no one ever turned up.

 

What I found surprising was that even a small amount of resistance from me caused RMA to give up and pass the account to someone else. All well and good for me but the implication is that these tactics must have a degree of success, otherwise they wouldn't be using them. it is scandalous that DCA's are so unregulated.

 

As expected, nobody turned up and i have received to further communication from RMA email or otherwise. I imagine they are a DCA that tries it on a couple of times then moves on.

Complaint regarding their tactics sent to TS and the OFT.

[the_shadow]

As expected, nobody turned up and i have received to further communication from RMA email or otherwise. I imagine they are a DCA that tries it on a couple of times then moves on.

Complaint regarding their tactics sent to TS and the OFT.

 

Hi Davey,

 

If they have your phone number expect them to ring once or twice a day always once in the morning around 11ish and then in the evening around 7ish, they seem to always use one of approx 4 numbers to phone from.

 

They gave up on me although I'm not sure if that was MBNA calling them off or RMA just crawling away.

 

S.

[davey77]

ah no to worry there Shadow... nobody has had my telephone number for over 2 years since i changed it and i guard it with my life after previously getting 13 calls a day 7 days a week.

 

Blissfully quiet here

[davey77]

I am trying to write a book on being in debt.

 

I would appreciate any short comments and peoples experiences in their own words on how debt has effected their health and lives. In particular the stress it causes and what being ignored by Lenders and DCAs when you are trying be responsible has felt like.

 

Only short comments wanted please. Say about 300 word max. No massive letters and i am more interested in the psychological effects and mental state, the frustration and stress that attempts to communicate with creditors has brought, rather than the legal side or section 78 failures etc.

 

I would prefer comments sent via hotmail or yahoo (link on the left of these posts) and not posted on the open forum please and rest assured your name/username will never be quoted. All in strict confidence and for my own use in writing about the subject matter and any information will be changed as to keep any comments i may add to the book as anonymous and not traceable back to any individual in any way.

 

Thanks folks... something may come of it. I may be a rubbish author! If it's not good enough for publication and if i ever finish it i'll post it online for download to try to help those being hounded by the evil doers.

[citizenB]

Davey, good luck with this:) Why dont you put a link to one of these posts in your signature.. You post on quite a few threads and it will give you more coverage.

 

Alternatively.. start a new thread

[davey77]

Ah yes.. good idea. thanks CB!

[davey77]

[the_shadow]

Well if nothing else it gives you a chance to use CPR rules to obtain documentation now they have stated they WILL be issuing proceedings.

 

Another chance at the securitisation question?

 

S.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Davey77!

 

Looks like a standard DCA-Lawyer Threat letter. I think Westminsters may well be part of RMA, although don't quote me on that.

 

The letter is highly suspect in many areas. For example, RMA cannot instruct them to take legal action, as RMA do not own the Debt, Amex does. Only Amex can take legal action against you and, only then, if Amex still owns the Debt! There's some doubt about that in any event, given the way Amex Securitises the buggery out of things over in the USA and not in the UK!

 

Another sticking point is their mention of Statutory Interest. What do they mean by that then? If they mean County Courts Act 1984 s69 8%, then they may well find a slight problem with that. The problem being that such Interest cannot be added to a Regulated Agreement. Here's why:

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991

 

They want you to jump through hoops within 7 Days, and yet Today is the 7th July, and their letter is dated 2nd July, and I bet was posted to you via the slowest method they could find! That does not support the 7 Day issue as being credible.

 

The following may be of interest, it's a letter from Susan Edwards of the OFT, original is Posted over on this CAG Thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/196114-miss-muppet-mbna-costs.html#post2226238

 

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 - Sections 77 and 78

Summary

On request and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:

• a copy of their executed agreement

• any other document referred to in it

• a statement showing

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

Legal Argument

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to (Typo, she means Creditor I think) ‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985 (Not sure this is correct, "if any" was inserted to cover Verbal Agreements).

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

Sharp v McHenry (1888 ) LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

Terms and Conditions

 

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditions as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

Debt collectors as creditors

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:

• the assignment must be absolute.

• the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

• express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt.

In some instances, the debt collector may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

The first issue on when the debt collector becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

May 2008

 

Susan Edwards

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading

This just Posted by The_Shadow:

 

Another chance at the securitisation question?

Yep, looks like it to me! Time to put Amex on the spot via a formal request that can be mentioned in Court!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited July 7, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Comments in Red to correct the OFT Letter.

[dp77]

That letter from Susan Edwards is interesting, to say the least.

 

As for the letter sent to Davey by Westminsters, that is surely illegal? It says "Upon Judgment........" the inference being that judgement is either a formality, or is in the process of being passed. Is it not illegal to send DCA letters masquerading as legal documents?

 

"Upon Judgment" is a very ambiguous way of saying "Should judgment be entered against you", one sounds imminent, the other is a maybe. These people are beneath contempt.

[davey77]

Yes Shadow.. certainly think i am going to have to ask about securitisation at every given opportunity.

 

Thanks for the all the info BRW.. that's really interesting (and potent) stuff to use in an argument indeed.

 

Looks like i'll be writing some letters today to RMA and Westminsters and the OFT/TS. Although i will not bandy back and forth with these jokers for the next 3-4 months. I'll just get it all in one letter ending with a 'read and filed but not responded to' sentence. Of course, heading it with the 'i do not acknowledge any debt...' just incase that three year statute barred limit i have heard is being discussed ever did come into effect (and incase this never gets to Court.. although be honest i am mighty bored by these well known and impotent threats these days..

[davey77]

That letter from Susan Edwards is interesting, to say the least.

 

As for the letter sent to Davey by Westminsters, that is surely illegal? It says "Upon Judgment........" the inference being that judgement is either a formality, or is in the process of being passed. Is it not illegal to send DCA letters masquerading as legal documents?

 

"Upon Judgment" is a very ambiguous way of saying "Should judgment be entered against you", one sounds imminent, the other is a maybe. These people are beneath contempt.

 

Usual tactics and worded specifically in such a way to make those less aware (or vulnerable) pay up in panic im afraid. Copy though will be sent to TS and the OFT (at least we know the OFT are taking on board these complaints in the background nowadays).

[davey77]

Further to Post 195 and RMAs 'calling Card' i sent the following to Torbay TS. and now i have a reply:

 

" Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I wish to make a complaint regarding contact by a debt collection agency of which i have no previous knowledge of. On the 13th June 2009 i received a calling card (copy enclosed) from NCO Europe Ltd trading as RMA. This card gives the impression RMA will be ‘calling’ but as i am ex directory and have not given my telephone number to them or anyone else i assumed it was a personal visit.

No call was obviously received on the date stated and nobody called at my property that i was aware of. I understand these tactics contravene OFT Debt collection Guidance in numerous areas including but not limit to:

 

c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is

d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a different debt collector

i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless legally entitled to do so

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox, thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed

 

I therefore ask that you investigate these matters and keep me informed of your progress.

 

I look forward to receiving your reply,

 

Yours sincerely,

"

 

[davey77]

I also sent a letter to RMA (NCO) although i didn't mention securitisation as i feel i want to save those sorts of questions for the OC. Rightly or wrongly, it was just my thought process at the time. Also sent a similar letter to Westminsters LLP (no reply from them as yet.)

 

"I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or it’s agents

Account in Dispute

Formal request for information (CPR)

Dear Sirs,

In reference to your recent communications:

 

This alleged account is in reasonable and lawful dispute and as such you are unable to demand payment until said dispute is resolved to my satisfaction and you are not entitled to enforce this debt because your client American Express have failed to produce a document signed myself that contains the prescribed terms as per section 61(a) and section 127(3) of the CCA 1974. The signed document that has been supplied clearly fails to provide the prescribed terms required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983. Therefore, as American Express have failed to produce a properly executed and enforceable credit card agreement as defined within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and refused to comply with requests for information under the Civil Procedure Rules I hereby formally request that, within the spirit of the Civil Procedure Rules, RMA supply me any and all documentation that would be replied upon as evidence in any claim.

 

For your information, the breaches of OFT Debt Collection Guidance that RMA have committed in your methods of communication have been reported to Trading Standards and the OFT. I suggest you take OFT debt collection guidance more seriously after the recent action taken against other unprofessional DCAs, namely, 1st Credit and Mackenzie Hall, as the OFT are cracking down on unlawful and unfair debt collection practices and your organisation could be next.

 

I note that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

 

Take note, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or any of your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless. Any trespassers you attempt to send therefore will be dealt with accordingly and i will ask the attending Police Officer/s to arrest any uninvited employee of your company on grounds of trespass and attempted fraud.

Failure to supply the information requested within 7 days will be noted as a refusal to comply and as such all future communications will be filed for future evidence but not responded to and in doing so your conduct will be alerted to Trading Standards and the OFT.

 

You may send the required information to the above address but further unlawful requests for payment towards the above alleged account will not be responded to.

 

Yours faithfully..."

 

[the_shadow]

Further to Post 195 and RMAs 'calling Card' i sent the following to Torbay TS. and now i have a reply:

 

" Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I wish to make a complaint regarding contact by a debt collection agency of which i have no previous knowledge of. On the 13th June 2009 i received a calling card (copy enclosed) from NCO Europe Ltd trading as RMA. This card gives the impression RMA will be ‘calling’ but as i am ex directory and have not given my telephone number to them or anyone else i assumed it was a personal visit.

No call was obviously received on the date stated and nobody called at my property that i was aware of. I understand these tactics contravene OFT Debt collection Guidance in numerous areas including but not limit to:

 

c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is

d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a different debt collector

i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless legally entitled to do so

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox, thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed

 

I therefore ask that you investigate these matters and keep me informed of your progress.

 

I look forward to receiving your reply,

 

Yours sincerely,

"

 

 

 

"Student" Trading standards officer?????

 

Try writing back asking who exactly enforces/polices the OFT debt collection guidelines if trading standards are not prepared to.

 

S.

[davey77]

Has anyone noticed the signature of the TS letter!? STUDENT?????

[davey77]

Ah yes you spotted it Shadow!

 

Yes i will have to reply to this... also she says 'the facts'. What facts? Mine.. presented in my letter and clear and unambiguous.

[the_shadow]

Ah yes you spotted it Shadow!

 

Yes i will have to reply to this... also she says 'the facts'. What facts? Mine.. presented in my letter and clear and unambiguous.

 

observant I am

 

Have no idea wot NCO are stating... why are they quoting the sections from the CPUTR that relate to companies who are signees abiding by a code of practice, thats what you would quote to them in a complaint surely? or are they just agreeing and claiming they comply?

 

S.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Student?!?

 

WTF!

 

Next Trading Standards will be using the Office Cleaner to handle such issues.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[davey77]

observant I am

 

Have no idea wot NCO are stating... why are they quoting the sections from the CPUTR that relate to companies who are signees abiding by a code of practice, thats what you would quote to them in a complaint surely? or are they just agreeing and claiming they comply?

 

S.

 

I have no idea why they are quoting CPUTR regs either. probably just trying to do a 'cabot' and through various quotes from regs into the mix to try to get the respondee off balance or confused.

[davey77]

Student?!?

 

WTF!

 

Next Trading Standards will be using the Office Cleaner to handle such issues.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

LOL

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Davey77!

 

I have no idea why they are quoting CPUTR regs either.

 

But now they have been kind enough to mention them, they have made it clear they are fully aware of them.

 

How convenient!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[the_shadow]

Hello Davey77!

 

 

 

But now they have been kind enough to mention them, they have made it clear they are fully aware of them.

 

How convenient!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

haha good quick thinking... only problem is OFT wont want to know(personal experience with Crapital One breaching banking code complaint to OFT) so that leaves you with TS again to enforce or civil court yourself.

 

S.

[JonCris]

It seems clear that you will have to 'educate' the stoodent at Torbay as to both the law, OFT guidelines & their inability to do their cushy taxpayer funded jobs - complain like hell & tell 'em you'll report them for maladministration as well as seeking Francovich damages

Edited July 15, 2009 by JonCris