VF & Small Claims

[Ganymede]

Like I said I wish you well but OFCOM have no power over the Courts and their guidance is just that.

 

As I said previously Judges don't always read the bundles and rely on the submissions of the advocates.

[ShaneG2009]

I completely agree but surely the Courts do have a duty in their role of overseeing the law to do just that. They cant say didnt read the bundle, claim dismissed, that is not good enough.

 

I could be barking up the wrong tree but time will tell. If i get answers to the queries i raised, told VF acted properly and that the OFCOM guidance is tosh i'll walk away and get on with my life.

[ShaneG2009]

Quick update

 

Appeal is being heard...transcripts of original hearing being sorted and passed to appeals judge

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good luck!!!

[mjt2013]

So that people can help with this, have you been given permission to appeal or did you appeal in time or do are you seeking permission as well?

[AndyOrch]

If you care to go back more than 1 page mjt all the answers to your post will be revealed.

[ShaneG2009]

Hi all

 

Advised the court within the allowed time periods that i wanted to email however was reserving judgement until i had heard back from the JCIO. Once that process was completed i made my appeal formal, paid the fee and its going through the motions as i type. I have paid for transcripts of the judgement to be provided to the appeal judge and have also given him a copy of the fairly scathing complaint letter i wrote to the court in the aftermath of the original hearing.

 

All i can do is wait and see. If it goes nowhere at least i can tell myself that i tried everything within my power to sort this issue out. Its all in the hands of the appeals court now.

 

Will obviously keep everyone updated as things proceed.

 

Shane

[AndyOrch]

Many thanks for the update shane...fingers crossed for you.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[ShaneG2009]

Thanks Andy

[ShaneG2009]

Quick update all

 

Appeal remains 'under consideration' by the Circuit Jugde. It's taken a while so i wonder if there is a huge backlog for them to get through?

 

Anyway i am now in receipt of a written copy of the judgement handed down by the original Judge. Does anyone in the know on here fancy a read?

 

Cheers

 

Shane

[Ganymede]

Post it up (minus personal details) to let people see.

[ShaneG2009]

IN THE OXFORD COUNTYCOURT

Case No: xxxxxxx

Citation No: (RCJ only)

OxfordCombined Court Centre

St.Aldates

Oxford

OX1 1TL

Friday, 3rd January2014

B E F O R E:

DISTRICT JUDGE PAYNE

----------

MRxxxxxxxx

(Claimant)

v.

VODAFONE LIMITED

(Defendant)

----------

Transcript from an Official Court TapeRecording.

Transcript provided by:

MK Transcribing Services,

29 The Concourse, Brunel Business Centre,

Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2ES.

Tel: 01908 640067; Fax: 01908 365958;

DX 100031 BLETCHLEY.

Official Court Tape Transcribers.

----------

THECLAIMANT appeared IN PERSON.

MISSSOBIECKI appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANTS.

--------

JUDGMENT

(As approved)

--------

Friday,3rd January 2014

DISTRICT JUDGE PAYNE:

1. This is a claim brought by Mr. xxxxxxxxxxagainst Vodafone Limited, for £1,000, in respect of unhappinesses arising outof the termination of his mobile phone contact with the company.

2. The claim is for £1,000, and sowithout disrespect to the parties, is a fairly small, small claim, but it hasgenerated an astonishing amount of documentation. The defence to the claim runs to six pages. The claimant has made a 3 page witnessstatement, backed up by 100 or so pages of documentation, and the defendant’sevidence is in the shape of a witness statement from a legal assistant, Mrs.Crocker, which runs to 9 pages and is also backed up by at least 100 pages ofdocumentation. I made the point to theparties, and I make it again now in this judgment, that I simply do not havethe time to read every page of this compendious documentation.

3. A couple of preliminary points shouldbe made before I advance through the judgment. The first, and I note this principally for the benefit of Mr. Xxxxxxx,is that the hearing has been tape-recorded, either party may apply at its ownexpense for a transcript, which may be a transcript of everything which hasbeen said in the hearing, or as more usually happens, a transcript of thejudgment which I am giving now. Next Ishould make a point about appeals. Thereis an appeal process arising out of hearings such as this one. That process must be started in no more than21 days, and there is a preliminary step in that process which is calledobtaining permission to appeal – a provision inserted, no doubt, with the aimof weeding out appeals which do not have a reasonable prospect of success. The party who seeks permission to appealshall ask the trial judge, that is me, before the end of the hearing, oralternately can make application to a Circuit Judge within the time justspecified. In broad terms there are twobases upon which an appeal might succeed: one is quite simply that the trialjudge has got the decision wrong, the other is that there has been some seriousinjustice in the way the case has been conducted, which means I think that oneparty or another has not had a fair hearing.

4. I have referred briefly to thedocumentation. I should add that I haveheard oral evidence from the claimant, who was cross-examined by thedefendant’s counsel, Miss Sobiecki, and I have had the benefit too of askeleton argument from Miss Sobiecki, which I have no hesitation in saying itis absolutely first class and has distilled the essential elements of thisdispute in an extremely succinct and helpful way.

5. Mr. Xxxxxxx’s witness statement saysin its final two paragraphs, that there are two things which he seeks: thefirst is the immediate removal of the default on his account, which has nowbeen logged with credit reference agencies. I said to him, and I think he accepts, that I am not aware of any powervested in me, to require credit reference agencies to alter their records. That part of the claim of Mr. Xxxxxxx istherefore hopeless. The second part isphrased thus: ‘Compensations/financialredress for the effects of the default entry.’ The claim as I have indicated, is for £1,000. In his evidence to me, Mr.Xxxxxxx conceded that that was a figure which was rather plucked from the air,and indeed when he made his closing comments to me, he told me that hisprincipal objective in this case was not to attain financial compensation atall.

6. The background, and there is quite along background, can be stated briefly. Mr. Xxxxxxx entered into a contract with Vodafone in January 2010. Within a few months he had cancelled hisdirect debit and was in some difficulty keeping up his payments. In June 2010, that is 5 months into the 18month contract, his account was suspended, and 2 months after that, in August,his account was terminated due to non-payment. Mr. Xxxxxxx accepts that he defaulted on the payments which he wasrequired to make under his contract with the defendant.

7. The defendant did then apply somethingcalled an early termination fee, which is in the documentation referred torather confusingly as an ETC rather than an ETF, of some £281, making the totaldefault of Mr. Xxxxxxx some £440. Thatwas what was registered with the credit reference agencies. Mr. Xxxxxxx says, and I accept, that that hascaused him some difficulty in obtaining credit since then. He is very unhappy about the reference to thecredit reference agencies, but I am afraid that I do not think that his unhappinessis justified. It is in the general bestinterests of all those who are involved in the world of advancing credit inthis country, to exchange information when there is default in payment bysomeone who has a contract with a service provider. The reasons for that are too obvious to needre-stating, and if there is some collateral difficulty caused to the non-payeras a result of that reference, then I am afraid so be it.

8. If there is a principal objectionwhich Mr. Xxxxxxx has to the way he was treated by Vodafone, it was in theimposition of an early termination fee of £281, which represents approximatelyten months basic rental for his phone. I remind myself here that his contractwas cancelled some seven months into an 18 month contract. I asked Mr. Xxxxxxx what he felt theappropriate early termination fee should be, and he ventured the figure of£100, though he readily and to his credit conceded that that was a figure whichhad rather been plucked from the air.

9. Mr. Xxxxxxx has been entirely consistentin his dissatisfaction with Vodafone. Somuch so that he referred the matter to the Communications Ombudsman. The compendious documentation which has beenprovided to me includes some correspondence with the ombudsman’s office. Looking at that correspondence, I have afairly clear impression that whoever dealt with the matter there was able togive rather more time than I have been able to give it this afternoon. Suffice it to say that in a letter of 29thMay 2012, the ombudsman wrote to the claimant to confirm that an earlytermination fee was permissible, when a contractual minimum term had not beenadhered to, and that letter continued that the fee should be equal to an not inexcess of what the remainder of the contract would have cost the customer. In this case, quite clearly, the earlytermination fee did not exceed what the contract should have cost thecustomer. The ombudsman concluded, and Iquote from his letter as referred to in Miss Sobiecki’s skeleton argument,

“There is no evidence to support that theoutstanding balance was incorrect or payment by you was not warranted.”

10. Giventhat this judgment inevitably is delivered under some considerable pressure oftime, at 4.30 in the afternoon, and with another case still to be dealt with,it is not practical for me to go through the evidence trail regarding thecommunications between Mr. Xxxxxxx and the ombudsman, and between Mr. Xxxxxxxand Vodafone.

11. Sufficeit to say that albeit very unhappily, he did ultimately accept the decision ofthe ombudsman. I am afraid it seems tome that what he has sought to do in these proceedings, is to advance once againarguments which had already been considered in detail and had been rejected. Of course, different considerationsapply.

12. Mr.Xxxxxxx has brought my attention to the provisions of the Unfair Terms inConsumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Iwill simply say that as any District Judge who deals regularly with smallclaims, I have a good working acquaintance with those regulations and I amquite satisfied that there is no evidential basis whatsoever upon which I couldconclude that Vodafone has acted in breach of those regulations.

13. Ihave already indicated that it seems to me that it was perfectly proper andindeed inescapable that the default in payment by Mr. Xxxxxxx was reported tothe credit reference agencies. The othermatter about which he complains, is that he was chased by debt collectionagencies who caused him inconvenience and upset by telephoning him late athome, and caused him embarrassment by telephoning him at work. I have some sympathy with him in thisregard. For all that as will by now havebecome clear, I do not think that Mr. Xxxxxxx’s claim has the legal legs toenable me to find in his favour, he comes across to me as a man of decency,honesty and integrity, who genuinely feels that he has been hard done by, by amassive and rather faceless corporation, which has not heeded complaints whichhe genuinely and strongly felt to be legitimate complaints. I understand all that. But the rather crude tactics of the debtcollection chasers do not in my view come close to establishing that they havecommitted the civil wrong of harassing Mr. Xxxxxxx, and there is accordingly nobasis upon which I could make an award to him under that head of distress.

14. Soin a nutshell, drawing these threads together, the request that I compel thecredit reference agencies to amend their records must fail, as I have no powerto do so. The imposition of the earlytermination fee was completely in accordance with industry practice, as wasconfirmed by the ombudsman after a detailed investigation. The registration of the default entry wasperfectly proper, and the actions of the debt collection agency did not displayimpropriety. Accordingly, for thereasons I have endeavoured to explain, this claim is dismissed.

----------

[Ganymede]

Seems like a reasonable judgment to me I'm afraid.

 

Wait to see what others think.

[ShaneG2009]

Below is a copy of the 'complaint' letter that was first issued to the Court and then as part of my appeal documentation. On reflection there are a few 'rants' in there which the Court wont care about i suppose but in my defence the letter was drafted shortly after i felt i had been wronged by a somewhat lazy Judge.

Cheers

To whom it may concern,

I wish to express my extreme dissatisfaction at theservice received by the County Court and in particular presiding Judge Payne atthe claim hearing which took place at Oxford County Court on Friday 3rdJanuary 2014.

For the reasons expressed below I believe I am entitledto appeal the ruling of Judge Payne however I would like formal response to thepoints raised below before I file a formal appeal. A copy of this letter andsupporting documentation will be filed at the Court in question and it seeks toallow me further time to consider an appeal.

1. Preparation

The claim referred to above has been going on for aperiod of 3 years between me and the Defendant (Vodafone Limited) thereforewhen I had no other viable alternative to resolve the dispute than to lodge aclaim with the Courts and for that reason I ensured that I preparedaccordingly. My preparation included several hours researching and compiling mycourt ‘bundle’ which ultimately was served on the Court and Defendant 2 weeksprior to the hearing date noted above.

Upon being seated in the court room both myself and theDefendant was informed that the presiding Judge (Payne) had not had time toreview the lengthy submissions. This was disappointing and incorrect in myopinion because a large proportion of my claim relied on the information I hadsubmitted. I believe the Judge is duty bound to have prepared accordingly bythoroughly reviewing each and every page of my submission, without doing so heleft himself blind to the crux of my dispute. That said I do deeply appreciatethat Judges work under extreme pressure and under time limits but this I do notbelieve is justification for ignoring key points of law in a claim that meansso much to me.

The result of the above is within 2 minutes of beingseated I knew my claim would be dismissed.

2. Ombudsman Decision

As can be evidenced on the transcript of the hearing JudgePayne and Counsel for the Defendant intimated that I was somewhat foolish inbringing my claim as far as County Court given the decision of the Ombudsmanearlier in my dispute with the Defendant.

I dispute this in the strongest possible terms becausehad my submission been properly reviewed in advance of the hearing the Judge wouldhave seen documented evidence pointing to perceived failures on the part of theOmbudsman in coming to their decision.

The Ombudsman pointed out that OFCOM allowed the ServiceProviders such as the Defendant to levy Early Termination Charges (hereinafterETC) on a Consumer when a Contract ended prematurely. Whilst this is correctany charges levied MUST takedue cognisance of the guidance document whereby under Section 73 – 79 inclusive(attached) it states in their opinion an ETC would only be fair if savings madedue to non-performance of the Contract are factored in (i.e. network, customerservice and avoidable variable costs).

OFCOM state that where these important elements aren’tfactored in they would consider an ETC to fall short of Schedule 2 of the UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts Act. I placed importance on the relevanceof the OFCOM guidance on the assumption it was drafted with the assistance oflegal professionals (it places great emphasis on the OFT vs. Banks SupremeCourt Cases where similar charges were argued).

I believe the case officer at the Ombudsman was either unawareor ignored of the requirements of the noted guidance and this in turninfluenced the decision handed down. I would go on record as saying that theirdecision would have been different had the case officer been aware of theactual requirements / responsibilities on the Defendant in setting / applyingthe ETC.

It should be noted for absolute clarity that the ETClevied by the Defendant was strictly the Line Rental associated with theremainder of the Contract and did not factor in the savings noted in the OFCOMguidance. This in effect meant that the Defendant was paid an equal figure towhat they would have been entitled to had the Contract been performed despitethe fact that they didn’t have to perform their side of the Contract for asignificant period of the stipulated original agreement. The relevant pointraised in the OFCOM guidance is quoted below:-

1. Point76 – ‘the supplier wouldreceive a disproportionately high sum for not having to provide services underthe contract and the consumer would have to pay such a sum for not receivingthem. The consumer would be paying a disproportionately high sum for failing toadhere to the fixed term of his contract’

The guidance then moves on to say how in their opinion thispoint directly relates to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act bystating:-

2. Point 77 – ‘In our view, such a term would fall within paragraph1(e) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, as a term having the object or effectof, “…. requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay adisproportionately high sum in compensation.” By doing so, it would cause asignificant imbalance between the CP’s rights and obligations under thecontract and the consumer’s, to the latter’s detriment, contrary to therequirement of good faith, and would be unfair’

Theguidance then states: -

3. Point 78 – ‘in setting ETCs, we consider a CP must make areasonable pre-estimate of the position it would have been in had the consumerdone what the contract obliged him to do (and no more) (i.e. the losses itincurs because the contract is not performed for its fixed term). All weconsider the CP may fairly recover in an ETC is a sum that reflects thatposition. That involves the CP making a reasonable pre-estimate of:

· 78.1the costs it saves because it no longer has to perform the contract; and

· 78.2the losses caused by the early termination that it can mitigate,

· anddeducting those from the fixed contractual retail payments outstanding on termination.

And finally:-

4. Point 79 - That pre-estimate willinclude, for example, any variable costs the CP saves on the particularcontract terminated (or, in practice, on contracts for the type of servicesconcerned to the types of consumers concerned). It will also include areasonable pre-estimate of any network costs the CP saves in a particular,reasonable period averaged over the group of consumers terminating contractsearly. We do not expect that CPs will need to calculate each individual consumer’sETC at the time of contract termination.

Ialso note for completeness that the Defendant is in breach of Clauses 80.3.2, 80.3.3, 80.3.4, 80.4 and 80.5 which are required to be factoredinto the ETC for it to be considered ‘fair' in the opinion on OFCOM.

It has always been my contention that the Defendant actedunfairly and in complete disregard for the above in setting their ETC. At alltimes all I asked for what confirmation from the Defendant that they hadcomplied with the relevant guidance and laws in setting the ETC. I believedthis to be a fair request for a corporation the size of the Defendant.

As was well documented, for 3 years the Defendant failedto provide me or the Ombudsman coherent information and as such I had no otheralternative than to seek remedy in the Court.

I believe I adequately demonstrated all of the above inmy submission to the Court however the perceived lack of preparation on thepart of Judge Payne led to wholly relevant evidence being disregarded.

In summary I did not believe I was ‘foolish’ or naïve inbringing my claim to the attention of the Courts and had Judge Payne reviewedmy claim in its entirety I am sure such a statement would not have been made.

5. Compensation

During the hearing Judge Payne asked me to explain the£1,000 ‘compensation’ figure that I had inserted into my original Particularsof Claim. I tried to make it clear that I had clarified this part of mysubmission in the documents provided to the Court 2 weeks prior to the hearingdate (as instructed within the Notice of Allocation).

As can be heard on the recording of the hearing I wasmade to feel like an imbecile for not having a proper calculation for the sumnoted however in my defence had the Judge properly prepared for the hearing hewould have learned that in my Witness Statement I declared that any costs /compensation in the case would be at the sole discretion of the Court.

This is another example of where a lack of preparation onthe defence hindered the merits of my claim.

6. DocumentsServed

This may be a mute-point but I wish to raise it anyhow.The Barrister acting for the Defendant handed both me and the Courts a‘Skeleton Argument’ document no less than 1 hour before the hearing wasscheduled to commence. This document was the one that both the Judge andDefence Barrister largely relied upon during the hearing.

If said ‘skeleton arguments’ were just a summary of thearguments presented in the Defence ‘bundle’ received prior to the Court HearingI would not have an issue but it is plain for all to see this documentintroduced new arguments that I did not have the opportunity to defend myselfagainst because of the timing of their availability.

In the Notice of Allocation issued by the Courts inadvance of the hearing it was quite clearly stated that any documents thateither parties wished to rely upon at the hearing were to be served no laterthan 2 weeks prior to the hearing date.

I complied with this requirement but it appears othersdidn’t therefore I would like clarity on this issue.

7. ClaimRequirements

Judge Payne intimated in the hearing that he was unawareof any legislation that allowed him to rule that the default on my credit fileshould be removed by the Defendant.

I am not legally trained however I believe the intentionof English Law is to provide a remedy where there has been a proven ‘wrong’.

In my case the ‘wrong’ was the Defendant placing adefault on my credit file without demonstrating their entitlement. I believe Ihave adequately demonstrated that in taking such an action (levying the ETC inthe sum they did and ignoring the requirements of their industry regulatorOFCOM in doing so) the Defendant breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act and that this is the basisfor the order to remove the Default in question.

I believe and have gone on record as saying had theDefendant applied an ETC to my account that took notice of the above pointsthere would have been no default because I would have understood and acceptedmy liability and made the relevant payment prior to a default situationarising.

Conclusion

I believe that my submission to the Court wascomprehensive however the majority of it was ignored. This resulted in what Ibelieve was an unfair judgement on the basis key points of law were overlooked.

I would like a response from the Court on the merits ofmy full submission, not just the 3 pages Judge Payne relied upon for hisJudgement. If it is decided that my claim had no merit, that the Defendantacted correctly, the default was warranted, that the Ombudsman’s decision wasnot flawed and that the Defendant did not breach the UTCCR I will walk away andget on with my life.

As is well documented my claim is reliant upon guidancehanded down by the Defendants Industry Regulator. As mentioned above, I believethe OFCOM guidance was prepared with the assistance of senior legalprofessionals and as such i believe it to be legally correct.

Notwithstanding the above, if the Judgement is upheld iwant a commentary on how and where the Court believes the OFCOM guidance to befactually and/or legally incorrect as this could have serious ramifications forother consumers relying on such information.

If indeed my appeal / complaint are successful I want theCourt to rule that the Defendant breached noted legislation and as such theyare to remove the default with immediate effect from my credit files.

I am aware that there is a fee associated with an Appealin the Small Claims Track however I would seek clarity on whether this ispayable given the obvious lack of service afforded in the original hearing forwhich I paid for.

I look forward to your full response to the above andattached.

[ShaneG2009]

How can not reading key parts of a court bundle lead to be deemed a reasonable Judgement.

 

Sorry i respect your opinion Ganymede but i dont agree with it

[Ganymede]

How can not reading key parts of a court bundle lead to be deemed a reasonable Judgement.

 

Sorry i respect your opinion Ganymede but i dont agree with it

 

 

That's why I said wait for others to comment.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Some points do stand out to me.

1. The amount of documentation submitted was far to great (agree with the judge).

2. It seems there was no skeleton argument from shane.

3. It was admitted that the sum of £1k was very much "off the cuff".

4. The judges point regarding the "removal of defaults" I agree that he has no remit in regard

to ordering the CRAs to amend/remove data from its files, however IF it was considered that the

default was unfair the judge is at liberty to order the defendant to amend / remove it.

 

 

I 'm of the opinion that the judge had sufficient data before him to conclude that the claim would fail and was fair and reasonable

in his judgement.

As to appeal who can know with any certainty what the circuit judge will decide.

[ShaneG2009]

Hi Brigadier

 

a few responses to your notes above:-

 

1) The information issued with the claim was appropriate in my mind. The Judge could have reffered to my bundle summary issued 2 weeks prior to the hearing which summarised all of the points raised by the '100 pages' of back-up. The fact that he only referred to my initial POC left him at a handicap.

 

2) I issued what i percieved skeleton argument 2 weeks before the trail, like the allocation notice required. These documents had a 2 page summary of all the points raised in the supporing evidence

 

3) Agreed i made that statement but did infact refer him to my updated POC issued in my trail bundle where it clearly stated all costs / penalties if appropriate were at the discretion of the court. Had he read those documents he would of understood this and the question wouldnt have been raised.

 

4) Comments noted. I think my supporting evidence detailed fairly accurately that there was a case for the default being 'unfair'. I think had he read my submissions properly he would have understood my case better.

 

I may or may not get the appeal approved but at least i have tried. I thought about it for a few days and despite my best efforts to drop things and move on i had a genuine belief things in that court room were not done properly...there was an itch and i had to scratch it

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Brigadier

 

a few responses to your notes above:-

 

1) The information issued with the claim was appropriate in my mind. The Judge could have reffered to my bundle summary issued 2 weeks prior to the hearing which summarised all of the points raised by the '100 pages' of back-up. The fact that he only referred to my initial POC left him at a handicap.

 

2) I issued what i percieved skeleton argument 2 weeks before the trail, like the allocation notice required. These documents had a 2 page summary of all the points raised in the supporing evidence

 

3) Agreed i made that statement but did infact refer him to my updated POC issued in my trail bundle where it clearly stated all costs / penalties if appropriate were at the discretion of the court. Had he read those documents he would of understood this and the question wouldnt have been raised.

 

4) Comments noted. I think my supporting evidence detailed fairly accurately that there was a case for the default being 'unfair'. I think had he read my submissions properly he would have understood my case better.

 

I may or may not get the appeal approved but at least i have tried. I thought about it for a few days and despite my best efforts to drop things and move on i had a genuine belief things in that court room were not done properly...there was an itch and i had to scratch it

 

 

Bearing in mind that this was heard in the County Court and was a "small Claim" issue (very small according to the judge) bundles of this size are often seen as inappropriate.

 

 

A short and very much to the point skeleton argument will get the judges attention. the he/she can consider what points should be opened up and examined fully.

[ShaneG2009]

Bearing in mind that this was heard in the County Court and was a "small Claim" issue (very small according to the judge) bundles of this size are often seen as inappropriate.

 

 

A short and very much to the point skeleton argument will get the judges attention. the he/she can consider what points should be opened up and examined fully.

 

Hi Brigadier

 

That is exactly what i done for the Judge. The 2 page summary document issued with the bundle pointed him to all relevant arguments raised by me. If he had of read that summary he could have decided which points were relevant and which ones werent. He didnt read it so concluded the claim document was excessive.

[ShaneG2009]

So another update all

 

Transcipts recieved, reviewed and approved and my file has been passed to HHJ Charles Harris QC toconsider.

Mr. Harris QC is famous for his ruling on 'LogBook Loans'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/128k-a-year-judge-charles-harris-qc-223379

If he does consider i have merit for appeal, and that is a big IF i can't see him being sympathetic lol

[AndyOrch]

This may be of interest to you :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?415882-Vodafone-Violation-of-Data-Protection-Act***Claim-Partially-Successful***

 

Regards

 

Andy

[ShaneG2009]

Very interesting and fair play to the chap who took them on and won (albeit maybe not as much as he'd hoped).

 

Im still waiting for feedback from the Court over whether my appeal will be heard. I will let everyone know what decision is made.