The Guild May be Judged to Have Used Intimidation

So busy, that last week they had two hearing on the same day in the High Court in London. 

And this Judge certainly did seem to ‘get the picture’ and had sufficient knowledge and experience of other Guild of removers claims that he said that he did not wish to hear the usual preamble of how well established ngrs were and how well known and respected they were etc etc. 

Also his frequent referring to previous ngrs activities in courts, without any need to look at his files or notes, displayed a thorough understanding that there was more than may have met the eye. 

First claim was against Central Moves Ltd. in which Scott Rust the MD Represented himself and ngrs were represented by acting barrister Mr Millar. 

We will be reporting on this hearing soon. 

 

 

And the Second Hearing on the same day in the afternoon was against Luckes Removals From Wilts. Also heard by Judge Hacon.Luckes were represented by Barrister Tom St. Quintin NGRS were represented by Barrister Mr Millar. 

James Lomax Solicitors also attended. 

Sally and Alex Luckes and Sons attended in person. 

They were arguing about 2 separate websites, reallymoving and Luckes own website. Reallymoving was the one where Ngrs reference was on a directory page which Luckes couldn’t amend but barrister for Ngrs said Luckes had gone from sole trader to ltd company so therefore it followed that they could have amended that listing when in reality the reference to them being ltd had been amended on a different page. 

And on their own website it was managed by the website Hosting Company Designer, and Sally Luckes had emailed him to ask for all references to Ngrs to be taken down . It was at this point that the judge was visibly amused, and laughing to himself while saying to NGRS Barrister, ” do you really want me to believe Mrs luckes stated in an email that she wanted all the references removed but she didn’t really”’ !!! 

Millar suggested that Luckes were liable for the NGRS Membership references appearing on the sites. 

But Judge Hacon said ‘not necessarily’ 

And he pointed out that One Must have knowledge of being involved ‘in the tort’ otherwise you cannot be legally liable. 

 

The judge also noted that it would seem very unlikely that Luckes would deliberately, even consider, infringing, considering how they had got their fingers burnt from a previous National Guild of Removers ltd Court Claim against the furniture removers in the recent past. 

Barrister St Quintin also questioned the true level of costs, which the so called guild of removers and storers ltd tried to suggest was £5000 p.a. when in fact Mr Martin Rose stated on National Radio that it was about £1000 p.a. and in a statement under oath that the fees were under £2000. 

And the most important subject, Costs, was covered yet again. But since Luckes had succeeded in establishing that their case should be in the Small Claims Track, that effectively, would normally disqualify ngrs from claiming any costs, ….the only exception to that rule, is if ngrs were able to succeed in proving that Luckes had acted unreasonably. 

So, NGRS, once more suggested that they and their staff were subjected to harassment and threats. 

Mr St Quintin pointed out that all such allegations were denied, they ngrs, were also NOT able to provide any evidence to support their claim of this. and also had chosen to have never reported any such incidences to the authorities. 

The judgement will be known soon.