National Guild of Removers and Storers Ltd Lose Court Case

Jackie was shocked at the reaction from the so called guild of removers and storers ltd when she requested that the claim be postponed, they not only refused, but in fact seemed to suddenly wish to pursue it with a sudden urgency, considering the length of time it had taken to act at all. 

But not only did NGRS refuse to postpone the action at a time of suffering for the family, they also refused to agree to have the judgement Set Aside, and employed a barrister to object at the application hearing today. 

Adrian Riley appeared today as a litigant in Person, with his wife Jackie Riley, appearing as a witness. 

NGRS Argued that Homecare had no defence, that the material that they provided, which alleges widespread wrongdoing, and shortcomings, both with their own case, and with many other similar claims against removals companies, was not relevant and also untrue. 

But the Judge ruled that, although it can be seen that Homecare Removals did in fact sign ‘a contract’ there is a dispute as to what they did sign up to, and, whether there were irregularities. 

The Judge also repeatedly mentioned that he was ‘Concerned’ that NGRS, The Guild of removers and Storers Ltd appeared to be trying to charge the removal company over £14,000 for a two year membership, even though when signing up they only agreed to pay £3,800 

Also concerned that some of the agreement details seem to have been witheld, altered, or concealed from the Homecare removals team when they signed up. 

It was also alleged by Homecare Removals, that the principal reason for joining ngrs was to obtain a promised 

500 leads, but these were never supplied in spite of repeated attempts to obtain the leads, so that eventually Homecare told NGRS that they wished to terminate the membership largely because of the guild having breached the contract in not providing the leads, but also because the so called guild of removers and storers ltd failed to provide the annual inspections, and did not provide promotional videos as agreed, and other serious shortcomings, and in the opinion of Homecare Removals the contract was therefor rendered void. 

As is usual with NGRS Their barrister argued that Homecare had no realistic chance of success, and that was the main objection to the court granting a Set Aside to the Default Judgement. 

But the Judge disagreed, and in fact contradicted NGRS, by saying the exact opposite, and that, on the face of it, 

Homecare had a real prospect of succeeding and that their case appeared to have considerable merits, and deserved to be held at a trial in front of a Judge. 

 

So The So Called Guild Of Removers And Storers lost again and Homecare removals succeeded in having the default judgement Set Aside, thus depriving the so called Guild of Tens Of Thousands of pounds and denying them the chance once again to try an inflict summary justice on another furniture remover. 

On Yer Bike 

And of course the true Kernel of the case was, as usual left till the end, but, NGRS did not decide to trust this young barrister to deal with what is so close to their hearts, … the Costs, and instead, asked that costs be deferred, but very predictably did fit in a mention of the infamous ‘Indemnity’ clause that they keep trying to invoke, but, they surely must know better by know as its always laughed out of court, … Such is NGRS Contempt that they keep trying to deny the judge the entire discretion that he is entitled to exercise when it comes to costs… they never learn, what we all know, they will be once more told ‘on yer bike’ 

And when the actual full trial does take place, it should be even more interesting than usual, as, this time it will be an actual Furniture Remover that will be defending, and not the usual Barrister with their delicate questioning. 

And in particular Mr Martin Rose will have an opportunity to put the record straight on his true relationship to the so called Guild, and he will be able to explain Face to Face with the Rileys and their witnesses how he can keep claiming to be an independent consultant and also how equally independent the so called Inspectorate is. 

Also I am sure there will be a chance for Rose to explain to the court why he has been repeatedly interviewed by the Police Serious Fraud Squad in connection with alleged forged signatures on Contracts which were entered into by Rose on behalf of the so called Guild. 

It should be pointed out that Mr Rose, through the so called guild’s solicitors , has always vigorously insisted that he was innocent and that no charges have yet been made. 

The Police however still maintain that the investigation is still open. 

And while, predictably, The Guild, and Rose will of course insist that all of this is not relevant to their claim against Homecare Removals, the Rileys should have no difficulty in persuading the court that in the circumstances of an alleged Doctored/Forged signature of their own contract with NGRS which was handled by Rose, then it may be entirely appropriate. 

As in all such Civil Cases, it is not the facts alone that the judgement will be given, but in fact it is decided on the Balance of Probabilities, and also on the Credibility of the witnesses, and even on their Demeanor as to whether they are considered believable. 

When facing actual Furniture Removers that have to actually hump furniture for a living in the Court Room, as distinct to a Hired Lawyer with remote and limited understanding of the nature of the Claimants real business, the questioning will promise to be a great deal more vigorous than usual. 

Mr Rose may discover that Real Hard Working Furniture Removers are very strongly motivated and will strongly defend themselves against the potential threat of losing their Livelihood, Business, and even their family home. 

So Mr Rose you will have to put on an even more convincing performance than usual this time, and I would expect that there will be a full Public Gallery with other Furniture Removers interested in seeing Justice being done. 

And, then we may also be treated to a rendition of Mr Salt’s Outburst at McCrorys Removals Ltd trial, when he blurted out on camera that he wants to take removers F**ING House etc…. also entirely relevant when establishing the true nature of the ngrs business … not sure whether the court will insist on having ‘bleeps’ inserted, but can imagine it will attract a little publicity, once again!