Thursday, 1 April 2010

Gill ** WIN **

You can read all of Gill's story, up to her court hearing, here

By Gill Draper

Strictly without Prejudice
Myself and my partner Mr Crane, flew in from Spain the previous day. On the afternoon of the 16th of September 2009 we arrived in good time at Huntingdon County court,after being security checked we went into the building. Mr Steve Patterson was already there, (he was the representative from RTA that came to take the details of the pub we owned)

The tried to make eye contact but I was having none of it.

Waiting for our barrister who we had not met before, because he had been sent as a replacement to our solicitor who was ill. We kept looking for him to arrive.

Before this happened a large man with glasses came in, now I had never met Ceri Edwards but I said to Mr Crane "I bet thats Ceri Edwards he looks like one of O Reillys men" and I was right as he immediately went over to Steve Patterson and shook his hand. After a few minutes he walked over to us and said "Mr Draper"? I replied "No Mrs Draper", he said " I,m Ceri Edwards" I said "Yes I know who you are" He then scuttled back to his seat as I was a little bit sharp with him.

Our barrister arrived and we went to a private room where he told us that we were going to use the 1999 Consumer Protection Act as our defence. We were then called into court,sitting behind the bench was Judge Dak, He opened the hearing Mr Edwards stood up to say his piece.

First of all he told he judge he was a Director of RTA, I knew this was untrue as I had already downloaded from the Companies House website the list of directors of RTA and he wasn,t listed.

I attracted the attention of my barrister Mr Tim Williams and handed him the list. He said if he got a chance to get him in the dock he would quiz him over it. Anyway after Mr Edwards had told the judge that I was not a consumer and not a natural person, he sat down.

My barrister stood up and pointed out that I was a consumer because I wasn't in the business of buying and selling pubs like RTA are. Also that I was buying a service from rta who, when they sold my pub, would get their commission.

The judge listened to both sides of the argument and gave his own 8 points as to why I was a consumer and also a natural person. Giving the example that if he took his car to a car dealer to sell and that dealer sold it that didn't make him a dealer as the car dealer would be paid a commission for selling the car, making him a consumer for buying a service.

Similar to me buying RTA service to sell my pub. He then asked me if I intended to buy another pub if I sold this one. My barrister answered that no I wasn't buying another pub.

The Judge then awarded me the case. Mr Edwards then stood up and asked for the right to appeal, the Judge said he could appeal but must do it within 28 days. We then thanked the Judge and left the room.

At the top of the stairs Mr Edwards turned to us and said "We will always accept an offer" and I said "We just won". Him and Mr Patterson then left.

We went into a private room with our barrister where he said that they may appeal. I told him we shall come to the appeal.

On the 28th of October I again flew in from Spain and went to Peterborough County Court. Mr Crane couldn't come.

I waited for my barrister to arrive and we went into court in front of Judge De Mille. After going through the previous evidence, the Judge agreed with all of Judge Daks comments from the case before and still awarded me the case. He also awarded expenses of £80 for my flight from Spain.

I must say that I was over the moon with the verdict, but even if it had gone the other way there is no way that I would have paid RTA a shilling.

I left the court, said thank you to my barrister, and swore that I would make it hard work for RTA to con anyone else.

After three years of heartache with this company it is now my turn to give them some heartache. They have already changed their contract - it's got two sides to it now that you wouldn't notice if it was still attached to the pad. You sign the front and unless it was pointed out to you, you wouldn't notice the reverse where they have put that you can't speak or complain about them to anybody. What's that? You're not allowed freedom of speech now?? They had best read the law books!

My Thanks to Andrew Penman, for setting up the complaints blog on the Daily Mirror website. If only I had seen this before, I wouldn't have signed with them. This has given me the opportunity to help set up this website to warn others of this company.

If you need my help further or would like any more information then do not fail to contact me on


Anonymous said...

Hi all

This case is very interesting and it appears to me that the distinction as a 'consumer' is hugely important.

Have there been similar subsequent cases?

Thank you
Edward Quigley

Justcallmehorse said...

I signed a contract with rta yesterday 4th may 2012 and gave them a cheque for 1740.00 any advice would be greatly appreciated

Anonymous said...

OMG, Mistake!!..they have made you be a victim. Should not have paid them as they do not do much ..and also will ask to pay when you want to terminate the contract ...even 3 years later they would want their withdraw fee...