NGRS end 2016 as they began it....swamped in unnecessary litigation
NGRS V HOMECARE REMOVALS
Most companies do everything in their power to steer clear of expensive litigation and prefer instead to concentrate on running their businesses. Sadly, the notoriously litigious National Guild of Removers and Storers appear to have a perverted addiction for clogging up the court system with actions bearing little or no legal merit. Several legal wins against unrepresented removers in the early years of the Guild seemed to spur the NGRS on into treating litigation as a business in its own right. Unfortunately for the Guild, recent years have been far less lucrative as removers began seeking professional advice. Sites such as this and the McCrory blog have also helped bring the disingenuous workings of the money making Guild to the public forum. A quick google search now shows any ex-NGRS member that they are no longer alone in their fight against the infamous Guild but just one of their many victims.
In their latest ill advised legal jolly the NGRS suffered yet another setback at the hands of yet another judge. In the Law Courts of Newcastle Upon Tyne the NGRS opposed an application by Homecare Removals to have a previous judgement against them set aside. The previous judgement was made against Homecare during a time when the co-owner's mother had recently died and had no time to prepare a proper defence. Ms Riley (Homecare Removals co-owner) had actually asked the NGRS to delay proceedings in order to allow time to prepare a full defence but instead the NGRS bully boys saw this as an opportunity to aggresively pursue the case against them. As no defence was given the judgement was made against Homecare Removals.
On 16th December, in defence to Homecare's application the NGRS' barrister stated that the previous judgement against Homecare should stand as they had no defence and therefore no realistic chance of success should the case be heard again. Not for the first time, a judge disagreed with the NGRS legal team. And, not for the first time, he had some rather damning remarks to make. According to the judge; Homecare's case had a 'real prospect of succeeding' and appeared to have 'considerable merit'. Rather more concerning for the NGRS, the judge also stated that there seemed to be 'irregularities' with the contract and that there was confusion as to what they had actually signed up to as some of the agreement details seem to have been witheld, altered, or concealed from Homecare removals*. The judge was also extremely concerned that the NGRS appeared to be charging £14,000 for the 2 year membership when the agreed cost was only £3,800. Followers of NGRS' antics will know this is a common and completely underhand action that now carries almost no weight legally. Another NGRS tactic is to refer to the insidious clause in the contract that basically states that if a remover brings an action against the NGRS they have to pay the NGRS legal costs even if the remover wins. Another legally unenforcable clause in a ridiculously one-sided contract and another reason why the NGRS should sue the incompetent drafter of their contract rather than its ex-members.
It's going to be extremely interesting to see the outcome of the case when it gets to court. It would appear that part of Homecare Removals' defence is based on the fact that they never received the 500 leads promised to them. This is a common complaint by ex-members many of whom cite the leads as the main/only reason for joining in the first place! Visitors to this website will recall that the so called 'leads' appear to be non-existent and I've yet to meet a member who has actually received the promised leads. In one case the NGRS bizarely stated they did not know where their member operated from as an excuse for not sending the leads...maybe his address on the contract should have been a clue.
*It should be noted that a top NGRS official, has been interviewed by the police in an ongoing investigation into alleged forged signatures that suddenly appear on parts of contracts that many ex-members claim never to have even seen let alone signed! In light of the comments made by the judge on 16th December it will be interesting to see if any information presented in the new case will be of any use to the police in their ongoing investigation.
It should also be noted that NGRS co founder, Geoff Salt, has a conviction for false accounting.
