Litigation
For the avoidance of doubt the following page has been published as a matter of public interest.
If you are currently involved in litigation with the NGRS please let me know. All responses will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
NGRS v Me
The NGRS has often been called litigious and in every case has denied the claim. The following is a dictionary definition of the word 'litigious':
Simple Definition of LITIGIOUS
: too ready or eager to sue someone or something in a court of law
: tending or likely to engage in lawsuit
Full Definition of LITIGIOUS
1a: disputatious, contentious
1b: prone to engage in lawsuits
2: subject to litigation
3: of, relating to, or marked by litigation
On 23rd December 2015 the litigious National Guild of Removers and Storers issued a job lot of Pre-action letters for Defamation. I don't know exactly how many were issued but if their past actions are anything to go by it is likely to be quite a high number. Unfortunately whenever the Guild embark on legal action they usually try to keep such matters quiet by threatening consequences against anybody who dares to go public. Therefore it is dificult to know exactly how many people are involved in this latest wave of litigation.
Sending such letters just 2 days before Christmas was quite obviously a cynical attempt by the NGRS to ruin the respondents' Christmas. According to the letter it was incumbent on the respondent to reply within 14 days. That 14 day period obviously included 3 bank holidays which meant that instead of enjoying Christmas with their families, respondents would likely have had to work on their responses. Although an extension could have been applied for there was no mention of this in the NGRS Pre-action letter which simply stated:
"We look forward to hearing from you promptly and at the very least within the 14 day period specified by the Pre-action protocol".
Receiving an official letter threatening legal action would be distressing to anybody at any time. However, for somebody receiving such a letter for the first time just 2 days before Christmas it must be devastating especially as they are not even informed of their right to claim for an extension to the period within which they must respond.
An already expensive time of year is likely to cost even more as the NGRS 'strongly recommend' that legal advice is sought by the respondent. As the NGRS are well aware, such advice costs upwards of £350 per hour for those without access to their own personal in-house, no-win no-fee, legal department.
The Pre-action letter sent to me contained many inaccuracies and despite its length was unsurprisingly short on substance but extremely high on rhetoric.
According to 1.4 of the Pre-action protocol for defamation Lord Irvine states: "In particular, time is always ‘of the essence’ in defamation claims; the limitation period is (uniquely) only 1 year, and almost invariably, a Claimant will be seeking an immediate correction and/or apology as part of the process of restoring his/her reputation." How strange then that the NGRS would wait several years before commencing any type of action against me and over 1 month before complaining about a letter they erroneously claim is published on my website. According to the Pre-action letter the NGRS have suffered considerable reputational damage and embarrassment! If that's true then they must have been absolutely devastated when NGRS co-founder Mr Geoff Salt , a man with a criminal conviction for false accounting, was caught on camera threatening a remover that he'll "own your f***ing house"..."Because you're a piece of sh*t".
The demonstrable truth is that nobody could harm the reputation of the NGRS any more than its own hierarchy have already done.
I responded on 4th January 2016 (over 1 month ago) to their Pre-action letter and simply asked that they let me know within 2 weeks about their intentions. I received a response stating that the NGRS was under no obligation to respond to me during that time scale. Having still not received a reply after a further 2 weeks I again contacted them and was met with a similar response in their letter of 3rd February.
It should also be noted that in their response of 3rd February it was stated that the NGRS would not reply until they had received a response from all the other parties in this matter. They stated that I was 'fully aware' the NGRS had written to others. What a bizarre and disingenuous statement to make! How could I possibly be 'fully aware' of anything the NGRS does? It wasn't mentioned in their Pre-action letter, nor am I party to their inner thoughts and until now I had not even publicised the matter. This was the first time I had been told that any other parties were involved. I have since written back stating that as the claim is for the alleged publications on my website I fail to see what effect any other party's response could have on their claim against me.
Apart from erroneously complaining about facts not even contained within Mr Clarke's letter (something I will cover in greater detail in the near future), one of the biggest mistakes in the NGRS Pre-action letter is that they claim I have published Mr Clarke's letter on my website. I have not. I simply published a link to the letter. Whatever the legal implications are of publishing that link it is not the same as publishing any actual content on my website. I am absolutely staggered that this extremely important point was overlooked for such an important legal communication. It would appear that the NGRS have become so blasé in their attitude towards litigation that the basic facts have now become incidental.
The NGRS are quick to draw attention to the appeal decision in Jeynes v News Magazines Limited however, they make no mention of the ultimate defence to any claim for defamation which is that the words published are true. Click here for further defences to claims of defamation.
In short, the Pre-action letter appears to be little more than a bizarre one-sided distortion of the truth clearly designed to harass and intimidate me into removing my website and paying the National Guild of Removers and Storers (NGRS) lots of money.
My response to the NGRS included several ideas that could be implemented by them which would almost certainly help them avoid the legal actions they claim are only taken as a last resort. Although I have suggested these ideas before and they have been ignored, in the interest of fair play and justice I will give them another opportunity to respond before I comment further on them here.
If you are currently involved in litigation with the NGRS please let me know. All responses will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
|
