- Joined
- Jun 21, 2017
- Location
- Neverland
It's a talk to the hand when it's against them and open ears when its in their favor.. Roguish..
Need help/advice with a dispute i am having with Voodoo Dreams
- Thread starter NickG84
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
I agree. No point if they don't accept the PAB outcome unless it goes their way .
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
I agree, without being all Mafioso about it what they have done - i.e ignore the PAB outcome as its not gone their way is massively disrespectful both to the CM community and also Maxd personally.
It basically makes a mockery of their entire presence here.
Rogue pit without a doubt.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
Duplicate
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
FTR I have no quarrel with a casino disagreeing with our ruling on a PAB. They're perfectly free to do so, as I would be free to post about it when they do.
If it's an Accredited casino though that's a different thing: we hold those casinos to a higher standard and would expect a fair resolution to any case we bring before them.
As to the Term the casino claims the OP broke I was told this was it:
As already mentioned I don't believe the OP did break that Term and in fact I believe it supports his case. The casino sees it differently.
If it's an Accredited casino though that's a different thing: we hold those casinos to a higher standard and would expect a fair resolution to any case we bring before them.
As to the Term the casino claims the OP broke I was told this was it:
As already mentioned I don't believe the OP did break that Term and in fact I believe it supports his case. The casino sees it differently.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
Since Eric was involved I thought it was an accredited casino, but it's not. I got them mixed up.
If they ever try to get accredited though I suspect we will remember this, so in the long run they will probably lose a lot more than the money they don't won't to pay.
If they ever try to get accredited though I suspect we will remember this, so in the long run they will probably lose a lot more than the money they don't won't to pay.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
Roguish indeed, I hope the MGA will rule in favour of the player.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
Thanks Maxd and the rest. I have contacted the MGA and they are already on the case. Did not expect them to respond as fast as they did.
Let’s see how this goes.
Let’s see how this goes.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Location
- england
This is down right theft and disgusting. Business should not be able to operate like this. I hope someone takes them down and that be only justice and karma they deserve(aswell as him being paid).
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
For the sake of 5000 euros I would say it wasn't worth tarnishing their reputaion on the two largest gambling consumer sites, particulalry in what isnt an especially tenuous case.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I can't see why they don't pay the 5,000 and then amend their terms to exclude any use of company bank cards if that is what they want and this is nothing to do with being a bad sport and welching on a bet. [no offense intended ]
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
No need to take them down right away. I’m staying positive. The one thing you can blanke them for is totally ignoring AG and the PAB. There legal department did not do their homework apparently. A thourough review on the matter when a PAB representitive is arbitrating would have be the least they could have done.
I can even use idin here in the netherlands to identify myself through my business account as my name, date of birth etc. comes out of it.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
For reference sake. This comes from the dutch goverment. Our tax department, and trust me they don’t fool around!
———
In a sole proprietorship you only drive the company. This is the case if you are self-employed (for example a notary or general practitioner) or if you are the sole owner of your company. ... The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. If you have a sole proprietorship, you are therefore liable for the debts of your company.
——
Meaning the company is no legal entity only i am. The casino’s reasoning that a company is a legal person is plain wrong.
———
In a sole proprietorship you only drive the company. This is the case if you are self-employed (for example a notary or general practitioner) or if you are the sole owner of your company. ... The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. If you have a sole proprietorship, you are therefore liable for the debts of your company.
——
Meaning the company is no legal entity only i am. The casino’s reasoning that a company is a legal person is plain wrong.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I think they are playing with semantics, they say the card belongs to the company and then stop there, omitting the fact the company belongs exclusively to you therefore the card belongs exclusively to you.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
Yes and i could understand that they would believe that but with a sole propatory that is not the case for it is not a legal entity. In layman terms it does not exist. I have the feeling there legal department mixed something up and is to stubborn to admit it. It could well be an employee being stubborn and not admitting that he or she made a mistake.
Another reference comes from my legal advisor. I had to drop it in Google translate.
—
The sole proprietorship has no legal personality: this means that for the owner of the company, no distinction is legally made between corporate assets and private assets (from a tax perspective there is a distinction).
-
Now i’m no lawyer but in court i think they will 100% lose. The card used has been requested by me personally(all that can be verified through documentation and online services) and i placed my company name on it. (I could have named it Bassie en Adriaan if i wanted) That does not mean that the card belongs to the company (or Bassie en Adriaan) for there is no legal company with any liability.
As max pointed out, if they don’t want cards named with something other then the name on your identification(for kyc purposes) they must explicity state that in there terms. But that term would be fried air as it would not hold up legally.
This to me also sounds like lazy KYC. The dots can be connected fairly easily if you put a employee on it. I’ve been working for a fintech for the last 4 months automating there KYC and online identification and signage and in these cases when legally it is super simple you can completly automate it (here in the netherlands) we are actually building and implementing it in the upcoming weeks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
Max said the clause in question was:
2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.
NB.my use of bold as presumably this is the key issue.
Most people understand the term individual(s) as referring to a person, there are no other individuals in this case. Use of a debit card for a joint bank account would be caught by this term, which is most likely what it is designed to be a measure against.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
Presumably. And if you as a depositer could provide a letter of consent from the different owner in those cases legally they would need to accept it i think.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I think its more of a deterrent clause, problem gamblers would definitely use a joint bank card but for the casino the money is jointly owned so they can't accept the bets made, if the gambler won the other person who shared ownership of the account would be overjoyed but if they lost a large amount of dough they would want the casino to void the bets because the deposit money wasn't soley owned.
If you had lost your bets and then tried to get the money back claiming it was the company's and not yours I know what the reply would be.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
True. It is a perfectly valid and needed T&C if enfoced correctly.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
I just received a reply from the MGA.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,
Further to the below case, please be informed that we have received information from the representative of SuprPlay Limited (
2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.
4.7. You acknowledge that you shall only use debit or credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and lawfully belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.
Please note that as for compliance reasons a company irrespective of whether it is wholly owned or not it is still a separate person from the individual who own it or manage it. Kindly note that it is irrelevant as legally the company is a distinct person having separate juridical personality.
We therefore trust that the case is closed.
—
In short they judge in favor of the casino because the casino misinforms them.
I really can’t believe how hard it is to look up laws and check them. Offcourse i replied providing information but it seems only court can make the final decision and that the provider is hoping for me to water off.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,
Further to the below case, please be informed that we have received information from the representative of SuprPlay Limited (
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
) who have informed the MGA that they have refunded all your deposits as per their Terms and Conditions stated below (
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
):2.13. With regards to deposits and withdrawals of funds into and from your Account, you acknowledge that you shall only use such credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and issued by lawful institutions and that legally belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.
4.7. You acknowledge that you shall only use debit or credit cards and other financial instruments that are valid and lawfully belong to you solely. The use of financial instruments whose ownership is shared with other individuals, is not tolerated and will result in voiding of winnings.
Please note that as for compliance reasons a company irrespective of whether it is wholly owned or not it is still a separate person from the individual who own it or manage it. Kindly note that it is irrelevant as legally the company is a distinct person having separate juridical personality.
We therefore trust that the case is closed.
—
In short they judge in favor of the casino because the casino misinforms them.
I really can’t believe how hard it is to look up laws and check them. Offcourse i replied providing information but it seems only court can make the final decision and that the provider is hoping for me to water off.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
A clear case of stubborn individuals who works at a casino who doesn't know what they are doing, and who also send the wrong information to MGA. It's a sad case.
Max have already stated a warning about them so in case it's not possible to make MGA see the truth then I guess we just have to keep warning players that they might not be a safe place.
It's sad since I´ve always seen Eric as an honest person but maybe he isn't one of the people in charge there as I thought he was.
Max have already stated a warning about them so in case it's not possible to make MGA see the truth then I guess we just have to keep warning players that they might not be a safe place.
It's sad since I´ve always seen Eric as an honest person but maybe he isn't one of the people in charge there as I thought he was.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Location
- canada
This decision is ludicrous at best.
A sole proprietorship is not and should not be considered a separate legal entity,
the laws of the country the business is registered in state as much.
There are many distinctions between sole proprietorships and corporations,
most applicable here is that a corporation IS a separate entity under the law.. a sole proprietorship IS NOT.
Personally I have always disagreed with Corporations being considered separate people under the law (though they are) because it allows a corporation all the rights afforded an individual while assuming none of the consequences and provides a legal loophole for malfeasance ..
in this case, the reverse seems true..
the casino seems intent on creating/exploiting a legal loophole, assigning corporation status to a private individual/sole proprietorship for the sole purpose of forcing them to assume the consequences. (while pointing to a clause that entirely relies on the individual being considered a corporation for it to even begin to apply to the situation)
Ludicrous.
The fact that the MGA agreed with the Casino is a sad sad signal to players everywhere.
A sole proprietorship is not and should not be considered a separate legal entity,
the laws of the country the business is registered in state as much.
There are many distinctions between sole proprietorships and corporations,
most applicable here is that a corporation IS a separate entity under the law.. a sole proprietorship IS NOT.
Personally I have always disagreed with Corporations being considered separate people under the law (though they are) because it allows a corporation all the rights afforded an individual while assuming none of the consequences and provides a legal loophole for malfeasance ..
in this case, the reverse seems true..
the casino seems intent on creating/exploiting a legal loophole, assigning corporation status to a private individual/sole proprietorship for the sole purpose of forcing them to assume the consequences. (while pointing to a clause that entirely relies on the individual being considered a corporation for it to even begin to apply to the situation)
Ludicrous.
The fact that the MGA agreed with the Casino is a sad sad signal to players everywhere.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I'm afraid you've received the typical biased ombudsman verdict, they never give any detailed reasoning on purpose to give you less to challenge their ruling. [which also would cost a lot and can only be done via a court]
If it were me I would write back a scathing letter to the individual who wrote to you, just so its on the record, and then move on with life.
I have experienced very bad bias from the Local government ombudsman and legal ombudsman here in the UK, corrupt b'stards... there it still rankles me
.- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
I'm afraid you've received the typical biased ombudsman verdict, they never give any detailed reasoning on purpose to give you less to challenge their ruling. [which also would cost a lot and can only be done via a court]
If it were me I would write back a scathing letter to the individual who wrote to you, just so its on the record, and then move on with life.
I have experienced very bad bias from the Local government ombudsman and legal ombudsman here in the UK, corrupt b'stards... there it still rankles me
Yes i already replied to the MGA representitive. Mayby hè will act on it mayby not.
For voodoodreams this is exactly what they want. They know that 99% of the people wont follow up and take it to court. I’ll wait a few for the MGA representitive to respond before i start the court case.
My patience is running out.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
If you've got the money and believe in the principle enough to take it court then good on you and I hope you win.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Location
- Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Surely the spirit of this term is about stopping fraud etc. To rule like they did, getting into the realms of company law, is pure semantics.
There’s a term in company law called ‘piercing the veil’, which basically means looking at a Co. and seeing who it is/behind it. In this case it’s quite obviously you.
There’s a term in company law called ‘piercing the veil’, which basically means looking at a Co. and seeing who it is/behind it. In this case it’s quite obviously you.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
So, if a player LOST having used their sole proprietorship account to deposit, the same would apply, bets voided and deposits refunded due to a breach of this term. As this is very common in the Netherlands, there may be a fair few players due a refund.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Location
- Springfield
Typical MGA complaint handling. I had a very similar experience with them, I even had to write this to them:
"It is no use to have a complaint handling at MGA if you don't go into details and accept everything what a casino says."
Don't expect any further answer from them after their verdict:
"Malta Gaming Authority will not be in a position to provide you with further support concerning this matter and will not enter into further dispute about this case."
They don't bite the hand that feeds them.
"It is no use to have a complaint handling at MGA if you don't go into details and accept everything what a casino says."
Don't expect any further answer from them after their verdict:
"Malta Gaming Authority will not be in a position to provide you with further support concerning this matter and will not enter into further dispute about this case."
They don't bite the hand that feeds them.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Which is most likely the reason @Erik ignored the decisions of both here and elsewhere and only accepted the one that went his way.
Nothing but theft, disgusting behavior from a casino and I hope people finding this thread through google release they are thieves and don't play there. Lets pop a couple of things here to get it higher in google ranks
Voodoodreams casino review
Voodoodreams casino bonus
Voodoodreams casino not paying
Voodoodreams casino
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
I hope we can add to this list: Voodoodreams brought to court and sentenced to pay winnings
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
I see no other verdict TBH.
The card is in the name of the OP in the bank records, it only has the company name typed on it. That's actually one "downside" of S.P.'s, anything bank related impacts your personal credit score and when things go south you are liable with all your personal wealth.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
so my understanding is he's opened an account in his personal name and when he made a deposit he used 'his' sole trader business card which is only used and owned by himself. His business and personal account are directly linked so he can at any time transfer funds between them but due to the urge to have a quick deposit he used the business card [perhaps at that time he had more of 'his' money to use available on that card] he didn't forsee this to be a problem as he was still using 'his' money no one elses. Where is the harm to the casino in the chain of events that they must void his winnings?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
That's the point, there is no harm. As I've said before the decent solution would have been to pay him, modify the Terms to be more explicit and move on. No harm done.
As it is they're left defending this ridiculous legalese about a company being a "person" -- which may not even be true in the player's jurisdiction -- and thereby the player is in violation of "sole holder" Terms. If that isn't a crap excuse for refusing to pay winnings, not to mention being a monumentally bad idea, then I'm Santa Claus and my fluffy cat is the Queen of Sheba.
As it is they're left defending this ridiculous legalese about a company being a "person" -- which may not even be true in the player's jurisdiction -- and thereby the player is in violation of "sole holder" Terms. If that isn't a crap excuse for refusing to pay winnings, not to mention being a monumentally bad idea, then I'm Santa Claus and my fluffy cat is the Queen of Sheba.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
No harm whatsoever.
VoodooDreams' legal team seems to insist that in their view a "sole proprietorship" is a legal entity, which it is not. The person owning the S.P. is the legal entity in any disputes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
Exactly - for their amateur hour legal team:
Look up a limitied company definition.
Now look up sole proprietorship.
Now pause and reflect the key differances.
Now pay the player.
Or what you could do is ignore basic legal /business terms that have been around for about 100 years, continue treating your players with contempt, still exploit the forums for a bit of free PR when you feel like it and act like nothings happened.
Oh you took the second option. Nice of you.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
The saddest thing in everything is that i just received a talk to the hand from the MGA. Aren’t they suposed to protect us against these practices? Seems like there still as useless and corrupt as they have always been. Thank god for communities like casinomeister.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,
Please be informed that the MGA's Player Support Unit is expressly a mediatory platform and does not offer arbitration. In simple terms, unless an operator breaches the remote gaming regulations (S.L.438.04) which is the law that governs remote/online gaming, the MGA cannot trigger enforcement procedures against the operator but will seek to conduct a negotiation process between the parties where such is warranted. Your statutory rights are unaffected and you are free to seek legal counsel in relation to your case.
—
Dear Mr. Groenewegen,
Please be informed that the MGA's Player Support Unit is expressly a mediatory platform and does not offer arbitration. In simple terms, unless an operator breaches the remote gaming regulations (S.L.438.04) which is the law that governs remote/online gaming, the MGA cannot trigger enforcement procedures against the operator but will seek to conduct a negotiation process between the parties where such is warranted. Your statutory rights are unaffected and you are free to seek legal counsel in relation to your case.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
I have just wrote another email to the MGA with some simple facts. I'm hoping they will fact check as a neutral party. If not then it is clear that the MGA is in the casino's pockets. From a business perspective this is a monumental failure on behalf of SuprPlay Limited. They are wrong in every aspect in this dispute.
I will take this to court if the MGA fails but i will take my time to prepare as much as possible and make sure all EU legal entities(European Consumer Centre etc.) will have this on record. Forcing a person to go to court in such a trivial matter is highly unprofessional and incompetent.
---
Dear ****,
I would like to point you out to:
The provider is therefore incorrectly assigning corporation status to my sole proprietorship in order to void winnings. There T&C is perfectly reasonable and needed but in this specific case it is incorrectly enforced. Therefore i am in believe that they did/do not comply to the remote gaming regulations when it comes down to providing appropriate services. The provider has failed there KYC and legal duty. And i would like to point out to
I'm reaching out to the MGA in the hope that the MGA will act as neutral party and fact check said case.
Best regards,
Nick Groenewegen.
---
I will take this to court if the MGA fails but i will take my time to prepare as much as possible and make sure all EU legal entities(European Consumer Centre etc.) will have this on record. Forcing a person to go to court in such a trivial matter is highly unprofessional and incompetent.
---
Dear ****,
I would like to point you out to:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
'section liability'.The provider is therefore incorrectly assigning corporation status to my sole proprietorship in order to void winnings. There T&C is perfectly reasonable and needed but in this specific case it is incorrectly enforced. Therefore i am in believe that they did/do not comply to the remote gaming regulations when it comes down to providing appropriate services. The provider has failed there KYC and legal duty. And i would like to point out to
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
I'm reaching out to the MGA in the hope that the MGA will act as neutral party and fact check said case.
Best regards,
Nick Groenewegen.
---
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
This MGA response is worse than the uk ombudsmen I've experienced, who will normally layout the two different positions [yours and the casino's] and then give their brief reasoning for which one their plumping for. I hope you can take it through the netherlands court system as malta is part of the EU, maybe you could write to your mep as it is a issue with an official regulator in another member state, who does not accept the netherlands definition of a sole proprietorship, but accepts the casino's definition, in a consumer dispute.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
What do you mean with MEP?
I might be inclined to hire a Maltese law firm to handle the case as it will probably be handled by the matese First Hall of the Civil Court.
Thank god i’m insured for these matters.
I might be inclined to hire a Maltese law firm to handle the case as it will probably be handled by the matese First Hall of the Civil Court.
Thank god i’m insured for these matters.
ed skull murphy
Trollish behavior - quit the forum
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Location
- Albion
Malta is also a common law land, so you could maybe explore that avenue.
It could be as easy as exchanging a few simple but well-crafted letters with the man or woman (you would need a name) who also acts as managing director, and then presenting those exchanges as exhibits in a common law claim, along with transaction details from your account, and evidence of your sole trader status.
It would be a lot cheaper than hiring a local lawyer, who would more than likely just throw you under the bus anyway.
Common law is just common sense, using basic, simple language while making sure to avoid using any legalese terms, two or three sentences maximum, using no embellishments or otherwise extraneous words.
All the complicated stuff you can present as exhibits, but keep the letters and the claim itself simple.
PS: Letters need to be hand written, signed and sent by registered post, keep copies of the ones you have sent.
It could be as easy as exchanging a few simple but well-crafted letters with the man or woman (you would need a name) who also acts as managing director, and then presenting those exchanges as exhibits in a common law claim, along with transaction details from your account, and evidence of your sole trader status.
It would be a lot cheaper than hiring a local lawyer, who would more than likely just throw you under the bus anyway.
Common law is just common sense, using basic, simple language while making sure to avoid using any legalese terms, two or three sentences maximum, using no embellishments or otherwise extraneous words.
All the complicated stuff you can present as exhibits, but keep the letters and the claim itself simple.
PS: Letters need to be hand written, signed and sent by registered post, keep copies of the ones you have sent.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
What do you mean with MEP?
I might be inclined to hire a Maltese law firm to handle the case as it will probably be handled by the matese First Hall of the Civil Court.
Thank god i’m insured for these matters.
A MEP is a member of the european parliament : Outdated URL (Invalid)
Glad you've got insurance.
I suppose you could have a bit of a holiday in malta and do the court hearing at the same time.
I think possibly if consumers have to use the maltese court system to challenge a casino decision, then that's precisely why some of these casinos behave the way they do knowing the extra hassle and cost will deter most people. If the Casino are able to offer remote gambling to dutch consumers, where is the eu consumer protection if you can only take your legal dispute to court in malta when you [the consumer] are in the Netherlands.
On this logic heaven forbid anyone challenging a decision by a curacao licensed casino, you would have to fly thousands of miles to south america. Just had a thought ... maybe you don't actually need to be physically present in malta to have your case heard there?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Location
- canada
um... what??
So your first statement is yes, you're right, you and the company are one in the same.
Then the second statement says.. but your credit card is in a different name?
If both names are the same person.... how are the TOS violated??
This statement alone should be all the evidence you need to support a court case....
Wow..
So your first statement is yes, you're right, you and the company are one in the same.
Then the second statement says.. but your credit card is in a different name?
If both names are the same person.... how are the TOS violated??
This statement alone should be all the evidence you need to support a court case....
Wow..
Attachments
ed skull murphy
Trollish behavior - quit the forum
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Location
- Albion
Upon further investigation, I find that the law system in Malta is a unique mixture of Roman civil law, common law, and with aspects of English law also absorbed:
Perhaps it would be just as well to find an honest lawyer to help you out, as long as your insurance will cover it.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Perhaps it would be just as well to find an honest lawyer to help you out, as long as your insurance will cover it.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
That's a challenge right there, my experience is be very careful but as its the insurance firm paying the bill maybe its less likely the lawyer will inflate their fees or give duff advice.
Edit: no offence to ternur intended, my view is only of the british legal system and practioners, overcharging here is commonplace practice so much that we have specialist cost lawyers and courts to go over solicitor's bills.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
Since it will be a civil court case and the case is simplistic i might be able to represent myself. I'm slowly gathering information from practitioners and my insurance on what the next steps will be.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
And there T&C actually helps my statement. They have turned this into a complete wtf. I don't understand why @Erik is allowing them to damage there reputation as much as there doing.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Location
- Netherlands
Thank you for all the information!
Similar threads
