May 12, 2015
Are Dutton Gregory Winchester Guilty of Deceitful Practices and Perjury?
Meet Colin Passam, a partner at Dutton Gregory Winchester. His company and employees Stephen Alexandre have handled the case at the center of this campaign on behalf of Evans.
This campaign is about exposing the devastating consequences suffered when an innocent homeowner gets tripped up by legal contracts enforced by the legal profession.
The campaign is simple – The clause in standard estate agent’s contracts Penyards have used to leverage such misery clearly breaches the Unfair Contract Terms Act in our opinion and therefore needs to be struck out once and for all. Yes, the clause is covered by TPO (Property Ombudsman) National Ass. of Estate Agents guidelines but this agent simply ignored them. The TPO, NAEA and trading standards clearly have no teeth therefore the public need to be protected.
The issue with litigation lawyers is that they sit in their ivory towers sending out writs and enforcements in a business-like fashion, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there are real people left in the wake. They generate their fees and move on, often without a second thought as to the mess they leave lives in.
The victim recently wrote to Passam outlining concerns regarding the way they conducted themselves to date. A formal complaint was made but it has been ignored. When we informed Mr Passam that we were going to document our concerns on this website he quickly threatened to sue for defamation!
As far as we are aware, there is no law preventing the reporting of factual events.
The main allegations were that Dutton Gregory (representative) made false statements in court and conspired to ensure important documents were not received.
According to the court record, Dutton Gregory claimed that they ‘were unaware that the emails they sent were bouncing’; indeed this formed a major part of the judge’s final decision to not set aside a default judgement they had secured. (The judgement was made by default because the court failed to even present the defence)
The judge stated that the victim had communicated with the court with that address, which is true but he also communicated via post and other email addresses. The reason the address would work with the court is that it was whitelisted. Email is incredibly unreliable.
The victim has copies of the bounced email notifications recovered from the mail server (the judge did not see apparently) and even forwarded one personally to Stephen Alexandre to ensure he was aware of deliverability issues. As there was not an undeliverable mail notification received then it has to be assumed that Dutton Gregory emails were working. Yet it appears Alexandre continued to send mail to that undeliverable email address with no response (except undeliverable mail notifications) for nearly two years.
In court Dutton Gregory claimed to have not received the undeliverable email notifications which could possibly be the case. ‘Surely mail of this importance should have been sent by post?’ Asked the victim. ‘And if they received no response, why didn’t they copy in any of the other contacts they had?’
A private detective was hired by Evans or Dutton Gregory to find the victim’s new address yet when furnished with the new address Dutton Gregory continued to send correspondence to an address that they now knew the recipients did not live at. Was this a deliberate tactic to ensure the victim stood little chance of getting the default judgement set aside because of the delay created?
It certainly formed a major part of the judge’s decision not to set aside the default judgement!
So for the record here is the formal complaint made to Colin Passam of Dutton Gregory
‘Dear Mr Gregory
I am writing to make a formal complaint against Stephen Alexandre and your company.
My complaint is that:
• He conspired to ensure we did not receive important legal documents by sending them by email only to an address he had been informed of as being undeliverable on multiple occasions
• He conspired to ensure we did not receive important legal documents by sending them to an address that you were fully aware of that the recipients did not live at and had not done so for over a year.
• Your representative lied in court under oath possibly based on instructions by your company (I believe you would have stated that you didn’t receive any undeliverable notifications). You had been sent multiple ‘bounce-back’ emails including one sent separately from a separate address showing the address to which you were sending documents was undeliverable.
This situation has caused considerable impact on me, and my family. By conspiring to send documents to effectively a ‘black hole’ and lying to the court I believe you have manipulated the system to your advantage and facilitated the bankruptcy proceedings we now face.
In my view, you should start a full internal review of the companies actions. Instruct your client EVANS not pursue the default. Open a full, open and honest mediation as to the legality (unfair contracts act) of the clause used to leverage this action.
I understand that you are required to respond formally to my complaint. I shall follow up this letter if I do not hear back from you by 30th April. In the meantime, if you need any further information from me, please reply to this email (it works!)’
We have given Colin Passam of Dutton Gregory Winchester the opportunity to reply to these allegations and have received no response.
So are Dutton Gregory guilty of deceitful practices and perjury? The facts seem to indicate that there is cause for concern.