bIMINGHAM mAGESTRATES cOURT

The Eze Group European Management team face criminal allegations and other offences, however, that in itself does not mean a successful prosecution is a foregone conclusion. The fact is the UK authorities are charging Eze Europe Ltd’s and 2 of its Directors with Criminal Offences,  Furthermore, as the case is being delivered through the Criminal Courts the Defendants face Criminal Punishments if they are proved to be Guilty.

That said, the correct Court to deliver “Compensations Claims” is the Civil Courts who can award the damages many consumers seek. Should the UK authorities prove Eze Group are guilty, then the  Complaining consumers and Eze Group members will have a very solid civil case which is discussed below?

See BBC You and Yours Here

That said, should Eze Group be acquitted and deemed innocent the consumer claims are not “devoid of merit” as the barriers in criminal matters are “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in Civil Proceedings the barrier is “on the balance of probability”.

Eze Group Directors have been charged with engaging in “Unfair Commercial Practices”, “Misleading actions”, “Unfair Trading” and potentially “Fraud” (by false representation).

Should you believe you were mis-sold and want to make a compensation claim, you can make that claim via TESS or Athena Law.

If you do want to pursue a claim, the correct course of action is that you seek advice and from a “Regulated or Licenced Lawyer” not a band of Ex Timeshare salesman, parading as Lawyers.

Advice

fallback

When one party pursues another, the case can quite simple as the issues are confined to 2 parties, however, when there are multiple Defendants or a matrix or connected Companies all appearing to perform a function together in the pursuit of one perceived goal, then matters can become more complex. Therefore, Complainants must ensure they are getting correct advice and from a Law firm who is capable of understanding the Defendants dynamics and the linkage between Companies. When doing so, the Lawyers should be able to give just consideration to any Jurisdictional issues. Not to do so, could cause fundamental issues if and when the case has been delivered to the Court.

Should the case not be fully considered and you end up pursuing the wrong party or the allegations are not couched correctly and/or delivered in the wrong Jurisdiction your case may flounder, leaving you to pick up the adverse legal costs.

In respect to Eze Europe Ltd  [herein referred to Eze Group], many Companies and connected trading entities exist and some are based in different Jurisdictions. Your Lawyer ought to consider the matter fully, apply the brakes to ensure the case (being delivered) has merit, is against the correct Defendant, in the correct Court.

When considering making claims, your Lawyer must also determine which was the “Principal Agreement” [as on some occasions that principle agreement was that of“obtaining of finance” via a credit card or linked loan]. When you buy any product and cannot pay for it out of your available funds, you might elect to use or be assisted by a “Credit Card”, and in those circumstances the principal contract would be “the provision of finance” as without it the buyer could not have bought what the seller was vending.

Thus, having regard for how you paid for the product is important and when deciding who to pursue. In some cases, your prospects might be better if you elect to pursue a more solvent Defendant and via the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Consumers have a need” for an expert team, who retains the instructions of others as the unpalatable fact is “you are a single litigant” and must demonstrate to the Court that the issues you are advancing are proved. If you are in a group of other individuals who are raising similar issues, their evidence can be used by you and to substantiate your claim.

These claims are called Similar Fact Evidence single claimants don’t always have the entire picture, may only have a few of the necessary documents they need to prove their case. With others having other or a similar set of documents, as a group, you will have more evidence thus enhancing the opportunity of having a better case.

By way of example, in a recent case which took place in Scotland, Mr Jim  Web [a terminally ill father] acquired Eze Group Leisure Credit and believed those credits were mis-sold. After he complained to Eze Group, his complaint was not satisfied so, he courted the Press who assisted him in making his complaint public.

Believing like others, that he had a “like for like” claim against the Bank Jim made a complaint. When doing so he asserted that he bought the Eze Group product in Tenerife and relied upon their promises that he would get holiday upgrades. He alleged those promises failed to materialise to such an extent that the product was defective.

Having failed to get an acceptable response, Jim contacted a “Financial Consultant” who advised him in 2014 to use his statutory rights [consumer laws] to try to claim the money back from Credit Card provider, The Royal Bank of Scotland [RBS].

The Financial Ombudsman Service ruled against Jim, therefore, believing the verdict was Cartesian he bravely pursued a Civil Claim against the RBS earlier this year. Last month the Court ruled in the Bank’s favour.

With Similar Fact Evidence on his side, the outcome might have been different.

That said, the twist in the story is, the newspaper was dismayed and publicity advertised Jim’s position, which balanced out the RBS’s Goliath power. This created a bad press for Eze Group who offered Jim all his money back and after that newspaper ran his story.

Similar Fact Evidence claims prove to be more successful and can stop consumers being picked off one by one.

The problem in most Civil cases is the Claimant is required to prove their case on a “balance of probability”, therefore, if a “lone litigant” pursues a case, it could be viewed as “your word and against their” whereas in an “SFE” case, “it’s your word and many others, against theirs. “Force in numbers,“.

In complex cases, you need “good case management”, “good collaborative research” and an “experienced legal team” which can only be offered by a licensed and regulated Lawyers.

In “SFE” cases, there should be a “chain of custody” to ensure the entire group is protected. Despite their being the main group of litigants in some cases that group might need some sought of fragmentation as the idiosyncratic nature of the claims can be different in some circumstances.

TESS and Athena have entered into an arrangement once again and to deliver an “SFE” case for complaining Eze Group consumers in the UK. Having worked together in the past, both TESS and Athena roles complement each other and are a force to be wreak-end-with if a Holiday Company has multilaterally contravened Laws and Regulations.

When you pursue a well-funded Defendant like Eze Group you may be under sufferance of being a “David” in a David -v- Goliath battle as your opponent will be well funded.

TESS has indisputable evidence of the makeup of these Companies and still retains the information’s given to them by others associated with Eze Group. Thus, we believe the correct linkage can be made and delivered correctly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039dbjt

Eze Group Chairman and Managing Director and the company itself have faced 39 charges resulting from trading activity between 11/01/15 and 22/05/17.

The heavily pregnant Ms Stephanie Liane O’Reilly [pregnant] date of Birth 17th of March 1988, Mr Dominic O’Reilly [her father] date of Birth 14th of February 1964 are to stand trial for 39 breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The defendant pleaded not guilty to charges 1 to 25 misleading actions, false information and 26-27 trading using aggressive practices, cohesion and unfairly convincing customers into ongoing financial liabilities.

Based on the complexity of all the matters put to them the cases have been referred to Crown Court and a pre-hearing has been scheduled for the 15th of December 2017

Eze Group Directors

Both put on conditional bail.

To avoid doubt Ms O’ Reilly pleaded GUILTY to charges 26 and 27.

 Since 2010 Eze Group have been selling what they describe as Lifestyle product called lifestyle Leisure Concierge which is described as Leisure Credits.  Eze Group is reported to have an annual turnover of approximately £10 million per year and throughout the 7 years, they have traded. During that History, it is alleged that they have amassed many customer complaints.

During the 7 years of trading Eze Group have also courted and partnered many high-profile names including Birmingham City Football Club, Celtic Football Club, England goalkeeping sensation Jack Butland and from the world of Darts; James Wade, Simon Whitlock (the Wizard of Oz) Australia’s number one player and Robert Thornton the Scottish professional.

If you want to make a claim or believe you are a victim of Eze Group mis-selling and wish to make a claim, you can by contacting TESS on the numbers below.

No Win No Fee” applications                       Please contact Mrs Glynn on 01253 208482

Eze Credit Claims           Please contact Miss Ali on 01253 208488 or Miss Jenkinson 01253 208 483

Institute of Paralegal Practising Certificate Number IoP 794115


Posted on: 17th November 2017