Archive for the ‘Legal’ Category

>>  County Court Judgement (CCJ)  –  Bad Debtor  – do not trust this company as they lost in County Court  Ref:  B9QZ5A91

Click4cab is a bad, dodgy debtor and now has a CCJ against their name for non payment of the debt to Eventdomain.

The director’s name is Ali Quereshi       This is what we believe he looks like:

Ali Qureshi  Director  Click4Cab Ltd

>  County Court details of claim:

Do not trust this company or supply them with services.  Like all gutless debtors, the director has ‘done a runner’ to Lahore, Pakistan, but we believe his company still operates within the UK.

On 15th August and 19th August 2014, 2 listings were submitted to Eventdomain from Click4Cab Ltd, these are their clients Godalming Taxi and Guilldford Taxi. (Doc 1 & 2). An online contract was agreed to on the 15th & 19th August 2014 (Docs 19,26,27,28,29,30)

On 3rd September, invoices 1308/1309 sent – no reply (Doc 3 & 4)

On 8th September, invoices 1310/1311 sent – no reply (Doc 5 & 1)

On 11th September, invoices 1312/1313 sent – no reply (Doc 6 & 7)

Barking Trading Standards say its Click4Cab who is the legal advertiser. (Doc 18)

We can prove that Click4Marketing promotes Click4Cab on its Facebook page , and Click4Marketing were hired by Click4Cab. (Doc 17).

On 24th October, invoices for both Godalming/Guildford Taxi listings requesting payment were sent – no reply (Doc 20 & 21)

On 27th October, invoices and letters sent requesting full payment of £660 to Mr Ali – no reply. (Doc 22 & 23)

On 21st & 24th Feb 2015, invoices and letters sent requesting full payment which now stands at £740, no reply from Mr Ali.

On 12th Sept 2015 a 3rd listing was submitted from Click4Cab Ltd, this is their client Frimley Taxis. On 25th April 2015, invoice sent for a third listing of their client – Frimley Taxis..

>>   A County Court Judgement was awarded against Click4Cab Ltd on 20th May 2015 for £890.00  + £60 court costs and further interest.  sure see its share of bad customers over the years, you know the type, the ones who take advertising/links, then claim they dont owe etc –  like the following bunchof  idiots Flavourz Event and Party Services, which we assume is a small, sole trader, but we’ll fill you in on this operation.

On the 7th Dec 2014,  they took a listing on Eventdomain, and they were supposed to pay us via bank transfer, but when we checked with our bank, obviously they didn’t, so we
fired off an invoice and waited – now usually companies contact us to arrange payment, but this one didn’t,  so we contacted them and the little girl (who answered)  went nuts, psycho infact demanding we remove her and how dare we charge her for a service she admits she signed upto – oh how awful!   well, not really as we are used to it, but got no chance of telling our side of things, infact when we mentioned that Trading Standards were on our side, and that we
have contract, and won our case against others in Court, she went nuts – nice huh, some people.

She then tried to make out she didnt know it was a paid service, hmmm, funny how our fees are clearly displayed throughout registration, in our terms and our advertise page – oh and don’t forget the huge purple graphic and flash viewer
as well – perhaps she’s blind or stupid, but likely both I suspect.   Terms & Conditions

Anyway, here’s the call transcript between Eventdomain and Flavourz so you can judge for yourselves:    Following our phone conversation today  19th December 2014 at 2:14pm:


The Call Conversation:

Eventdomain:   Hello,  we are calling today as we are one of your creditors, and you didnt pay us when you should have done.

Flavourz:  Right, and you are?

Eventdomain:     You took some advertising on one of our websites,

Flavourz;  Oh right, yes, er, we thought it was free, cos when we signed up right, it never said it was paid.

Eventdomain:   Well, it says so on all our registration pages, so its imposible to miss that, and we can prove it.

Flavourz:          But we didnt want to pay, so why cant you just remove us:

Eventdomain:  Sorry, it doesnt work that way, we provided a service to you and you must pay us, as we have contract.

Flavourz:   We arent going to pay you.

Eventdomain:   But we have a contract, you automatically signed up to when you registered to us.

Flavourz:  Yes, I did sign up, when I signed up I thought it was free.  I dont care, I dont care, I’m not paying you.

Eventdomain:   But we have an online contract, with Trading Standards backing me up.

Flavourz:    Whats an online contract?  yes, but when I signed up, why didnt you take payment online?   others take online payment.

Eventdomain:   you got an invoice and letter, sent on the 15th Dec to and the full details of how to pay were on the site when you signed up.

Flavourz:   No they werent, No they werent…

Eventdomain:   yes they are, in about 6 different places, and also links from the homepage eg:


We then sent an email to Flavourz Event and Party Services:

Let me explain, as amicable as I wanted the comms to go, you chose to have a slagging match in the hope it will make this go away – I assure you, this will NOT be going away.   Let me show you proof of what happens and what we did to others when we took legal action: (please see attachment).   We will prove our paid services, that you knew about them and yet still signed up and took our service.  In doing so, we have an online contract and this is Trading Standards view on Eventdomain vs Debtors:

The main problem with t&c’s is whether they are part of a contract.  If they are referenced in a signature box or you cannot proceed to contractually agree without clicking that you have read and agree to abide by the t&c’s, then they are part of the contract.  Of course, whether Click4 Cabs is worth suing is another matter but it looks as if you have a legal right to claim from them.


This is good evidence from a Government agency, backing Eventdomain up saying we have a contract and right to claim.    So we can do this amicably, you can do the right thing and pay, or we take further action, which you won’t enjoy, no matter how much you claim you don’t care.    It costs just £25 to begin action against you, so you might want to consider your options plus we have other options we are fully prepared to use, if you fail to pay us.

Also you may want to view our full Terms, just so you wont be able to act or claim innocence in this:

You are advised to pay via bank transfer today:

Failure to pay will result in action

Kind regards

>>  County Court Judgement (CCJ) – Bad Debtor
>>  Debt Now Overdue by 3 years!!!

  • Here are the ownership details of Grid Girls Promotions

London Office:

Grid Girls Promotions,

81 Oxford St,



South East Office (Registered Office and Accounts):

Grid Girls Promotions,

36 Lancing Close,


West Sussex,

Bn15 9NJ


>>  Grid Girls Promotions,, Vitesse Models

>  County Court details of debt claim:

14 March 2013 renewal of service on Eventdomain. On 29 July an invoice (Doc 1) sent to Mr Francis
Duggan for debt of £50.

29th July – reply from Grid Girls accounts “What is this?” Eventdomain replied with proof of service delivery and Terms of service. (Doc 2 & 3)

12 August – 2nd invoice sent – no reply from Mr Duggan. (Doc 4)

2 Sept – 3rd invoice sent – no reply from Mr Duggan. (Doc 5)

5 Sept – 4th invoice sent – no reply again (Doc 6)

11 Sept – 5th invoice sent – no response. (Doc 7)

17 Sept – 6th invoice sent – still no reply from Mr Duggan or Grid Girls accounts dept. (Doc 8)

22 Sept – 7th invoice sent – still being ignored by Mr Duggan. (Doc 9)

26 Sept – 8th invoice sent – no reply by Mr Duggan (Doc 10)

Debt is from 14 Mar 2013 – 14 March 2015.

Total debt is £100 plus £25 Court costs.

>>  A County Court Judgement was awarded against

Grid Girls Promotions,, Vitesse Models on 27th August 2014

Alec Simmons Criminal Record Reference

Our video evidence 


In 2007,  Mr Alec Simmons of – aka – Anywhere Ltd,   added 3 listings on the eventdomain website – we gave these to him for free for a 12 month period only.   His argument is that because he saw a graphic on ED that said “Add your company for FREE”  – that this meant free for life – well we never said that, never promised that on the website or in any comms, and thus dispute offering a Free for life service.   We didn’t charge him for the temporary free offer, but are charging him for the time after that 1 year period – something he doesn’t want to pay up on.

What’s odd is that he logged in to add another listing on the same day eg:  11 July 07 , naturally, he was sent evidence of this that shows we 100% honoured it, so he was well aware of the end of the free temporary offer – so why didn’t he cancel back then?  I think we know the real intent behind that one!

Just to confirm: our printed evidence was forwarded to  Trading Standards where they confirmed no illegal practises at all and later (against another debtor) we won our case in the County Court, obtaining several Court Orders under our full contractual Terms and Conditions.


“I have managed to speak to Mr Lamptey but he has asked me to respond to you on this matter – we cannot add to what Derbyshire has already told you.

With respect, I believe you are well aware of what you are offering to businesses”

Sue Wiseman

Trading Standards Enforcement Officer
Environment Department
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Roycraft House
15 Linton Road, Barking IG11 8HE


Mr Simmons was forwarded the dates of expiry for his temporary free option, this with his admittance of sign-up (in his own blog!), the emails from us he kindly put in his blog – further admitting knowledge of his account with us, and proof of service delivery by us.

From his point of view, had he not wanted to pay us, should have contacted us requesting removal if he didn’t want to pay – he didn’t take that option as he wanted to remain on the site,  infact we had zero comms from him, he showed no dissatisfaction (up until the point where we chased him for the debt), – yet kept using us year on year, he didn’t cancel at the appropriate time and that’s not our fault.

He had undeniable knowledge of his 3 listings and admits he registered, to us (in his blog) – agreeing to several online forms and clear Terms & Conditions, which state Eventdomain is a subscription service at £60 p.a, and that we can remove special offers at any time, which applies once a special offer ends, then,it automatically becomes a paid service – something he doesn’t wish to pay us for.

We noticed his account remained unpaid in mid – 2008ish, so before we took heavier action, we tested his responsiveness with a sales email (sent in 2011) for one of our other services. Naturally, came no reply, and our system logged the emails as ‘sent’ so we still waited for a reply, but none came.   Since we’d already honoured 3 listings at 12 months each for free and he’d not cancelled our services,  we now wanted payment for extra years supplied, as we are a yearly paid service, so due to zero cancellation from him, we engaged an agency to recover 3 years fees, it was either that or haul him into Court, although we went with the softer option to get his account settled.

We engaged a debt agency to act on our behalf to gently request payment since he blocked our own comms by changing/cancelling his email address which we had on file, and have evidence in sheer abundance of the bounce backs due to his email address failing. The debt agency controlled all comms on our behalf, they said, in total he recieved 21 requests for payment, and we feel enough contacting was done from a legal standpoint.

We believe his intent was to keep using our service without paying us, when he should have done the right thing and officially requested removal in 08, but he failed to do so – something any business owner should know, unless he doesn’t know how to send an email, except he does as he obviously likes swearing at us via email….

We want to clear one thing up – he accused us of being ‘conmen’ and scammers  – well, Trading Standards dont agree and proof is here:

From: Smith,Paul (Cultural & Community Services)

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:51 AM

To: Eventdomain

Subject: RE: Eventdomain


I can confirm that in many cases contracts do not have to be in writing and my query to you does not stem from an investigation into criminal activity.


(This is also backed up  by Barking TS Enforcement Officer –  Sue Wiseman)


Eventdomain IS clean as a whistle and not breaking any laws. But anyway we wish to let people know what this Alec guy is like – and he’s a nasty piece of work, here’s an example of what he did:

Because he views the use of a debt agent as harrassment (No way did they or Eventdomain harrass him at any stage). he decides to take revenge on us, but his lack of common sense when he saw red, just got him in trouble.   We received the following phone calls forwarded from our business line:


2nd Feb 2012

Call 1 at 10:22 am – Silent call – this call was ignored by myself as was deemed Mr Simmons went a tad crazy and we felt the call was an intimidation ploy to scare me, and later proved to be clear intimidation.

Call 2 at 22:00 pm – again ignored as he could of phoned during the day, but this was obviously tactics by him so we ignored this too.

Call 3 at 22:31 pm – we ignored this one too.

Call 4 at 22:58 to my mobile (Mr Simmonds Number saved: 07866 556122) – this guy is really nuts doing this – what does he think we will do next?   It didn’t occur to him that he was actually breaking the law., even though he tried to make out to the Police he was only trying to speak about the debt amicably – yeah, right Alec, ofcourse you were mate – thats why you threatened me in your blog.

Feb 3rd at 4:17 am – the first threat:

“Ive been in business for years Chris!, I’ve got hundreds of drivers……. and if I get one more letter from CDS, then you’ll find out what harrassment means”


Ahhh, so he’ll use his drivers to intimidate me and track me down etc – well that’s illegal for starters, its called ‘Aiding And Abetting, so is everyone getting to see what he’s like, he’s not interested in talking amicably about settling his debt and uses scare tactics instead.

Next he sends me an email telling me to “Now F-off before you get me annoyed” – – again, breaking the law, which falls under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.    After consulting my Solicitor, she advised a case for Malicious calls and malicious comms.   At this point we reported Mr Simmons to the Police, where a Criminal Record was issued (Crime/Incident Number:  5102601/12),  and the Police Officer officially told him to back off, witnessed by a Police Sergeant, and the Victims Card/letter forwarded to myself.   

In a nutshell – Mr Simmons admitted to registration to the Eventdomain website, failed to cancel contract at the appropriate time, got caught and doesn’t like it.  He then commits a criminal offence, ignores a Police Officer when told to back off, then further adds to the original offence by threats of intimidation, about 40 mins after being told to not further contact me.   He denies all this ofcourse, but it makes no difference as we have the proof of his Criminal record, the abusive email, his threats and the Met Police documents.

Eventdomain has consulted with Solicitors who clearly informed us of our legal options about sueing Mr Simmons for harrassment and we will pursue this case.