Report comment

What the judgment actually appears to be saying is-if you breach the rules you are stuffed. In this instance the LiP breached the rules. He was therefore stuffed. The fact that he had assistance in part had nothing to do with the decision save that the Judge felt because of the limited assistance the LiP should not be given any latitude. It doesn't kill unbundled services at all. It simply points out that there are rules and there are consequences for breaching those rules.