Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Canary Wharf Security Guards.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4601 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have been working down in the big city in Canary Wharf (no I am not a banker :) ) recently and at Canary Wharf there are loads of security staff wandering around in pseudo looking Police uniforms complete with bat utility belt :).

 

Now I know CW is a bit of a weird place as apprently its all under a private Landlord so I heard so here are a few questions...

 

1) Anyone know if they are private security staff or attached to the Police, i.e. some sort of PCSO?

 

2) They have no SIA ID but Police type numbers on their shoulders. How come they do not show it?

 

3) They seem to go round enforcing parking, are they allowed to?

 

4) There is a recent edict from CW management that no smoking with so many metres of office or you will be fine. Can they enforce this?

 

Ta,

Yorky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like its this crowd of plastc monkeys

 

Security Supervisor (Retail) - Canary Wharf, London

 

they are not POLICE nor have any legal status

 

the cannot use the word FINE anywhere nor can they issue a fine and it is public roads etc , they are not an official body

 

I know a few black cab drivers that had a run in with them, mate ran over one of the idiots foot when he tried to stop his cab, mate called the police , cant actually say here what the copper told the plastic idiot ( well not on here anyway , somthing like go forth and multiply ) and something about the next time he jumps in front of a car and tries to stop it he will arrested for impersonating a real policeman :D

 

seems like a crowd of want'a'bee's

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kip,

 

This ad relates to a security guard fr a shop, I am pretty sure I know the one in question as well as still boarded up but has Tiffanys plastered all over the outside.

 

The guards I am talking about are the external ones which 'patrol' the streets around Canary Wharf. They are done up like policeman even down to the caps and chequered log around there security badge, however as I said they do not have any SIA ID anywhere, something I thought they were not allowed to do.

 

I think they are private and operating above their remit, especially with trying to fine people, etc,

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think they are private and operating above their remit, especially with trying to fine people, etc,

 

Any ideas?

 

they are they have no powers just like the [problem] private parking invoices

 

ignore them.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they could be covered in green stripes and purple spots the answer is the same , beyond their legal remit

 

the only actual private police force ( for want of a better definition ) are those at the Dartford tunnel but are santioned by the Home Office and other goverment bodies

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

means nowt sadly

its only a trade body.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

the canary wharfs are private corporate ones the canary wharf like may private companies buildings etc are privately owned .

 

and if one was to approach me for my name and date of birth etc i'd be more than happy provideing i had'nt done anything wrong to kindly wisper in the ear pee off :)

 

or ask them for thiers and then aen for a copy of the recent crb check and identity then you may disclose your own data or even charge them for it lol film then aswel record them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx - Am I missing something, I thought all guards, clampers, door staff, etc had to registered with the SIA and display their ID, except plain clothes store security who have to produce when requested. So more than just a trade body.

 

LordC - That would be thoughts exactly, for the most part they dont hassle anyone but if they did try to 'fine' me for anything I wouldnt take it lieing down.

 

Yorky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but that trade body means nothing!!!

 

its just a body to give them some credibility to people they try to fleece or boss around

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If their uniform &/or their behaviour can be mistaken (by anyone) as being that of a police officer they are committing a serious offence. If I were you I would complain to a senior police officer, super or above

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

correct they should have an sia badge showing and there uniforms should not be like police uniform and they cant fine anyone as they have no powers but welcome to great britain where sia where brought in by the goveremnt to charge people to work as a security guard for 3 years as low pay long hours jobs plus a lot of the companies do employ non sia people because they can if they get caught they just get slap on wrist fine and get telled dnt do it again hahahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

A so called security guard at the Forest Holidays development near Sherwood Pines Centre, near Clipstone in Notts. was reported to police on Friday 18th March 2011 for verbally abusing and assaulting a member of the public who had simply walked past the fenced compound containing materials and plant for the construction of holiday cabins. The man had stopped when requested to do so by the security guards who came out of the compound and followed him when he had gone some 50 - 70 yards past the compound but when asked to say who he was, refused and asked why they were asking and requested to see their id and authority. He was grabbed forcibly by the arm whilst being called offensive names and when he, quite naturally, struggled to free himself without striking the security guards was himself struck in the face by one of them and dragged to the ground whereupon two "guards" (more like thugs) manhandled him in a different direction to where he had been going claiming to be escorting him "off the site". If he had simply been allowed to continue as he had been doing no harm would have been done and there would have been no incident.

Edited by a_friend
Correct organisation name
Link to post
Share on other sites

They look like police, act like police but do not have policing powers other than those of a private citizen. You should google 'love police' and 'canary wharf' you will see these clowns in action or should we say inaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hmm, this is a rarity,a member of the site team getting it wrong? sorry dx100k but youre completely wrong here. The SIA is not a trade body. It is the licensing authority charged by the home office with vetting and licensing all sectors of the security industry.

 

As foe the displaying of the licences, yes security staff MUST display their licences. 'any person undertaking licensable activities must hold and display a valid SIA licence.'

 

To not do so is an offence and is in breach of the conditions under which the license was issued and can be punished by withdrawal of the licence, fines, and in extreme cases imprisonment.

 

The only exceptions to this are the security staff that are not required to be 'immediately identifiable' Ie, plain clothes store detectives, close protection officers.

But even they must carry their licence and have it available for insepction by an authorised person.

Now dont get me worng, Im a dual license holder my self, door supervision and cctv, and I dont particularly like the SIA, buts as shown in the prosecution cases V Sabrewatch and Advance (then securiplan) they are the regulatory body and have the power to prosecute and police the industry. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As foe the displaying of the licences, yes security staff MUST display their licences. 'any person undertaking licensable activities must hold and display a valid SIA licence.'

 

 

Unless they are directly employed in-house, and not 3rd party contractor like 99% the rest on the guards in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be the case in most outfits, but there is exceptions. for instance, when I was working in a leading retail supermarket all of the security were 'in house' except for me. I was brought in specifically to make the actual arrests or detentions.

 

Only reason for that set up is for the the client to be able to claim plausible deniability in the case of it being done wrong. Which it never did with me I hasten to add.

 

Its a little daft that the SIA have brought in compulsory licensing but left such a huge gaping loophole in the legislation. Not big enough for sabrewatch or securiplan to get through tho lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plausible deniability?

 

Simple really. Company A brings in company B to provide frontline security. Company A has security staff there but they deal with CCTV, radio comms, etc that sort of stuff. those staff work directly for company A. Company B sends down Joe Bloggs to work with the staff from company A, but has to actually make arrests, detain alleged offenders etc. Joe Bloggs cocks up one day, or it turns out they dont have have the evidence needed to back up their actions.

 

Company A hangs Joe Bloggs out to dry, whether company A staff had worked with him on that case or not and just say 'Joe Bloggs doesnt work for us he works for Company B there fore any mistake, misconduct, yadda yadda is the responsibilty of comapny B. Company A wouldnt knowingly let this happen, were squeaky clean your honour'

 

Seriously Ive seen it happen time and time again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i tend to disagree on this

 

Any private security guard is acting under instructions of the client (supermarket ) if the security guard make a mistake then its up to the client to take responsability for his/her actions

 

private guard or in house

please supply any case law to back up your sinario

 

NOT HAVING A POP AT YOU

 

JUST INTERESTED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a matter of law, its a matter of whats actually happened. Without identifying retailers I cant provide specific examples but suffice to say this is exactly what happens when theres the remotest iota of doubt or wiggle room in an arrest. Its just easier for large chains to have the ability to step away from something and claim the person in question doesnt work for them. Thats why contracted in firms have insurance for wrongful arrest and so on, because the clients will always hide behind the firm theyve hired in order to protect themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they may hide behind a third party but at the end of the day, its the supermarket who employs the third party and its the supermarket who is liable

 

ime going by personal experience and i left tesco with £500 worth of vouchers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I think a lot of you are being really unfair with your uneducated opinions. Most of Canary Wharf Security Officers are ex-military and have served you and the counrty on many tours overseas. Canary Wharf is considered to be a high threat area due to the large infastructure. The Security Guards are there for your protection, so i think a little respect is deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...