Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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
      • 161 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4533 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

Sorry this is quite a long post.

 

A few weeks ago i was in Superdrug with my 2 year old daughter in her buggy. I placed one packet of non branded sanitary towels (worth less than £1) on the hood of the buggy with full intention to pay. I became distracted looking at other items in store and dealing with my daughter's pestering for crisps and totally forgot the item was there. I left the store and was swiftly brought back by security.

 

To my horror not only had I left the shop having forgotten about the item, but the packet of sanitary towels was unconcealed on top of my buggy for the whole high street to see; extremely embarrassing on all fronts.

 

I was then shocked when 3 police officers turned up to question me. Having seen the situation one officer asked the security guard if it was a joke and the security guard even apologised to the officers for calling them out. On more than one occasion I offered all parties the opportunity to search my bags, i had about £80 of receipted goods on me from other shops, plus cash and debit cards in my purse, but this offer was ignored. Needless to say the police left without any action, however Superdrug have branded me guilty without investigation and banned me from all their shops. I’m sure you have all already guessed this part too, but my details were also passed to the RLP.

 

The SD manager kept away from the “action”, i had to ask to see him. As i asked he happened to be passing through, so i told him what happened. He just shrugged and walked off. A credit to Superdrug i’m sure you’ll agree.

 

I contact SD, who told me they would investigate the issue with their security company. I also wrote to their security company to complain. The upshot of several letters back and forth to both companies is that neither want to get involved, and they have now referred me to the RLP. I have received a £87 fine from RLP, to which i have replied to them strongly denying the allegations and requesting they remove my details from their system.

 

During correspondence with Superdrug they advised me the stories of their manager and security guard do not tally up (i.e. one of them is telling lies) yet they don’t see a need to get to the bottom of that and continue with their allegations. I have requested a meeting or call with all involved but this has been ignored. SD also maintain that the store manager is not prepared to revoke the store ban either, no doubt because this highlights the mistakes he made in this case.

 

Superdrug do not want to engage in discussions about this, and blindly refer me to the RLP. This is obviously a downward spiral. I’m not worried about the threats of being taken to court – i’d welcome the opportunity to discuss this in front of an impartial judge, but i’m not happy about making an appearance of their “dishonesty” database. I’m a professional contractor, so change job frequently. Having my details on this database could ruin my career and source of income. I’m toying with the idea of initiating court proceedings against Superdrug for making these false allegations available to anyone who cares to pay the RLP subsidiary for it, is this not libel?

 

Has anyone got any advice or recommendations of where i go from here? As i said before i am fully prepared to take this as far as i have to, not only for me but to stop them doing this to other people.

 

 

Thanks for reading my story of woe and thanks in advance for any advice you may be able to give

Link to post
Share on other sites

RLP can't fine anyone - only a court can do that. RLP's business model is speculative invoicing; they send you a bill which they hope you will be scared into paying.

 

You have two options:

 

1. Ignore them. They may send a few more letters, but they are extremely unlikely to take the court action they threaten.

 

2. Send them a simple, short letter explaining that you have not been convicted of any crime, and therefore will neither pay them any money or enter into any correspondence with them. Then ignore them.

 

The database to which RLP refer is something of a damp squib. They say that employers refer to it, but we've never heard of one that has. Paying RLP does not affect whether or not they put your details on the database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I have no intention of paying them anything and have already told them so (no reply yet), my only slight concern is if the address i live at gets black listed from the bailiffs.

 

This entire incident is ruining my life, i can't sleep properly, it's affecting my work and i don't like going out with my friends because it's always in my mind and i can't relax. I haven't told anyone about this except for my partner. I haven't even done anything wrong but they've made me feel ashamed!

 

Does anyone know if there is any way i can sue Superdrug for instigating this libel against me. Depending on the cost and practicalities it would be worth it to make these stores think twice in future.

 

I was interviewed by the police whilst in tears in front of my toddler because the store manger hasn't got the common sense to see a mistake. What shop lifter walks out with an unconcealed packet of economy sanitary towels, surely a first! I don't want to have to sit back and be threatened for months until it eventually fizzles out.

 

I have also written to the CAB today so they can add this to their campaign and am planning to contact my MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest I'm not sure that trying to sue Superdrug will do any more than prolong what you're going through. Slander (libel is printed or otherwise published) is notoriously difficult to bring an action on; most barristers want a minimum £100k up front, such are the risks.

 

I suggest that in a fairly short time you will see this incident in a different perspective. You made a mistake, and then Superdrug made a bigger one. You were exonerated, however, and the reality is that everyone else involved has almost certainly forgotten about it. I don't doubt that it made you feel dreadful, but it'll pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, your point is taken.

 

It just riles me that they are allowed to say whatever they want without providing proof. Real criminals actually get a hearing. I still have a couple of avenues to investigate to clean up this mess, if they come to anything useful i'll re-post to hopefully help anyone else who falls foul of this.

 

Thanks for your time

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Please note, i lost my login so have created a new acc to update my original post.

 

Sorry i should have sent an update earlier, but to be honest it's been nice not thinking about this for a while, it hasn't been one of my highlights.

 

I engaged in communications with Superdrug customer services and the security co - Stealth Security, but seemed to be going around in circles with each referring me to the other or RLP. The store manager and security guard had discrepancies in their stories which made it even more difficult to resolve this. I then emailed the Superdrug CEO, to his credit he requested a further investigation and i was put in contact with their legal department. The case was then dropped and customer services sent me a £50 gift voucher. I also gave details of this case to the CAB, who have were very supportive. Richard Dunstan recommended asking for all the info they held relating to my case which i did. I eventually received a large folder of emails, plus the forms which were sent to the RLP. I found some discrepancies on the RLP form sent by Stealth Security, it said i'd admitted guilt and i'd concealed items within my pushchair. Both are untrue. The biggest shock i got was were the guard and manager had both said the police had told them someone of my name and the same situation has been caught earlier that week and they wanted to see me to confirm if it was me or not. For the record, it most certainly was not me, and the coincidence is pretty high that i question if this comment is true (especially as other lies had been written about me). The strange thing is they made a big deal about this comment in their correspondence to each other (there was a note there not to tell me this information), yet no-one bothered to confirm the police response when they did see me. I emailed Stealth Security to try and have this clarified in writing but the manager there is no longer replying to my emails. Hmmm

 

Anyway, i hope this information is useful to anyone else out there in a similar position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth a last letter to RLP to tell them that superdrug have appologised for their actions and withdrawn their allegations and that you expect all data that RLP hold about you to be removed from their systems and a certificate of destruction sent to you ...It might not achieve much, but it might make them squirm a little

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Might be worth a last letter to RLP to tell them that superdrug have appologised for their actions and withdrawn their allegations and that you expect all data that RLP hold about you to be removed from their systems and a certificate of destruction sent to you ...It might not achieve much, but it might make them squirm a little

 

Ignore them; they cannot enforce the fine as you have not been convicted of any crime. Why not go to a no win, no fee solicitor and have them write to them and demand that they clear your name, remove you from all of these database things and apologise with compensation? They may not listen to you, but solicitors know of ways of speaking to these people to sort things out. Your local law society should be able to advise of a good local solicitor in the area of law that you need. And there is no such thing as a black list; bailiffs make false claims in this matter and they do not have any powers if you do not owe the money. Do not let them in and ignore them as well. These people try all sorts of tricks, but most of them are illegal. I am sure that you will get it sorted, but it is really worrying and you must be very anxious. Make sure you get a lot of damages for this: these idiots have damaged your reputation and hurt your professional name and slandered you needlessly. They have also caused you a lot of time and inconvenience and they deserve everything that your solicitor can think to throw at them. For the humiliation alone; they deserve to be taken down an peg or two. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore them; they cannot enforce the fine as you have not been convicted of any crime.

 

-

 

They're not enforcing a fine, nor do they threaten to.

 

What a retail loss preventer does is offer the option of settling out of court, an option that the vast majority of individuals accused of shoplifting are glad enough to accept because a xxxxxxxxx is not the sort of person with the courage to stand up before a judge to defend himself and expect to win.

 

If you rather expect the Court to see it from your point of view, the thing to do is raise the stakes, from the start. Tell them to put up or shut up, to lay their information before a Magistrate in order to try the case if they get so far as that.

 

Once you have done as much as that, the advice to take no notice of what you hope is an empty threat would be that much more appropriate. Otherwise, if they did eventually proceed to act, you would not have helped yourself by talking no notice.

 

That is not the sort of conduct to win the sympathy of a judge.

Edited by Legislation
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...