Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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 4540 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...