Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, With regard to the ANPR cameras in your post #65, while I was on the phone to the Planning Department, they did take a look at Google Streetview and went back to 2012 where they could see the ANPR cameras in place so therefore they would have deemed consent. I had previously read the T&C Planning Regulations and had read the section on deemed consent so I understood the point they made on the phone. It doesn't matter though, that doesn't harm my case any, and I shouldn't really mention this now, (this is what you reminded me of on another thread) but in the past I was a member of a scheme that gave me access to legal advice, I have spoken to a barrister previously through this scheme on another matter and I think I am still a member. I am going to check if I am still a member of the scheme, and if I am I will discuss my case with a barrister or solicitor, whichever the scheme deems appropriate. I will let you know the outcome. I am also going to take Bankfodders advice in the sticky and go to the local court and ask if I can sit in on a case in the Judges office.
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx Yes sorry. they called it a deed at first in court.  Then Judge said she was happy to have it sealed as something else  exact names of orders in message above.     The disease was tested for when his cardiac testing was done immediately after purchase and part of the now sealed case.   However, results were disclosed incorrectly and I only found out  two days ago.   This disease did not form part of my knowledge during the case as I had been informed of a normal result that was not the case.   it is perfect clarity of a genetic disease where as the previous cardiac issue could be congenital until the pup is genetically tested. 
    • Hi, Halifax recently sold a credit card account of mine to Cabot. I am unemployed and have no assets and was thinking of making token £1 payments for 12-18 months in order to drag things out a bit and reduce the chance of Cabot being able to get the correct CCA documents from Halifax if I requested them in future. However, I saw on the pages on this forum about defending county court claims that one of the standard approaches when defending such claims is to say “I had an account with bank X, but I don’t remember the details and so don’t know if I owe this debt…”. If I made £1 payments to Cabot, would it prevent me from using such a defence in future? OC: Halifax DC: Cabot/Wescot Card account opened: 2016 Defaulted: 2023
    • Paperwork says sealed consent order and composite settlement agreement      YES  ADDISONS DISEASE 
    • Hi, This may be the wrong place for a thread BUT If you receive a defence, can you send a CPR 31.14 request for document mentioned in the defence, and then apply to proceed with the case only after (14) days passed or they respond OR is it only if you receive a claim I see @dx100uk thread is for when you receive a claim, but can you also do the same when you receive a defence?
  • 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 2479 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 was caught in shoplifting at primark and they took my id and everything and scared me that they are calling the cops

 

 

fortunately police did not turn up and they gave me a letter stating that you will have to pay a fine

 

 

but if you do not receive a letter in 3 days then call on the number given in the letter and tell them what you have done etc.

 

i am scared like hell that how much would they charge me etc?

 

can you please help me

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many, many similar threads on CAG.

 

Do a search on primark, such as

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=8254099

 

It will show Primark use RLP. Searching for RLP:

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=RLP&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=RLP

 

Browse those threads, and get an idea what to expect.

Post back with your summary and any questions.

 

(Bottom line : don't contact RLP or pay them. The police MIGHT still become involved, but it is unlikely. The police are the correct people to decide if they want to take action, not RLP).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they didn't use the word FINE...

 

me thinks you are over thinking what they said..

 

and didn't ever use that word

but tried to frighten the bejesus out of you to not do it again , as they should.

 

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

Security may well use the word 'fine' verbally but if that word were to be used in writing on any official document then the company could find themselves in trouble. What DX is saying is that only a Criminal Court or duly authorised body can issue 'fines' or 'penalties'. Anybody pretending that they have a lawful authority when they do not, could well be guilty of a criminal offence

 

What the guard in Primark was talking about is a private company which will attempt to force you to pay 'security' costs relating to your wrongdoing. This will be a fixed amount based on the value of goods stolen, however you should not pay them a penny. Nothing will happen except for a string of letters, each one ramping up the pressure to try and frighten you into paying - typically well over £100 towards the costs of detection, detaining you, processing you and a contribution towards their security equipment! So far as liability is concerned, there is none - the option was there for Police involvement and they chose not to take that option. Any involvement by Primark - or the Police - is now over, but RLP will try to tell you different. Don't be frightened into paying up, simply ignore every letter - even when they threaten that their client will take County Court action, as this will not happen. The last time that RLP persuaded one of their clients to take a shoplifter to Court to recover the charge, they lost. Badly. They have not tried to do this since so rely on fear and ignorance.

 

Oh - and do not EVER try shoplifting again. From anywhere. You may not be so lucky next time and might find yourself justifiably with a criminal record

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...