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 2333 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 know it's not clever but I was chosen to have a random check and they found items not scanned so needed a full scan.

 

Went to a till and put my shopping up with obviously extras but left some clothes in a bag.

 

They took a copy if the receipt.

 

I was racked with guilt so 30 mins later went back and paid for clothes.

 

What will happen Now?

 

Will they check cctv as they have my club card and account details?

 

I'm totally fretting that the police will come knocking on my door!

 

I paid for all the items in my bag just worried about the clothes Now!

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably need to hear from someone with expertise in 'retail loss prevention" (ideally with knowledge of their procedures). (I don't mean RLP, the firm, you can safely ignore them!).

 

The key point that stands out for me is that "they took a copy of the receipt", as I've never had that happen to me whenever I've had a 'random rescan' (from a number of retailers,), as this may suggest this was flagged for 'loss prevention', rather than the routine rescan only.

 

One can argue that the initial discrepancy between what was scanned and what was in the bag was due to an error,

not due to fraud by false representation / theft, but if it was then shown that you left clothes in a bag,

you'd have to explain that, and why both weren't deliberate.

 

The fact that you paid for the clothes later is good for mitigation,

but doesn't stop you having committed the offence(s),

if they were deliberate or a court finds they were dishonest,

as the offence would have been committed at the time,

and doesn't get 'cancelled out' by you later paying (only mitigated!).

 

Have you done this before?.

 

The reason I'm asking is that if you were already on the 'radar' for loss prevention they might have been watching you on CCTV

- if so, they can refer the evidence to the police, and the police might then come looking for you.

 

If you haven't done this before then they again might be able to convince the police this was deliberate, but it it less clear.

They might just "keep an eye on you" in future.

Alternatively, this might all just be by chance, but the "they took a copy of the receipt" is a worrying factor.

 

Either way, don't do it again!. If you 'get lucky' this time, you may not be so lucky if you chance your arm again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I take it that this is Tesco.

 

Your original attempt was to steal but common sense overtook your urge so as I see it, all the goods have been paid for.

 

I doubt anything will come of this and certainly no police involvement as they are far too busy to bother with small items.

 

If you did raise suspicions then they may just view the CCTV and act accordingly but I doubt anyone will have the time to view them. Yes, they could check the times of visit by your clubcard but at the end of the day, you did (eventually) pay for it all.

As I said, no police but if Tesco did do checks, you may find out the next time you visit. Doubtful but you never know.

 

If you get any letters through the post, keep them safe and come here for help.

 

The only thing you must do is think why you did what you did. Any underlying issues?

 

Put this into perspective. What you did was wrong BUT you did put it right. No harm, no foul just don't do it again.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Put this into perspective. What you did was wrong BUT you did put it right. No harm, no foul just don't do it again.

 

 

Yes it I wrong but only put right AFTER checks.

If no checks took place would it of been "put right"

 

The offence was still committed.

 

Are their underlying issues or problems that need to be addressed?

If you think its a possibility then I would have a chat with your GP.

 

As previously stated tho, RLP letters can be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The offence(s) was/were committed if there was dishonest intent.

The fact that the initial attempted theft / fraud by false representation was prevented by the rescan doesn’t undo the previous crime.

The fact the clothes were paid for 30 minutes later doesn’t mean the theft of those clothes didn’t occur : only paying for them at the time, not 30 minutes later when conscience / realisation they might have been monitored kicks in.

 

Remorse / paying afterwards is mitigation, not a defence or shield from prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't worry, it's paid for now.

 

Besides they don't have the time to trawl through all of the footage to pick you out and follow you through the whole visit, they would need to have watched you select the item, conceal it, have continuous observation, make no attempt to pay and then leave the store.

 

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but it might be something worth talking to your doctor about.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was wrong.

I always self scan

never had to have a total re scan before just the 8 or so items and all has been fine.

This is the very first time.

 

I think she wanted to check the amount I paid to the amount scanned through.

 

I had a printer which scanned as I went out

security guard checked me and my receipt and sent me on my way.

 

I'm totally mortified and I will NEVER do it again trust me.

I've not slept or eaten since.

 

Not sure whether to go back in tomorrow to get my daughter's cooking ingredients or just stay away!

 

I even contemplated going in today to ask if anything was going to be done!

 

Not sure why had a year of cancer scare,

diagnosed with fibromyalgia,

father died,

cat died

and aunty died!

 

No excuses I shouldn't have done it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are “in their sights” going back, and behaving won’t change anything ; and if you aren’t, you are (equally) fine.

 

So, fine to go back for cooking ingredients : just be extra careful to scan everything correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going off on a little tangent here but don't self scan.use a normal checkout and it will avoid all issues..

 

 

I hate self scan. I wont use it because supermarkets make enough money and by using self scan it stops them.employing cashiers.

If self scan said " 10% off the bottom line bill as we dont have to employ anyone" I still wouldn't use them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if use scan as you shop ever again if I'm honest!

Might pop in just to check as I'm always popping in and out for stuff.

 

Will get ingredients and go to a till.

 

If they've taken things further I'm sure they'll say something surely.

 

Mostly worried someone will come to the house!

 

Would rather they said something in store actually

then I would know where I stand.

 

It's the fear of the unknown.

Edited by Twinmummy26
Link to post
Share on other sites

no one will ever come to your home..

 

they are not bailiffs but powerless fleecers

ignore RLP

 

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

oh and I would be saying anything to anyone

 

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

Can't eat or sleep. In constant state of anxiety! I'm already on amytriptolyn and still feel awful! Every car that goes past I worry.

Would be just good to know if the police are liable to come knocking!

 

Hello there.

 

Nobody has said that the police will come knocking, it isn't how it works.

 

I think the one piece of advice you might consider is talking to your GP about this in case there is a medical or mental reason why you shoplifted. We see a lot of people who have background reasons for what they do. Being a new mum isn't easy, please take what help you can and don't over analyse what's happening. I know you've had a tough time, we've all been through that, but you'll get through this.

 

Hugs, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anything works!

 

I thought they can report to police and they'll have to come to my house for a chat rather than the store.

 

There's not much information if this has happened before to anyone.

 

When I went back in to pay for the items no-one came up to me.

 

Even went to the checkouts where the lady was who took the duplicate receipt just to see if she'd say anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All done

End of

 

Forget about it!!

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

 

The key point that stands out for me is that "they took a copy of the receipt", as I've never had that happen to me whenever I've had a 'random rescan' (from a number of retailers,), as this may suggest this was flagged for 'loss prevention', rather than the routine rescan only.

.......

 

Have you done this before?.

 

The reason I'm asking is that if you were already on the 'radar' for loss prevention they might have been watching you on CCTV

- if so, they can refer the evidence to the police, and the police might then come looking for you.

...........

 

Either way, don't do it again!. If you 'get lucky' this time, you may not be so lucky if you chance your arm again.

 

 

I’ve checked with a friend who worked for Tesco with responsibility including loss prevention.

 

The receipt might have been copied to pass to loss prevention for future attention OR for “stats” (“look at this example of how much we’ve saved by intervention”).

 

It is very unusual for Tesco to “build a case” against an individual and not call the police at the time once they have enough evidence. If the person wasn’t detained by loss prevention (or, at least, an attempt to detain them!) and the police weren’t called at the time : it is unlikely they’ll take it to the police.

 

So, either you go back to the store, and provided you don’t reoffend you'll hear nothing more OR you go back and they’ll tell you they are banning you.

Of course, if you go back and reoffend; they may well stop you and call the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BazzaS!

Thank you for asking your friend. Think I might leave it a while to go into the store again! I may just do an online shop to use my vouchers.

I'm never ever going to it ever again trust me just go to normal checkout!

Edited by Twinmummy26
Link to post
Share on other sites

go to a proper till.

 

I never use self scan,

I think they are immoral and bad for business

but the big stores have calculated that the savings on staff versus the extra losses make them worthwhile.

 

I could also put a list of things like

3 lots of surgery in 2 months,

illnesses, deaths etc

 

I dont use any of this to mitigate shoplifting becasue I dont do it,

never have and never will.

 

From your opening post it was quite a deliberate act

so you wont get any sympathy from me

 

but as the store seems to have dealt with things how they wish to

then it is very unlikley that anything will ever come from it.

 

Hopefully this has had the effect of putting you and the correct path from now on.

 

If you are “in their sights” going back, and behaving won’t change anything ; and if you aren’t, you are (equally) fine.

 

So, fine to go back for cooking ingredients : just be extra careful to scan everything correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the fact that Tesco can ban anyone they feel like. Stores operate as private space but allow the public to enter. This permission can be removed at any time for anyone and for any (or no) reason.

 

Having read what you are going through, it's easy for me to understand that things happen with no reason.

 

You have no excuse for stealing BUT there are reasons why. It is down to you to find out what they are and a chat to your GP (in confidence) is a must. They have heard it all before and could give you better advice than we ever could and possibly a short course of happy pills. Stress can cause no end of hormone and serotonin level to drop which cause loads of problems.

 

In the meantime, go back to Tesco. I doubt that there will be any issue but be prepared 'just in case' (highly unlikely) Try to gets things into perspective if you can. What you did was wrong but you put it right. While the intent was there, remorse got to you and you realised what you did was wrong and you went back to put things right.

 

Police! Nah!. They rarely get involved with this unless you are a persistent offender which you're not.

Civil Recovery. Unlikely but you can never tell with business. If that does happen, we are well equipped to deal with them.

 

In other words, nothing major is going to happen. Try to de-stress, get some rest and try not to think of this SINGLE event. Over time, your feelings will change.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Completely agree. Tesco do not tend to involve police after the incident unless there has been a documented series of events. The incident 'may' have been logged on their reporting system to cross reference in the event of any future similar incidents to see if a pattern is developing. You would only be challenged on re entering the store if you tried to do the same again.

 

Probably best not to use self scan in future but force yourself to go through a manned checkout. Then there can be no doubt over your honesty and no temptation for you to steal unless you are silly enough to hide items in your trolley and not pay

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...