Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2292 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

Hiya,

 

I tried to take about £30 of shopping from Waitrose today.

 

I know I'm an idiot (hence the username) I'm not doing it again, I've been scared about it and want to just move on.

 

I'm worried about the civil recovery thing.

I admitted to having taken something before on one occasion from Waitrose and so they gave me a lifelong ban.

They didn't contact the police but they scanned my ID and took a photo of my face.

 

I got given a letter from RPL.

What legal advice do I need to get?

They told me I will get a fine 'probably around £100'.

When will I get this letter, does anyone know?

 

what happens now?

 

The letter says at the bottom:

'In principle the Data Protection Act 1998 does not prevent the use of data for civil recovery and employment screening purposes...

Your personal data may be stored and used by prospective employers within client companies to make employment decisions...'

What does this mean realistically?

I think I might want to work with kids as a teacher

- will this stop me from being able to?

Any help is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you found the right forum.

 

now go read any RLP thread you see here

 

bottom line is you TOATLLY IGNORE THEM>

its NOT A FINE

there is no database - its totally fictitious.

they have zero legal powers

and they have zero legal powers whatsoever to share their data

even if they do hold it with anyone.

 

once again

IGNORE TOTALLY ..end of.

 

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

nothing can happen

just scary letters

there is no better way that you go READ RLP threads here

in the forum you found to post your thread in.

 

everything is answered 1001 times in just about each one

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?236-Retail-loss-Prevention-Other-shoplifting-allegations.

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

nothing to do with waitrose

RLP

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

Hi and welcome.

 

Before you do anything, stop stealing! If you don't stop, whatever we say will have no meaning.

 

Waitrose are just the same as other stores when it comes to security. Once apprehended, they get the goods back and pass your details over to RLP. That is the point Waitrose forget about you (apart from the ban)

From that time onwards, you will deal with RLP. RLP go for security costs as the goods were recovered. Waitrose security costs are already factored into the price people pay at the till so these costs cannot be claimed for hence the reason Waitrose pass it on to RLP.

 

RLP have absolutely no power over you. They cannot take court action against you so all they can do is send the scary letters. These mean nothing. Once they have exhausted their template letters, they pass the alleged debt on to a debt collector who can do even less than RLP so it is quite safe to ignore them too.

 

The ONLY party who can take action is Waitrose. All they could ever claim at court are their losses and as they got the goods back, they suffered no loss. They cannot go for security costs either so there is no claim.

 

I advice that you read the following,

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer-**-reveiwed-September-2015-**&p=3898857&viewfull=1#post3898857

 

This case is the reason no other court cases have been mooted for over 5 years.

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

You realise that by entering the store after a life ban you were a trespasser?

 

And, that by entering as a trespasser and stealing : it isn’t “just shoplifting”, but instead burglary, potentially a much more serious offence?

 

 

Let's not go into that territory. It will only confuse the issue. We can stick to the main points.

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

Let's not go into that territory. It will only confuse the issue. We can stick to the main points.

 

 

 

But I only got the ban after the £30 thing. Therefore if I go in again, then I’m a trespasser, but not before...

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I only got the ban after the £30 thing. Therefore if I go in again, then I’m a trespasser, but not before...

 

True : I read it as “I got caught before, and given a life ban then”, not

“I owned up to having shoplifted (& not been caught!) before”.

 

I’m all for honesty (like not shoplifting!), but why on earth would someone want to make such an admission whilst you were under no obligation to do so. You could have just declined to answer if asked!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the trespass as you won't be going back to the shop, will you??

 

I applaud being honest in speaking to people (Does my bum look fat in this dress. Nope, you have a fat bum!) however, you have the right not to say anything, especially self incrimination. You won't be doing it again so any point made is now moot.

 

Going back to this alleged database that can be seen by employers. RLP claim they have a database of 'alleged' shoplifters. As such potential employers can see the data but ONLY if you give your permission. Also, as this database is of alleged shoplifters, they may run into trouble if they disclose information that isn't true. You are either a shoplifter punished by the criminal courts or you are not. There is no middle ground. RLP could open themselves up to Data Protection issues if they disclose information that isn't true.

 

From next year, there will be a new system of data protection coming into force and I will wait patiently to see what effect it will have with RLP.

 

All you have to do for now is ignore any letters.

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

You may want to read up on this as well as your actions past and future may have an effect you will not want..

 

Section 176 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to read up on this as well as your actions past and future may have an effect you will not want..

 

Section 176 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

 

That is true but only IF the police get involved and in recent times, the police don't even bother with shoplifting acts where the value is less than £100. Where a shoplifter is a repeat offender and is known to the police then I would hope that they see this through to the magistrates court.

 

The OP said the police were not involved and as far as I am aware, shops don't share intelligence with the police so the chances of getting 'lifted' in THIS case is very low to non existent. As you know, we at CAG will never say shoplifting is OK but the likes of RLP are our target and their unlawful claims. So long as a shoplifter states that they will not steal anymore, we help but when we get a cocky so and so who boasts about the life of crime, they get nothing.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...