Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. And, I also continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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 2200 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

Hi everyone,

 

On the 3rd of April I made a stupid mistake of attempting to shoplift for the first time from TKMAXX.

 

I was with my 15 y/old friend and as we were walking around the shop I saw a few items that I wanted but could justify paying for. I didn't take anything out of packaging as the items I saw were already just loose and not in packaging. The

 

My friend pulled a bar-code off an item and stuck it in my bag.

 

I went to the till and paid for a couple of items and then as I was leaving the store a man grabbed me and told me to follow him to the back of the store.

 

We followed him and were taken into a small room through the back of the shop.

 

In the room there was a man who I believe to have been the security guard and the Store Manager. I was asked to remove every single item from my handbag, my jacket pockets and my shopping bags.

 

When removing all the items I was asked for receipts, which I didn't have as I don't carry receipts with me. The security guard told us that he had watched me walk around the whole store through CCTV and remove items from packaging (which I didn't do, my friend did), testing items and putting them in my pocket.

 

During the time held in the room I was asked for ID and my full name, address, date of birth and a contact number. This was all written down on a scrap piece of paper. (The friend I was with didn't get asked for any personal details)

 

Whilst this was going on the Store Manager asked another staff member to go and collect that packaging that I "ripped apart". The

 

The staff member came back and they totalled up the cost of all items being around £50.

 

The Store Manager told me they were going to get the police but then changed their mind and said as their shift was going to end soon they couldn't be bothered waiting around and wasting anymore of their time.

 

I was told that we would need to sign a form that confirms that we will not enter the premises again, they never brought us the form and we were allowed to leave the store. When leaving the Store Manager said that we were lucky that no further action would be taken.

 

Now today the 13th I have just received a letter through the door from the "Retail Loss Prevention Limited" asking for a fixed contribution to all of the losses in sum of £150.00.

In the letter it explains that a court proceeding is a last resort.

 

I am wondering if I need to pay this £150 and if I don't what will happen???

 

 

Thank you!

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore RLP totally

 

Read a few threads here you'll get the idea

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 to CAG.

Firstly, are you under 18?

 

What will happen if you ignore the letter? Nothing, zilch, nada. RLP cannot take any action against you. Only TKMaxx can do that, except they don't.

 

If you look at the stickies at the top of this forum, you will see various stuff which will help you understand where you stand

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

Hi and welcome to CAG.

Firstly, are you under 18?

 

What will happen if you ignore the letter? Nothing, zilch, nada. RLP cannot take any action against you. Only TKMaxx can do that, except they don't.

 

If you look at the stickies at the top of this forum, you will see various stuff which will help you understand where you stand

 

Hello,

 

I am 18, as soon as they asked that they took all my details and none from my friend!

So I will be 100% fine if I do not pay it or contact them?

 

Thank you for the reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct

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

Our advice does not give anyone carte blanch to shoplift. Our mantra is that the police are the best body to deal with store theft. Next time you may not be so lucky so stopping now is what you should be doing and encouraging your 'friend' to do the same.

Having said that,it is my belief that two wrongs don't make a right. RLP state that they are there to prevent and deter shoplifting. Not true. If they did manage to stop shoplifting, they would go out of business. It is purely a money making scheme for them and the retailer. The last I heard, RLP shared any money with the retailer on a 60/40 basis so by saying £150 for security costs cannot be true.

 

The general public pay for the security costs whenever they buy from a store and security costs are a core business cost which cannot be levied afterwards. ( exceptional circumstances aside)

 

Put this down to experience, don't do it again and don't worry about RLP or any low life debt collection agency that may write to you.

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

at 18 you are an adult as far as the law is concerned and you become responsible for your 15 year old friends actions.

 

as they shredded the packaging of several items the store could have taken action to force you to pay for their losses but they didnt so as above you can ignore RLP

 

because this all has nothing to do with them but consider yourself fortunate the store doesnt have the inclination to continue with this matter.

bear this in mind when you go along with someone else's harebrained ideas

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...