Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 2143 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,

 

I made a very stupid choice and shoplifted some stuff from Primark, I was in a rush to meet my friends and decided to just leave, the total price was approx £55.

(Worst mistake ever)

 

I'm on a work visa in UK and going to my country to apply for an extension for my visa.

During my detention in Primark, the security guy asked me for my ID and I showed him my passport/BRP cause that's the only form of valid ID I have in UK. Therefore, he got to know that I'm not a national and threatened me that he will report this incident to the Home Office and RLP who will claim the fine from me.

 

The security guy was extremely rude and told me that he doesn't want people like me in this country and he will do everything to get me out of here and never enter again.

 

I cried and begged him to not do this and that this will never happen again but he simply dismissed me.

 

I'm very very scared now. I don't have any past criminal record. This was my only stupid mistake.

 

I'm ready to pay any sort of fine but I don't want this to be on my criminal record.

 

Do you think the Home Office will dismiss my visa application cause of this or will this be on my criminal record?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm an International recent graduate on a Tier5 temporary work visa, which I received after Tier 4 student visa.

 

I made a very stupid choice and shoplifted some stuff from Primark, I was in a rush to meet my friends and decided to just leave, the total price was approx £55.

(Worst mistake ever)

 

I'm on a work visa in UK and going to my country to apply for an extension for my visa.

During my detention in Primark, the security guy asked me for my ID and I showed him my passport/BRP cause that's the only form of valid ID I have in UK. Therefore, he got to know that I'm not a national and threatened me that he will report this incident to the Home Office and RLP who will claim the fine from me. He has also taken the address of my home country + passport details and told me that I will receive my letter there directly.

 

The security guy was extremely rude and told me that he doesn't want people like me in this country and he will do everything to get me out of here and never enter again.

 

I cried and begged him to not do this and that this will never happen again but he simply dismissed me.

 

I'm very very scared now. I don't have any past criminal record. This was my only stupid mistake.

 

I'm ready to pay any sort of fine but I don't want this to be on my criminal record.

 

Do you think the Home Office will dismiss my visa application cause of this or will this be on my criminal record?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He didnt use the word fine

And i hope not the home office

If not a serious complaint needs to be made to the CEO of Primark

Ignore rlp

And it can never harm your immigration status nor visa

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 security guard was nothing more than a bully and a liar and cannot do anything they threaten to.

 

They can't contact the Home Office and even if they stood outside with a big placard it will be them who get arrested, not you.

 

This has nothing to do with the police, Home Office or anyone else who can affect your future here or anywhere else. If they recovered the goods in saleable condition that is now the end of the matter as far as English law is concerned.

 

What you may get is some rather scary begging letters dressed up as something they are not. The company RLP has nothing to do with anything and like the security guard are not afraid to tell you things that arent true to scare you into paying them.

 

All of the threads here say the same thing- dont pay them as you have no reason to do so

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

He did say that the RLP will send the letter for the amount fined to me directly to my home country and that he will inform the Home Office about this incident.

I don't know he was just threatening me or if he was actually going to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really hope this doesn't affect my visa application, have worked really hard for it.

Applying for the visa next week, let's hope it all goes through smoothly.

 

Thank you very much for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RLp will not do anything like that, and NOTHING will happen to affect your visa application. The security guard is lying to you.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

 

Can I just say first, deciding to steal is not a mistake, it is a poor choice. That is your slap on the wrist from me.

 

 

It seems that the security company used by Primark have no clue what they can do or what they can say. It sounds like this security guard has an inferiority complex and needs to justify his/her existence by making threats that cannot happen. This attitude puts a severe stain on other good security staff.

 

 

This event will have no impact on your visa extension. If there are any questions such as " have you been convicted of any crime", the answer is a truthful NO as no police or criminal court was involved.

 

 

Yes, you will get a few letters from RLP but they can safely be ignored. When you get the letters, read them at least twice in detail to realise that they are powerless. You might even get letters from a debt collector but they have as much power as I do over you. (That will be none)

 

 

Do not respond to any letters nor ring them. By doing so will only encourage them.

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

I know it was a very poor choice and I'm never repeating that again.

Really hope everything goes well with the visa application.

 

I will keep you all updated and will not respond to any stupid letters.

 

Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...