Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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 2083 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 all,

 

I resigned from my part-time job in Sainsbury's on 4th June 2018 for theft of Nectar points on the till, i.e. crediting my Nectar card with £110 worth of points.

I was in absolute bits when I was hauled in and questioned over it because it was only then that it hit me, although at the time of course I knew what I was doing. I was a genuine dickhead for doing what I did because he was a decent manager and I abused his trust.

 

At first the store manager wasn't sympathetic and alluded to the fact that police might be involved.

However later on because of the dates (I had been working there for more than a year and the first occurrence of this was on 21st May 2018) and because he knew my character and that I really didn't enjoy working there at all we had a chat

 

was very kind and advised me to resign so I wouldn't have to attend the investigatory meetings during my contracted working hours (I also had a holiday booked at that time so it couldn't have been worse timing). My Nectar card (registered with a false name and details) and colleague discount card were also taken.

 

I've gotten back from holiday today to a letter form the DWP stating that I must pay £150 within 14 days to cover 'security costs' (by 25th June), however a breakdown of the sum I am supposed to pay back doesn't detail figures of any sort, simply £ signs, and then underneath this sum they say I'm supposed to pay.

 

in addition it states that it was one incident that occurred on 4th June when I wasn't even in the country let alone still working there, as opposed to when it actually first occurred on 21st May,

 

I used the points on a small number of basic groceries in store which to my understanding is what they could legitimately pursue me for (£12/£13 at stretch), but vast majority of the points were spent on eBay so I'm wondering if it would go that far since my Nectar card was taken.

 

From what I've read so far I'm supposed to ignore the letters however as I was a former employee I don't know what could happen if i don't pay up.

Also I would like to know what sort of reference would be given in this instance when applying for jobs (I have a degree and have been applying for jobs for the past year but with no joy).

 

there is nothing stated relating to police charges and fines I haven't received any direct correspondence from Sainsbury's themselves.

I'm already out of a job, can't seem to find something that utilises my degree and my parents are always extremely unhelpful and always demanding unreasonable amounts of money for unclear reasons directly and indirectly so paying the fine would put me in an even tighter spot financially.

 

They do not know about this and of course would kick up an almighty fuss if they did, so any advice on what to say in terms of my newfound availability of time would be great.

 

This was a hard lesson learned and although I grew to hate working there, I'm more disappointed in myself for letting down my former boss and the people I worked with (a couple of who contacted me afterwards and said they thought it wasn't a big deal, but I'm still paranoid about it). At no point did I take money from any till and have never done so in any previous job.

 

I have attached a picture of the letter for reference.

Any help would be greatly appreciated and thank you to CAG and co for what is already available.

IMG_2497.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

its DWF not DWP and you totally ignore them.

 

it is NOT a fine either

 

its money to line their pocket do they can go away on holiday

Sainsbury don't see a penny!!

 

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

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

My understanding is that the fact that it was an employee means the store (& DWF) have more chance of pursuing for security costs.

The fact that it was a member of staff and not a customer distinguishes this from the Oxford case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would've been the Eagle Eye software that flagged up a discrepancy, the fact that one particular Nectar card was used an abnormal number of times on a checkout you were logged into.

 

This software is automated and requires very little human interpretation, the chances of Sainsbury's pursuing you for security costs is in my opinion very small, it would not be cost effective for them to take legal action.

Start every day off with a smile and get it over with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To further expand on my reply,

 

If the nectar card concerned was virtually only ever credited with points on a checkout you were logged into then after a certain period of time this would be a red flag for Eagle Eye.

 

Ironically if you'd taken money from the checkout this would have been a lot harder to link to you as each checkout is often used by multiple operators in any given day and the only real way of linking an individual to a cash theft is via CCTV or doing a search and finding them with the money.

 

This is time consuming and is far more likely to be pursued through the courts by Sainsburys.

 

The fact that Sainsbury's has farmed this out to DWF is a strong indicator that they have washed their hands of it.

Start every day off with a smile and get it over with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as a former employee nothing more will come out of it?

 

Also how long might they be sending these letters for?

 

I can't comment on the recovery aspect of this, but it isn't the case that "nothing more will come out of it".

 

This can be mentioned in any reference given for you.

Or the employer may refuse to provide a reference

- which can be even worse as the assumption of other employers is that you've done something far worse.

 

And if you are claiming benefits, the DWP will contact the employer to confirm your reason for leaving, so you are probably going to be sanctioned.

 

Doing this sort of thing is never "right" but dishonesty in employees is generally considered a serious matter.

You really need to try to get some work through agencies or something similar

- absolutely ANY work

- to get a new employers reference.

And don't ever get caught in dishonesty at work again.

 

Preferably not any dishonesty, but definitely not at work.

People have ended up unable to get a job for years because of stupidity like this.

 

Hopefully it won't come to that here, but you need to realise just how very serious this is in terms of your employment potential.

You've been lucky.

 

It was not just theft - it was fraud and theft.

They could have called the police.

They could have not let you resign, but sacked you.

Please don't take such chances with your life again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

 

Employee theft 'may' be treated as a more serious case than shoplifting crimes as this is because of the abuse of trust. Whether Sainsburys will take action against you is unsure at the moment. DWF can do no more than send you letters with veiled threats but actually mean nothing. Listing security costs as a reason for chasing you is neither here nor there as even if the store security was involved, they are paid to do it and this cost is part of the stores base costs.

 

 

The role of the manager is to oversee all the running of the store and that should include employee theft however if that is NOT the case then theoretically they could bill you for his time but in my opinion that is unlikely.

 

 

I would ignore everything from DWF however if you get anything from a solicitor titled 'Letter Before Action/Claim' come here first and let us see the letter.

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

Would you say it's safer to just pay the £150?

I really don't want to risk any chance of getting the police involved so even if Sainsbury's don't see any of it I just want it over and done with without the potential to get police involved, even though it has been a while.

 

From what I know they go to to store manager primarily for a reference if required and considering his response at the time he won't mention it, however if it's from head office I'm sure they will and the idea of an affected reference is bad enough.

 

Now I realise just how stupid I was and I'm a lot smarter than that

- despite the pressures I face and lack of support at home, I still chose to take those actions.

 

I don't claim benefits and I live at home.

I don't want people to think of me as a dishonest because I know that is not what I am at all.

 

In terms of references would it be generally seen as acceptable to give references from individuals other than my most recent or current job, or suspect?

 

Thank you so much for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

god no don't pay DWF, they are nothing to do with IF IF IF this did go anywhere

and it WON'T stop that by paying a 3rd party...!!

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

I agree with DX. If police action were to be considered that is a different ball game. DWF have no authority to pass the case on to the police. Any action should the police get involved is separate to what DWF are claiming for and if you were unlucky enough to have a visit from the feds, this would not stop DWF claiming their pound of flesh.

 

 

Ignore them. They may be a firm of solicitors but their power over you is nil.

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

But my worry is that if they don’t they’ll tell Sainsbury’s and then they might be triggered to do so. I’m just wondering if they might given it’s been nearly three weeks and I resigned rather than be suspended and attend the investigatory meetings/dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the police were not involved at the time the offence was brought to your attention, it's highly unlikely they will do so. The letter you have clearly states there is a nil value for stolen goods/points so how could the police do anything with a no value claim.

 

 

I have not heard of any case that was passed on to DWF or RLP where the police have got involved after the event and it's been a few years as well. Worrying over what 'might' happen is doing you no good whatsoever whereas knowing what 'WILL' happen should assist your thinking.

 

 

 

DWF Will continue to send letters. Once the letter process is complete DWF WILL stop writing to you. What MIGHT happen is that they may try and use the debt collection route and use a DCA to contact you which means nothing. DCAs have less power over you than I do.

 

 

By paying DWF does not stop any police proceedings IF they have been started. We nor you know whether any action has been started by the police and DWF can't pass the details on to them. Sainsburys could but they are likely to consider the matter closed as you have resigned.

 

 

MY opinion is that the police will never get involved so it won't do you any harm by ignoring DWF

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

for as lonmg as they get paid to write them. As sainsburys chip into a scheme for such things I would expect DWF to send 3 or 4 letters as their contractual obligation and then ask Sainsburys if they want to chuck some more money into the pot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all,

 

My mother has said she has tried to contact Virgin Mobile in regards to getting a contract phone but apparently it is on record that there is £150 owed by her because of this.

 

Sainsbury's and DWF has not contacted me at all via post or telephone in regards to doing anything like this at all.

Is this legal?

should I ignore it?

Many thanks for your assistance once again.

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, this is attached to my address so I'm in a pickle as to what to do. Should I just pay and have it taken off? i know this approach they've taken is far from legal but it seems they've attached it to my address and I did not steal money so I don't know why they're acting as if I have, but I really don't want further repercussions. Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly it isn’t “far from legal”.

Whilst any credit check done on your Mum might show a link to you / you sharing an address, and she can have a “notice of notice of dissociation” placed on her credit report, Virgin don’t have to offer her credit / a subsidised phone.

Why not buy the phone ooutright and use Virgin PAYG or a different network?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so if I do pay will this be taken off? Can she and I have a have a “notice of dissociation” on her report? How do I go about it? I don't entirely understand as DWF haven't contacted me at all about it and it has nothing to do with anybody else in my household.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest to God, the two aren't connected. My mother only found out about this because of her enquiry with Virgin and came to ask me. I have never been with them.

 

What I was meaning was is it a coincidence? I wonder if it's worth your looking at your and your mother's credit refs further.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...