Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • 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

Caught accidentally stealing from primark **Resolved**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1956 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

Today I was caught accidentally stealing from primark.

I tried on a coat which not uncommon for primark didn’t have the price tag attached,

didn’t realise at the time that where I tried it on didn’t have a mirror and so I walked to the changing room where I tried on a couple of other things which I didn’t end up wanting.

 

Coat not concealed, over my own bag or arm as not to drop it went to pay for other things.

Replied to a message on my phone and forgot I had it over my arm,

genuinely just exhausted from work and the gym and had a scatter brain moment,

 

I was approached on my way out and got taken to the security office where I actually offered to pay for the coat as I had intended to in the first place and explained the situation

 

said it was too late,

I’d receive a fine if I did not want police involved.

Security have my name and address.

 

What kind of fine can I expect?

I offered to pay for the coat which they refused and they didn’t lose any of the stores goods?

Can they fine me at all?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the RLP forum.

 

its not a fine and the staff should not have used that word...or did they ??

if they meantion restitution or RLP etc and you thought it will be a fine..

but anyway..its not a fine

 

 

there is nothing RLP can do to you.

they cant harm you or anything to do with you like credit file , records, visa's etc etc.

 

just simply ignore the letters you get from them.

 

if you use our search CAG box in the top red toolbar.

type in

 

primark rlp

 

you'll soon 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

They did use the word fine, when asked how much the fine would be he said “considerably more than the coat to be honest”

 

They did use the word fine, when asked how much the fine would be he said “considerably more than the coat to be honest”

 

They never mentioned RLP or Restitution

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they need to be told its not a fine

but they probably say that to give themselves some kind of ego boost.

 

no-one bar the police/courts can fine you.

and neither of these were nor now can be used against you

 

just ignore the RLP letters

and get reading up

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

because they never came..no involvement.

 

you'll have a 1001 questions

its better you get reading as advise in post 2 bottom.

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.

 

 

Security guards seem to think that any payment is a fine. It is not. What will happen is that you will get a lovely letter 'requiring' you pay a form of compensation for the store security time spent on your case. This is rubbish as store security are paid whether or not they apprehend anyone. If they were paid on results, they would never be able work and earn the minimum wage.

 

 

Nobody but the police and the courts can issue a fine. What RLP rely on is peoples lack of knowledge in civil court matters. RLP would have to advise Primark to take action as RLP can not do it themselves. Primark do not do civil court as it is not cost effective. Civil Claims of this sort can only put the retai;er back into the position before the event occurred so if a coat cost £50, that is all they could claim BUT only if they didn't get it back. As they did get it back, there is no loss so what's the point of going to court.

 

 

RLP state in their letters that each event costs £300-£500 to process. Rubbish of course but they put it in to try and convince you that their claim has some legitimacy. It doesn't!

 

 

Put this behind you. Ignore RLP as they can do nothing to you-ever. Get on with your life.

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 deal with security guards and others on an almost daily basis and they all use the word 'fine'

 

It isn't however, but is merely an offer to pay an amount in settlement of the retailer's option to sue you in the County Court for what they deem to be a contribution to the costs of security. They will rarely, if ever, take that option as it has been proven in the past to not represent any genuine loss to the store, so you can safely ignore any demand for payment - and there will be several such demands, using increasingly alarming language, and maybe ultimately a letter from a debt collector, however since no debt actually exists they are even more toothless than RLP. Stand firm, do not pay a penny and ignore all letters and you will be fine

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

It's not uncommon for the likes of RLP to contact those who have had their details taken after an alleged incident of shoplifting.

 

The whole RLP model was essentially dismantled and destroyed in 2012 in the case between A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K 2012 at the Oxford County Court, the whole model requiring those accused of shoplifting to pay "compensation" is flawed, and the judge found that there can be no provision for shoplifters to pay any contribution costs towards security, as this is merely an expense of running a business and that the security were actively involved in their duties, and not diverted from it, the same costs would've been incurred regardless of whether the incident occured or not, so long as the items were returned in a resalable condition.

 

You can ignore RLP by all means, nothing will happen, they have no capacity to issue proceedings against you anyways, and are essentially acting as a powerless third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal with security guards and others on an almost daily basis and they all use the word 'fine'

 

It isn't however, but is merely an offer to pay an amount in settlement of the retailer's option to sue you in the County Court for what they deem to be a contribution to the costs of security. They will rarely, if ever, take that option as it has been proven in the past to not represent any genuine loss to the store, so you can safely ignore any demand for payment - and there will be several such demands, using increasingly alarming language, and maybe ultimately a letter from a debt collector, however since no debt actually exists they are even more toothless than RLP. Stand firm, do not pay a penny and ignore all letters and you will be fine

 

Would speaking to the store manager help or not?

Feel like the security guards had rather a large god complex and saw the situation as black and white which wasn’t the case.

I dont particularly want the aggravation of receiving the letters requesting the money and debt letters and so on.

 

I understand the basis of which RLP work, and why not to pay etc.

But I’m my case where it was genuinely an accident and misunderstanding,

is there no way to avoid them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it wont stop rlp sadly

they couldn't careless..

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 was thinking about this case over the weekend. You did not conceal the coat which should have made security think that it was a mistake. A genuine thief would hide the coat.

 

 

It is very difficult to say what may happen if you contacted the store. He/She may accept it was a genuine mistake but equally may ignore your response.

 

 

There is nothing you can do to stop the letters from RLP and then possible debt letters. Treating them as a a game is a better option. Have a look at the stickies on this forum to see what is lawful and what is not.

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'd disagree, from working in store security in the past, whilst generally myself and others used to work under the approach, select, conceal, observe, non-payment and exit principles, it's actually quite common people being obvious, because it's "unusual",

 

you wouldn't think of a typical shoplifter putting a jacket on and walking out, because it's "obvious", however that's the point, removing the element of concealment can make it difficult to prove intention to permanently deprive ownership.

 

Whilst it's a while since I did this line of work, there was no "referrals" to any third party companies such as RLP where I worked.

 

I wouldn't bother writing or contacting the store management, nothing will come of it, stores will always side with their staff, especially where assets are concerned, you're essentially guilty until proven innocent in these environments, not to mention management/head office will have probably received similar letters.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing/quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

An update on this:

I received my letter from RLP yesterday, stating I had £150 to pay. I will attach a copy of this letter.

 

To avoid the aggravation I considered paying the fine,

however, decided on just trying them to see if they were understanding of my situation.

 

The man I spoke to was actually surprisingly understanding and helpful, offering to call the store to see if they would be willing to drop the case all things considered (in addition to personal circumstances which led to the error I dropped a few references to the Oxford case and the fact that they could not go to court to claim for losses they hadn’t incurred).

 

After around 8 minutes on hold, the claim has been “suspended indefinitely”.

I of course got them to put this in writing and email it over to me.

 

Thank you to any one who has helped with information on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a fine!!

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

An update on this:

I received my letter from RLP yesterday, stating I had £150 to pay. I will attach a copy of this letter.

 

To avoid the aggravation I considered paying the fine,

however, decided on just trying them to see if they were understanding of my situation.

 

The man I spoke to was actually surprisingly understanding and helpful, offering to call the store to see if they would be willing to drop the case all things considered (in addition to personal circumstances which led to the error I dropped a few references to the Oxford case and the fact that they could not go to court to claim for losses they hadn’t incurred).

 

After around 8 minutes on hold, the claim has been “suspended indefinitely”.

I of course got them to put this in writing and email it over to me.

 

Thank you to any one who has helped with information on here.

 

 

I am highly surprised at this. I would think the mentioning of the Oxford case wouldn't have made much difference as they could claim your case is different (it isn't) I bet you didn't record the call did you?

 

 

Make sure that before you upload anything, you remove all personal details.

 

 

I don't like the words 'suspended indefinitely' as it leaves them open to chase again but we will have to wait and see what comes out in the future.

 

 

A tentative well done.

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

your name will have been added to the mugs list for future reference.

They wot call the store because it has nothing to do with the store, just RLP inventing an amount and making a demand that has no legal basis so it wont matter to them what the store says unles the store suddenly decided to dispense with their "services" altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Prejudice

 

We thank you for your communication of 7 November 2018 in response to our client’s claim.

 

We have considered the points you have raised regarding the incident you were involved in and further reviewed and investigated the facts and matters presented by our client.

 

In the particular circumstances of this case, and whilst otherwise reserving its position generally and considering the fact that you acknowledge your “mistake,” our client is willing, to not to pursue this matter further.

 

Please be aware and be under no doubt, that if a similar incident occurs in the future, either in one of our client’s stores or at any store which is a member of the National Civil Recovery Programme the same leniency is unlikely to be applied.

 

The details of the incident will remain on our system. All data will be kept in strict compliance with General Data Protection Regulation EU 2016/679 (“GDPR”) and Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR & Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2018 ROI). Whilst this information will be passed to our client we will not process it any further or pass it on to a third party.

 

This incident is now closed and no further correspondence will be sent to you arising from this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

RLP | Tel: 0115 970 6231

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet 'our client ' wasnt even consulted!!

 

Ruddy powerless fleecers!!

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

Well that spells it out quite clearly and I hate to say it but RLP have done the right thing (for a change) I agree that it's likely that Primark had no say in the matter and RLP played Judge, Jury and executioner although not in this case.

 

 

I wonder if the statement on the GDPR applies to every case they deal with. I never thought that passing on personal details were lawful in the first place but that statement suggests that they wont.

 

 

I think it's safe to mark this thread as resolved.

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...