Jump to content

Anus Horribilis

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Anus Horribilis

  1. A very sad loss - he was a fine man.
  2. Ultimately that would be a matter for a court. But I think that as long as all reasonable steps were taken to expedite transfer, then a lawfully made citizen's arrest would not expire on grounds of time alone. If you caught a burglar in your home and it took the Police several hours to arrive, no English court would say you had acted unreasonably by holding him until then.
  3. There is no specified time limit for a citizen's arrest, only the requirement that the person is expeditiously transferred to police custody. Calling the police and awaiting their arrival would be lawful in my view. However this again raises the question of exactly how an angry and distressed shopper is to be held for several hours. Some stores attempt to search, question and detain suspected shoplifters in back rooms, where mistreatment and planting of evidence is more easily concealed (I'm not saying it happens very often, but it certainly happens). As discussed in previous topics, my firm advice to anyone challenged with a citizen's arrest would be to calmly wait in a public area of the store until police arrive. Refuse any suggestion of 'accompanying' staff to an out-of-sight area, or of being searched, questioned or otherwise interfered with. Resist passively, or if you have the capacity to use force effectively then do so to prevent the staff physically dragging you out of public sight. This would be lawful as a defence against assault.
  4. You are mistaken. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUESTS_AND_LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS.ashx
  5. Keep careful detailed notes from the beginning, and when they've let you down three times...... sue them. PS - if you didn't have a backup of your data, that's not their problem. Nobody can guarantee a single consumer-grade drive, so every user has to take ownership of data risks.
  6. I agree. If you had formally admitted theft to Police/Court, then they might sometimes have a basis to recover some damages. But you did not admit a theft, you did not commit a theft and you have not been convicted of a theft. So they would find it virtually impossible to win a civil claim against you. This is just speculative bullying by computer-generated form letter, ignore it.
  7. Absolutely. If you took the bacon from their store by accident, without dishonest intent, then you committed no crime. You should decline the offered FPN from the Police and tell them you'll defend yourself in court if they prosecute (they won't). Ignore Drydens completely, they have no moral or legal right to a penny from you and they'll be laughed out of court if they try to sue.
  8. Interesting reference in para 10 of the main judgement to 'they apprehended them and they took them back to a holding room for questioning, for identification, to await the police and to complete some paperwork'. Security staff have no right to take people anywhere, nor to question or identify them. They have the right to seize them and wait for the Police. Nothing more.
  9. That's not how the civil court process works in E&W. The court would not 'agree' to hear the case, because there is no preliminary consideration of the validity of a claim before it is accepted. So Parkco could sue the RK, and the claim would be processed in the normal way. It would only end if an application was successfully made by the defendant to have the case struck out, after receiving the particulars of claim. - The RK cannot expect to have a civil claim struck out on the grounds that 'there's no proof that I did it'. Axiomatically, it is for the court to weigh the evidence, not one of the parties. - The RK could apply to have the claim struck out on the specific defence that he was not the driver, and would have a fair chance of success if that was his part 15 defence. But if that's a false statement then he's committing a serious criminal offence (PCJ). I also didn't say that anyone would be found culpable by default. But the judge must make a decision, and the threshold is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a civil case, it's the much lower 'balance of probabilities'. So if the judge feels that the claim is slightly more persuasive than the defence, they can make that finding. A defendant who appeared evasive and dishonest in his statements to the court would be quite sufficient, IMHO.
  10. There is no reason at all why they cannot sue the RK. And why they cannot then ask the RK on oath who was driving the car on that day. And why a Judge cannot then find the claim proven if the RK's replies appear unconvincing or evasive. It is exceptionally unlikely that they will bring a claim in practice because the cost/benefit calculation is adverse, but it is not impossible.
  11. Sorry to hear this. Anyone thinking of becoming a PH customer knows what to expect.
  12. Good for you! Losing business is the only thing that really frightens these sharks, so hit them where it hurts!
  13. No, it isn't. It's a civil claim brought by a retailer with the aim of recovering damages from people they allege to be shoplifters. Unfortunately this process was grossly abused and inflated by unscrupulous companies until it became discredited and ineffective. You're wrong again. Reasonable costs may be awarded against a defendant who is successfully sued for damages, but that's so rare that it's not really worth discussing.
  14. You are the customer, and if they don't treat you that way then you should close your business with them.
  15. Submitting an 'appeal' is generally a bad idea. Firstly there's no real appeal, because it's not independently or objectively reviewed. Secondly, because the letter will usually include admissions (that you were driving, that you overstayed, etc) which makes court action easier for them. The advice here, and I think it's sound, is to either ignore them completely or to send a brief acknowledgement without concession of any facts -'I am not aware of owing you any debt. Please provide full details of the contract which you claim I entered into'.
  16. To the extent which it remains valid, the Bill of Rights does not prevent a private company or person from asking for payment of a debt which they believe is due to them.
  17. I agree. But don't try to pay off the whole agreement unless it's nearly completed. Often better to end the agreement and get new goods elsewhere. LindsLou has been in this agreement for 13 months @ £10pw, so has paid £540'ish. That's enough to buy a basic washer & dryer outright.
  18. There's only one kind of serious action which worries these firms, Daniel. Their business model relies upon customers who trust them and don't pay attention - to their consumer rights, and to the Total Cost of Ownership. So you need to wise-up and take charge of your finances. My advice to you is to start by reclaiming all the fees and charges they've been taking you for. Then terminate your agreements with them, and buy your goods from respectable suppliers. That's the Serious Action that will keep them awake at night.
  19. I think that you'll find this very difficult. BH's position will be that they visited their customer to discuss arrears, and it was agreed that the arrangement should be terminated. At her written request the goods were removed back to the store, to prevent further arrears from accumulating. They didn't threaten her at all, they were kind and generous and she thanked them for their help. Utter tosh of course, but you can't prove otherwise.
  20. Your ability to prove purchase of the cabinet is wholly irrelevant. They must think you're an idiot. Send them a Letter Before Action* setting out the damage caused by the neglect of their staff, and the compensation or rectification which you require from them. Include a photo of the damage, and a copy of the letter they have sent to you. Send it to their Head Office, for attention of Legal Department. They might contact you and put the matter right, but it's quite likely that they won't. You then need to commence a legal claim through Moneyclaim Online (http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk), and they will give in and pay. (* http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/taking-a-dispute-to-the-small-claims-court/sample-letter/)
  21. If B entered a defence denying responsibility, the creditor would simply add the RK as a joint defendant. At trial, the RK would be asked to confirm under oath that their car was being used by B at the time that the parking charge was incurred. B would be asked to confirm under oath whether this was true. The judge would decide which of them was telling the truth (it cannot be both, obviously). In a criminal court this would be called a "cut-throat" trial, because each defendant is necessarily seeking that the other is found responsible. Costs for both the claimant and the innocent defendant would usually be awarded against the defendant who was found to be responsible. So that defendant's liability might easily be in the thousands by the end of the process.
  22. I would guess it's vulnerable to a possible charge of fraud by false representation (with the intent to to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss) contrary to s2 Fraud Act 2006. In any event the point is moot, because if false details are supplied then the requirement of subsection ii) is met, because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. Liability therefore still falls to the RK. What will be interesting will be when RK says he lent the car to John Smith and gives his address, but John Smith then denies this. The creditor will have to sue them jointly and let the court award damages and costs against whichever is held to be dishonest. The creditor cannot lose (because if Smith is held to be truthful then RK must pay, and vice versa) but the time and cost of pursuing a case like this may be a significant deterrent. I suppose we will see a range of test cases and examples in the first year, and it will start to become evident how widely the new law will be used. As ever, it should not be assumed that I am advocating or supporting these new measures.
  23. I would be surprised if all those Parliamentary draftsmen, lawyers and industry consultations have created a defective law which is unenforceable through the courts. But if you are right, then it will be a major embarrassment for the government and all over the national news very quickly. We'll soon see, it comes into effect in Autumn. Personally I think it's quite simple. If a driver contracts for parking at a rate which is clearly signed and within the national guidance, then that driver can already be held liable in a civil court for payment of the due amount. If the sign says "Free for 2 hours, then £20 per hour" then the driver has not "failed to comply" if they stay for 8 hours. They have just chosen to use a parking facility at a cost of £120. This much is enforceable under current law I would say, but only against the driver. POFA's key change is to make the RK liable for any unpaid parking fees. This is supposed to give the parking companies a lass nasty enforcement option after the abolition of private clamping.
  24. s1(2) of Schedule 4 defines - a “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is— (a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b)authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; a “relevant obligation” means— (a)an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or (b)an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land; There is no obvious reason why this statute would be unenforceable, unless the demanded charge exceeded the Miinisterial guidance. I do agree that High Street brands would be foolish to pursue every minor overstay, and I should think that in practice they will make a safe allowance to avoid alienating genuine customers.
×
×
  • Create New...