Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would guess so dx which is why I've asked the OP to upload the original invoice.
    • ps i doubt the PCN says macdonalds?? MET dont operate a reverse trespass car park for mc'd's parkers going to starbucks...(occupants left vehicle claim) they only do that for the starbucks part  i bet you parked in the starbuck side and walked to MCd's? dx    
    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge .............. please fill out the Q&A ASAP. dx  
    • Well done on reading the other threads. If ECP haven't got the guts to do court then there is no reason to pay them. From other threads there is a 35-minute free stay after which you need to pay, with the signs hidden where no-one will read them.  Which probably explains why ECP threaten this & threaten that, but in the end daren't do court. As for your employer - well you can out yourself as the driver to ECP so the hamster bedding will arrive at yours.  Get your employer to do that using the e-mail address under Appeals and Transfer Of Liability.  
  • 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

Falsely accussed of shoplifting.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5961 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

My niece who has special needs was shopping in a small jewelry/accessories store with her sister and some church friends. She purchased a pair of sunglasses and as she was leaving the store, the manager ran up to her and her sister and accussed them of shoplifting. They went back into the store. my niece called her mom to tell her that they had to wait at the store for security because they were being accussed of stealing. Mall security was called and also the police. They found no stolen merchandise. My sister arrived and was told that they were stealing yet nothing stolen was found, they had receipts for all puchases. They were questioned in the middle of the store, humiliated in front of customers for 2 hours (this was the day after Christmas, so the store was very busy). The stress and confusion of all this caused my niece to have a seizure. The security guard proceeded to try to take her picture during the seizure for a ban and bar from the entire shopping mall. They accussed my 15 year old niece of using her 20 year old special needs sister to steal things. That she put her up to something that didn't even happen. They said that my niece looked suspicous because she fidgets and holds the merchandise in a way that looks as if she is going to steal. My niece is mentally challenged and has epilepsy. She is too innocent to ever think of stealing. She is now very confused and does not understand why the police treated her this way. Not to mention her 15 year old sister who was humiliated in front of her peers. Security refuses to remove the ban and bar even though the parents have tried to explain her innocence. They have tried calling talking to the manager of the store, but the police will not allow it. The corporate office of the store will not return their phone call. My sister has the police report and there is no proof that anything was stolen. Do they have a discrimination case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure about discrimination- that would depend on whether a person with disability was treated differently (worse) in comparison to a non-disabled person. Leaving the issue of discrimination on a side, I think your sister has a valid complaint nevertheless. I think your nieces were treated in a horrendous manner , even if the security had a reason to be suspicious. Now everything needs to put in writing- no more calls. Strong complaint to the manager of the shopping centre, to the manager of the security company and to the CEO/managing director of the shop/store chain where the purchases were made. Copy the letter also to your community safety officer (police) and your councilor. Describe the event but focus also on a bigger picture; lack of training of the security guards, mistreatment of people with "invisible" disabilities, lack of sensitivity on a part of security and shop management, and health and safety issue (did anyone come to help during the seizure? was the seizure recognised by the staff?, possible personal injury claim). I would really heap it on- they deserve to be properly afraid of legal action and your nieces deserve apology.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, this is a UK consumer forum and the laws are different here, so I'm afraid any advice you would be given would be quite irrelevant to your case.

 

May I suggest you have a look for something like this site on a search limited to the US? Or can you not find an attorney to give you some pro-bono advice maybe?

 

I wish you all the best. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the details of the law may be slightly different, I wouldn't think the situation described by the poster would be acceptable and reasonable in USA. So I would still encourage the OP to start by written complaint.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...