Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

TK MAX and RLP -Incorrectly priced bag


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4919 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

The security's behavior is another thing. They dragged us to the room. When I said that they should not touch us, the security guy just laughed and said that minimal force is allowed because we were not co-operative. It seems to me that he created the law himself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

She didn't commit an offence, its a [problem].

I might add, I certainly don't think she is dishonest, she new the bag wasn't £500. it was a loose tag, she threw it on the floor, often there are price tags with items which are obviously nothing to do with the item. What do most of us do.? I certainly disregard them and ask for the correct price. Then decide if I want to purchase it or not.

Security probably saw them comming and thought, perfect victims!

 

I comletely agree with you. A young girl with an elderly lady. They claimed that I was really happy when I got this bag. Why shouldn't a costumer be happy after purchasing something that she/he likes? Their arguments made no sense to me.

If the sales assistant would request me to pay 500 I would pay or I would just leave it. They requested 49, I paid. It was their duty to check twice if not sure about the price. The security claimed that they sell thousands of bags and its impossible to remember prices.Of course, but there exists a code which can be easily checked in the computer...

I really do not know what to do, either pay these 80 or fight for my rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The security guy made me sign a banning notice and made me admit "dishonesty". It was probably recorded so it would be almost impossible to win my claim.

 

Any admission made by you in the circumstances is worthless as it was made under duress.

 

I don't recall seeing it anywhere but what happened to the bag? Did security take it off you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the criminal action which has been taken against you (identify the precise charge and relevant legislation if known), who is prosecuting the criminal action and what is the forum / venue for the criminal action?

 

x20

 

Dear Surfaceagent,

I had to sign a banning notice and they want me to pay a fine to Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us

As I am not a thief, I don't want to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Surfaceagent,

I had to sign a banning notice and they want me to pay a fine to Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us

As I am not a thief, I don't want to do it.

 

 

Did they actually call it a fine, and have you had anything in writing from RPL yet?

 

Have a read of the Debenhams thread I posted a link to above.

 

Whatever you do, don't pay anything, and don't talk to RPL or any DCA on the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine the best course of action is to write to the TK MAxx head office and make a formal complaint about the actions of the security guards initially.

 

Was the money that you paid for the bag refunded or have they kept that as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

r.mayer, please stand your ground on this. You'll get lots of support from others on this site. TK Maxx have been involved in too many cases like this. If you pay them they'll do the same to someone else. Let us know how you get on and good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I am writing as I experienced a very unpleasant situation while shopping with my mother in the TkMax Hammersmith store.

I understand that my actions were slightly wrong but I would be grateful for your advice. I'm describing the situation below.

While shopping my mother saw a Marc Jacobs bag with a loose price tag inside (about 500 pounds). We took out the tag and I asked the sales associates for the price. They answered that the bag is worth 49 pounds (as other bags were worth a similar amount). I just took it to the till and paid.

When we were coming out of the store the security directed us to the interview room where we were made to admit "a dishonest appropriation” of the item. The security staff were almost aggressive while talking to us. I was so stressed that I just admitted it. However, I did not swap the tags(I dropped the tag on the floor) and I asked the sales assistants for the price which they quoted. I just paid the amount I was requested to pay.

I'm a law student and thats why I'm so angry.

 

I'm sorry but I think you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to try and get a very expensive item a lot cheaper by using an element of dishonesty.

 

Had you simply asked if the price tag inside was correct then fine but instead you used subterfuge in the hope to get a bargain as you, or your ma, appear to know who the designer Marc Jacobs is.

 

Not sure of the criminal element but I think a ban from the store is appropriate and which they are entitled to enforce.

 

However, the accusation of dishonest appropriation could well be accurate and no doubt they have your actions on camera which is why you were stopped.

 

As a law student surely you must recognise you were asking for trouble?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I think you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to try and get a very expensive item a lot cheaper by using an element of dishonesty.

 

Had you simply asked if the price tag inside was correct then fine but instead you used subterfuge in the hope to get a bargain as you, or your ma, appear to know who the designer Marc Jacobs is.

 

Not sure of the criminal element but I think a ban from the store is appropriate and which they are entitled to enforce.

 

However, the accusation of dishonest appropriation could well be accurate and no doubt they have your actions on camera which is why you were stopped.

 

As a law student surely you must recognise you were asking for trouble?

 

Sorry Al, but you really are talking rubbish here. Perhaps you should read the thread properly before jumping in and making accusations of criminal behaviour without the substance to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite agree with Al. while there may not be an element of theft, the Op has certainly used subterfuge in order to gain a price advantage. There is no other way of stating it. If the label had fell out it would be a different matter, but to deliberately remove it in the hope of getting it at a better price is damned wrong. the OP cannot be said to have done nothing wrong - they have even admitted it themselves, and I am very surprised tha this is being defended on this site.

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a criminal aspect to this situation; but for those questioning the OPs honesty, maybe the OP can clarify a couple of questions;

 

1 - Why did you feel the need to remove the tag, and then ask the price - rather than query whether the price was correct?

 

2 - How did you move from "working within the luxury goods industry" on the 24th August to becoming a "Law Student" by the 26th August?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite agree with Al. while there may not be an element of theft, the Op has certainly used subterfuge in order to gain a price advantage..

 

The only problem with this viewpoint is that the OP then asked a member of staff to verify what the price of the item was. It would be stretching things considerably to describe that as subterfuge.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a criminal aspect to this situation; but for those questioning the OPs honesty, maybe the OP can clarify a couple of questions;

 

1 - Why did you feel the need to remove the tag, and then ask the price - rather than query whether the price was correct?

 

2 - How did you move from "working within the luxury goods industry" on the 24th August to becoming a "Law Student" by the 26th August?

 

since when were students barred from doing part time work ...just a guess, not beyond the realms of possibility

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys! NOT helping here! Could you possibly carry on your bickering by PM instead of hijacking OP's thread? :mad:

 

I think it is of absolute importance Bookie - and I fully agree with Al(nearly having a heart attack saying it) and gyzmo.

 

Was this theft? No. However, the OP has clearly, by her own admission, made a deliberate and intentional attempt to disguise the price as shown on the bag. Anyone who says this isnt dishonest really is being delibrately obtuse - to my mind, it is the definition of.

 

Does this actually change the situation? No - TK Maxx did state a price, and the price requested paid. As such, no crime, and OTT behaviour by TK MAxx and their representatives. But I really do think it is crucially important that the OP realises that her behaviour was inappropriate and dishonest.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this theft? No. However, the OP has clearly, by her own admission, made a deliberate and intentional attempt to disguise the price as shown on the bag. Anyone who says this isnt dishonest really is being delibrately obtuse - to my mind, it is the definition of.

 

The only flaw here is that the OP has also made a deliberate effort to find out the correct price by asking a member of staff to verify it. That is hardly the actions of someone dishonest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But has also made a deliberate effort to ensure that the reason he was querying the price was hidden.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would say(at the risk of being lynched) is that all those saying the actions werrent dishonest, I strongly suspect KNOW they are talking rubbish, and are just being somewhat trollish in their behaviour, and wishing to provoke a reaction.

 

I think that ANYONE with any kind of morals KNOWS that there was at least an element of dishonesty here - the OP included(who has basically admitted that it wasnt entirely honest). If people genuinely think that this was 100% honest, then I am genuinely saddened by the sense of decency in this country.

  • Haha 1

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

I am a licenced SIA security officer and i am not shocked at reading this thread. There are many security officers that i would not trust. All security officers must follow certain rules before you can stop a suspect. You must first see them approach the item, then select that item and then conceal/remove the price tag etc. And then leave without offering payment etc. The security have to then wait till you have left the property and then detain you on suspession of theft or fraud etc. The fact that the police where not called means that you won't have a record. May i ask how old you are ? The reason i'm asking is that there are certain things that must be followed before civil recovery is issued. You are within your rights to view the cctv under the data protection act at a cost of £10. I would also make enquries and find out if the security are SIA licenced. If not then the security are breaking the law. Was the banning order a verbal or writen banning order. And as the police where not called to confirm details etc it can't be used.

Cases won.

 

Littlewoods, Moorecroft,Nationwide £923.12 written off

 

CapQuest Debt Recovery

£687.34 written off OH

Reliable Collections

£2076.11 too be written off OH

 

Egg

£317.38 Charges paid back and cheque for £250.64 p for myself

 

If i have been any help to you tip my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

However removing the price tag and dropping it on the floor which you admit to doing yourself, and then asking a member of staff for the price and then paying that price at the tills is an offence. In fact what you have done is an arrestable offence under the police and criminal evidence act as you have commit theft/fraud by deception. The fact that the item may have been priced incorrectly doesn't matter. The fact is you did this offence and have admited it there and then as well as on here. I work in that high street and if you where to try that where i work you would be taken away in cuffs and have a criminal record and proberly out of work right now. So count yourself lucky

Cases won.

 

Littlewoods, Moorecroft,Nationwide £923.12 written off

 

CapQuest Debt Recovery

£687.34 written off OH

Reliable Collections

£2076.11 too be written off OH

 

Egg

£317.38 Charges paid back and cheque for £250.64 p for myself

 

If i have been any help to you tip my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...