Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • written to my MP but Im unsure what can be done. The carpark is under council ownership, im not so sure it was previously, but either way.
    • remember you do not await any returns you must file your defence by 4pm day 33. i notice and have edited your defence filing date of 1st feb you put in response to our questionnaire. the corrected date is by 4pm 15th feb.   plenty of lowell claimform util threads here to read           
    • Hello there!  an update and a further question for you please..    Letter was sent back to Drydens Fairfax within  the 30 days disputing the claim due to student loans deferring the loans each year.     Received a letter from Drydens on 11/12 acknowledging the letter,  saying that the account had been put on a temporary hold whilst they contact their client with details of the query and that they will inform us as soon as a response is recieved from their client.   Then yesterday another letter of claim arrives, exactly the same as the one they sent in Nov, with no response to the letter we sent back to them in response to the previous letter of claim that they sent in Nov.      Do we just need to send another response back as we sent in Nov?   What are they playing at?   SLC never replied to the SAR that we sent off in Nov either.   Thanks again for your help with this.
    • not been reading up during the down times between each stage on here? so you know whats to come next at each stage and thus what to do? part of cag is self help.........   LEGAL : N180 Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track) **Correct at Sept 2016** - Legal - Consumer Action Group   i would recommend you do not give lowell sols your email/sig/phone - leave those blank on their copy  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

B&Q Security dragged me out of ny van over bogus theft assumption


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3496 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Given what has been said, I cannot believe his even got to the magistrates. I cannot understand how such a case, with all the inconsistencies, managed to pass the evidential test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wellllll... One could imagine that by B&Q putting pressure on to go to court, they could be trying to intimidate OP and also weaken his own case against B&Q and the security company... ? Just a thought... :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

no barrister yet, have another pre trial hearing on 2nd march and need to wait to see if police/cps complete the full file and continue with case, which i am pretty certain they will. a date will then be set for trial at crown court and a barrister will then become involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think this is a case of B&Q pushing it to go to court. They're standing by their staff and security, without more than likely seeing the statements given. I seriously hope you slam this lot for everything you can...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

well this is a most disgracefull act of violence.i would suggest you submit a formal complaint.this is infact at the most serious tier of assaults i consider this could be g b h .i assume u had member of the public watching all of this?.also u did right to go to a e dept as the police will need this as medical evidence.also if convicted u then may apply to the crimminal injuries compensation board .this is a body that deals with victims of crime to compensate .there are wiser people than me here so u will get the best advice .please remember u need to complain u have been assaulted.no complaint to the police them selves other than assault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the situation regarding the CCTV?

 

Are they saying there is nothing captured on CCTV, or are they saying there are no cameras?

 

If there are cameras in that store, I would say it was of paramount importance that this evidence should have been seized by the Police. It doesn't matter whether the video shows anything or not. Even if the CCTV didn't show anything, this should be included in the 'unused material' section of the Police Case file and listed on the 'unused material schedule'.

 

Indeed, if it was the case a certain camera didn't show anything - this could be valuable evidence.

 

Your solicitor will get a full file which will have an unused material schedule. Your solicitor will review this and request to see some of the items. (unfortunately, you can't just request everything as this is considered a 'fishing expedition).

 

What about timings of all these security guards coming running out of the store. Surely that must be on CCTV?

 

I suspect like most places the CCTV is only held for four weeks.

 

FP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subscribing, and to say i hope you get some good news, and a very bright light at the end of this atrocious tunnel that you can shine into their covering up, lying eyes with.

A pun is the lowest form of humor -- when you don't think of it first.

-- Oscar Levant

 

Politicians are wonderful people as long as they stay away from things they don't understand, such as working for a living.

-- P. J. ORourke

Link to post
Share on other sites
returned this morn tp police sttion only to be told i was being charged with shoplifting and common assault!! cannot believe it.

 

i asked what further evidence they had gathered and all they would tell me is that they had taken further statements from other members of staff. i asked if i would be re-interviewed, obviously to put my side forward, but they said it was not neccesary and would be dealt with at court.

 

just dont know what cock and bull stories they have come up with now, but must be enough to convince cps to roll with it.

 

due in court 5th jan, just waiting for solictior to get copies of statements now to see what has ben said.

 

 

This may be to your advantage. You will have time to study this evidence with your solicitor and come up with a defence in good time. I can't believe they didn't put this evidence to you.

 

I take it this was 'uniform' investigating you and not CID?

 

Your solicitor should have an idea of most the statements from the Narey file. (like a mini file used for first court sittings.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just wanted to make a point here about something called "continuity".

 

if the security guard was watching this on CCTV,he must have lost sight of the OP when he left the cameras and ran out to stop him.Therefore continuity of evidence is lost .This is why CCTV is fallible.Presumably there should,for the arrest to be a good one,there should be a statement from someone else saying they watched the OP on the CCTV camera when the first guard left the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't surprise me if this gets dropped given you have opted for commital to the Crown Court (as is your right with an either way offence).

 

A more senior CPS worker will have to review this file as its going to Crown. I'm pretty sure they won't run with it unless they think they have a good chance of a conviction.

 

I can assure you Crown court judges do not like having their time wasted.

 

 

 

I really hope this works out for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a thought, as they managed to produce a set of drill bits when they claimed you were searched, someone must have gone to the area where the bits were on display and picked up a package.

Your solicitor needs to get a copy of the in-store video that shows who visited that area of the store after you left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a thought, as they managed to produce a set of drill bits when they claimed you were searched, someone must have gone to the area where the bits were on display and picked up a package.

Your solicitor needs to get a copy of the in-store video that shows who visited that area of the store after you left.

 

Exactly the reason why all CCTV evidence should be seized by the Police when conducting their enquiry. It is considered good practice to do this even if it doesn't appear to have evidential value at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hello im back!!! Sorry not replied for ages, had no pc as it has been broke!

 

CPS still running with it at crown, got to go for 2 day trial on the 8th July.

 

Nothing much to report other than the fact that B + Q are saying that the camera which is in the security room where i was taken to (and apparently produced the dril bits from my pockets on request) was not working and they have no recording. How on earth can a security room where suspects are taken have no facility for recording images? Surely this is where they would gather most of their evidence of the crime? Im thinking this is their way of covering up the fact that the drill bits were put in the office by the security and not found upon me. Also covers up nicely the way they treated me and threw me round the office.

 

The guard was employed by VSG and not in house but was not at the time wearing his sia badge and people i know have since been in and stated he is still not wearing it, which is apparently against the rules of the sia.

 

Only time will tell, there are quite a few discrepancies in their statements, just hope they get tripped up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

just to respond to the rights of security guards,

 

i am in the military and my current role involves armed and unarmed security of mod and military establishments,

 

our training is extensive as we need to know what we can do not only as soldiers but when dealing with criminals which are not carrying out acts likely to endanger life,

 

our training incorporates what a good civilian security guard is allowed to do ,

firstly a security guard does not hold a home office warrant card and therefore cannot read you your rights,

they cannot search you without your permission,

they must call the police to do this,

 

unless you are actually committing the offence they cannot use force to or violence of any kind to subdue you,

if using citizens arrest they must detain you in veiw of others or at the scene and not to transport you in anyway to any private or hidden location.

 

dialogue must first be established,

he should have first chalenged you by stating his suspicions and asking you to accompany him while the issue is cleared up or police called,

 

as an armed soldier with extensive public order and personal safety training i have to follow these rules (unless the crime endangers or has taken human life).

 

Under the freedom of information act request this mans accreditation or certificate,

and if which i doubt it is produced request from the organisation who issued it their rules and rights under which they train security guards,

this will clearly show what he is and is not allowed to do.

 

One day this thug will pick on the wrong person (like me) and using the right to defend myself he will find the only thing that beats him to hospital would be the headlights on the ambulance ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

the above includes uniformed and non uniformed guards, they must always identify themselves, stating their name ,job title (i.e security) and their suspicion. they also need to show identification to prove who they are and that proves they are what they claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, forgot... a good security guard should use neccessary force and not REASONABLE force, did he use force neccessary for the situation...if the term reasonable is used it can be ambiguous as you, me, a judge , joe bloggs all have different ideas on what reasonable is, whereas neccessary force can be shown i.e ''it was neccessary to grab his arm to stop him punching'' as apposed to ''it was reasonable to punch him in the head repeatedly untill he stop struggling '

Link to post
Share on other sites
the above includes uniformed and non uniformed guards, they must always identify themselves, stating their name ,job title (i.e security) and their suspicion. they also need to show identification to prove who they are and that proves they are what they claim.

 

Plain clothes staff carrying out licensable activity do not have to openly display their licence on their person in many cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However there are some cirumstances,eg where the person is trying to escape where that dialogue and preamble are not going to happen,when you are chasing someone for example.

 

In addition,civilians have a power of arrest to arrest someone to prevent a breach of the peace when it is imminently about to occur,which is a notable exception.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to B&Q Security dragged me out of ny van over bogus theft assumption
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...