Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Banks have different limits above which they require Probate. So it may be Probate is not needed, although as he died with no Will that could complicate things. Is all the £28k with Virgin Money? Your wife should contact all banks who hold his money with the death certificate and ask them what they need to release the funds to her. Most banks have a central "bereavement department". Check their websites. Use that department rather than general call centre or bank branch. Your wife may also have to provide evidence that she is his daughter. When his wife died it sounds like they had a joint bank account so that's why her money just went across to him. But as it isn't a joint account now transfer to your wife won't be quite that simple.  
    • That explains it then. MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed.  'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky? The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.
    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
  • 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

RLP Claim Debenhams **Case closed**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5452 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

Police have upheld several cases where the defendant has passed the last point of payment, when they have concealed the goods,I know of these personally-the person has been found guilty.

I have also known of cases where (where for example there was a gang of accomplies waiting outside,where the descision to stop them inside has been upheld) many other cases too.

 

My personal experience-not just from lawbooks.

 

Shanty again the police can uphold what they like but they don't make the law (& they frequently get it wrong) & unless the person has left the store there is no crime - I suspect that in the cases you refer to the person has admitted their intention to steal when confronted with the evidence - however I say it again for you to think that a crime has been committed BEFORE it's actually been committed is somewhat worrying as it demonstrates poor training

 

Had those that you say who have been found guilty had decent legal counsel it's very doubtful that they would have been found guilty at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

All those cases were taken on by the cps-and sentanced-I think I have already proved my point.

Yet again you are only speaking from your books.

 

If you think the Police are poorly trained in accepting those charges-and the cps for accepting them,you obviously far superior in knowledge to both.

 

When a person has used wire cutters to cut tags off items,then puts them in their coat and zips up the coat,passes a point of payment and is stopped past that payment point,plus is a known thief, is violent,and is stopped outside the first door,but inside the final set of doors for the safety of the security staff,and the person admits it-hey-off course they have committed the crime-It has been demonstrated time and time again.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point here is that the act was a consequence of an illness, not a premeditated act of theft, a fact clearly recognised by the CPS. I wonder if Debenhams would be as quick to sue for damages, say, an epileptic who involuntarily urinated on their carpet whilst having a seizure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All those cases were taken on by the cps-and sentanced-I think I have already proved my point.

Yet again you are only speaking from your books.

 

If you think the Police are poorly trained in accepting those charges-and the cps for accepting them,you obviously far superior in knowledge to both.

 

When a person has used wire cutters to cut tags off items,then puts them in their coat and zips up the coat,passes a point of payment and is stopped past that payment point,plus is a known thief, is violent,and is stopped outside the first door,but inside the final set of doors for the safety of the security staff,and the person admits it-hey-off course they have committed the crime-It has been demonstrated time and time again.

 

Like I said they have admitted the crime - However had they not done as you describe they would not have committed an offence until they left the store period & if you think I get my knowledge just from law books your wrong.- of course it does help to understand the law in the 1st place

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres been lots of discussion on this in the past.

I remember specifically something about concealment-its a sketchy area.

Concealing something say-under your coat is not classed as shoplifting until the person goes through the checkout without attempting to pay for it.

But what if a security guard stopped a person on seeing the concealment ?

Since it cannot be proven that the person intended to avoid payment since they were not given opportunity to pay at the checkout ?

 

The person needs to have passed the last point of payment.If the security guard stopped the person before this,it would be kicked out by the CPS.Rightly so.People come up with very creative excuses why they do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite Shanty - I recall some time ago selecting something for one of my kids which as they were with me I hid under my coat intending to lose them (the kids) before the check out. Now had anyone accused me of stealing BEFORE I left the store all hell would have broken loose & I would have sued their butts off

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite Shanty - I recall some time ago selecting something for one of my kids which as they were with me I hid under my coat intending to lose them (the kids) before the check out. Now had anyone accused me of stealing BEFORE I left the store all hell would have broken loose & I would have sued their butts off

 

Agreed,that's where common sense needs to kick in in stores.Presumably if you had walked through the tills and been two feet from the final exit doors-the staff might have come to a different conclusion ..maybe.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

the theft occures by removing the item from the premises,

 

not the point of payment

 

No,not quite.

 

The legal definition of theft has several criteria,not just one.

If someone accidentally left the premesis with goods (many people have done this at one time or another),this is not theft.

Passing the final point of payment shows the intent NOT to pay-as you had every opportunity to pay on the way out.,it has to be accompanied by criminal intent though,etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just got off the phone from the police officer that arrested my wife in the original incident. She says all the goods that Debenhams identified as there's were returned to the store without them ever leaving so I am not sure exactly what goods RLP are asking us to play for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are after £380 of which £130 is for the goods (Never left the shop and were undamaged according to the PC who arrested my wife)

£150 for there time, £45 for Administration and £55 for Security and surveillance.

 

Well seems they are very specific about itemising stuff like that and to my mind they have asked us for money that is not due the £130.

 

What seems to have happened is that My wife had other items on her but which the police believe to be stolen but cant prove anything and Debenhams cant be sure that any of the rest of the goods that Police have are there's so they have come up with a random figure. If they cant prove any of the other goods confiscated are there's cant see how they can tell RLP to get money back for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway this was the letter I was going to send to Debenhams store Manager

 

On Wednesday May 27th, I was arrested in your store for shoplifting

Please find attached a letter from my GP regarding medical conditions that caused my irrational and impulsive behavior on that date, as I was under the influence of Alcohol and a manic episode.

Please also be aware that the Police and CPS have also released me without charge as they have taken into account my mental state at the time of the incident.

My GP and the community mental health team are endeavoring to place me in a residential rehab facility in the coming month to allow me a period of stability to focus on my addictive illness and get my bi polar under control.

I would also point out that according to the arresting officer involved that all goods were recovered by the staff and never removed from the shop.

In this light I would ask you to contact RLP who are currently pursuing me for the sum of £380 and have them stop proceedings. This includes a sum of money for goods not recovered which I find slightly confusing as mentioned above the police officer said all Debenhams goods were recovered. I have also written to RLP but as they are your agents I wondered if you could intercede on my behalf.

I would ask if you could please respond within 14 days as I would like to get this matter cleared up as soon as possible due to my upcoming hospitalisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seems they are very specific about itemising stuff like that and to my mind they have asked us for money that is not due the £130.

 

What seems to have happened is that My wife had other items on her but which the police believe to be stolen but cant prove anything and Debenhams cant be sure that any of the rest of the goods that Police have are there's so they have come up with a random figure. If they cant prove any of the other goods confiscated are there's cant see how they can tell RLP to get money back for them.

 

 

The issue you are mainly talking about then are-the goods she didn't give back-ie goods not recovered.

So does your wife have receipts for the other items that have a question mark over them(I assume these are the ones she was not actually witnessed concealing)?

Surely you would not want her to keep items that are not hers-whether debenhams can prove it or not? If those goods are stocked by Debenhams I would be inclined to give them back to Debenhams,don't you agree?

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

No she has no receipts, I think the police also believe she was shoplifting in other stores but have no evidence (No one has reported the other goods missing or anyone shown her stealing from another store) so the police will probably keep the rest of the goods they have in their custody.

 

And your right I don't want anything that we haven't paid for.

 

Oh and yes she is on Meds for the Bi Polar an Anti Depressant and a Mood stabiliser.

Edited by intheding
Link to post
Share on other sites

She has goods with no receipts? She has "stolen" other goods while in a manic episode? The Police would be right to suspect they were stolen.

If they were stocked by Debenhams but they hadn't seen her take them,they wouldn't be in a position to report them missing,or to have evidence proving the loss.

I find it difficult to believe,given the circumstances, that she couldn't put two and two together and suggest to the Police that if the goods are sold by Debenhams,she probably took them from Debenhams,and therefore give consent for them to be returned to Debenhams.

 

You can't expect the store to be particularly happy if they suspect she is hanging onto goods they still believe are most probably theirs,even though at the moment you say technically the police have them.You need to get that bit sorted out before you send the letter.

 

Did you say she was prescribed bi-polar medication?

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they wouldn't be happy but when my wife was detained they couldn't be sure that they belonged to the store with that in Mind the police had to keep them. The Store haven't told me what they are still missing and from my phone call to the security office they didn't seem to be too sure either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a big store like that,it may be impossible to say what if any stock is missing,that's why I think what usually happens is they are shown the goods held by the Police ,and then they say "yes that is stock we sell" and the Police give it back to them as the most likely owner.Could you perhaps say that you give them authority to do that (if that subject was raised by them)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this light I put it to you that you have a responsibility to contact RLP who are currently pursuing me for the sum of £380 and have them stop proceedings. This includes a sum of money for goods not recovered which I find slightly confusing as mentioned above the police officer said all Debenhams goods were recovered. I have also written to RLP but as they are your agents I feel it is your duty to intercede on my behalf."

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After talking to my wife and she is sane and sober at the moment and explaining what everyone suggested, she wanted to write to RLP. As she is an adult and responsible for the problem I let her do this.

 

She attached the letter from her Doctor and we sent it off last week.

 

This morning we received a letter from RLP saying that on consideration they were not taking any further action. So YAY!

 

At least it shows they can be reasonable some of the time. My wife and I would like to thank you all for your comments and suggestions its really been appreciated during this quite stressful time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

now you should tell RLP you want everything about your wife , ALL Details removed from their system, as per the DPA , they do not have her express permission to hold the data , or you will follow the path to the ICO

 

and well done to your wife for writing

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Intheding,

 

Delighted to hear this.

 

Thread title changed accordingly. :D

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...