Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
    • Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.
    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
  • 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

Why so many teenage girls being arrested?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4818 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

Honestly? Teenage girls pinch the make-up and beauty products! Not all teenage girls of course, by any means, but that's what I reckon!

 

Aren't there as many boys wearing makeup now as girls :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boots makeup is very nickable.Young girls give in to peer pressure.

 

Some Security staff are female,so the "sexist" bit doesn't apply!

 

This isn't the biggest shoplifting group though-I think it's males 18-35.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the cases listed here so often involve teenage girls?

 

 

Most of the cases RLP appear to become involved with involve petty pilfering or tampering with low-priced goods that are often recovered. The kind of incident likely to involve immature young girls (or youths). RLP's business model is predicated upon claiming disproportionate 'damages' from the occasional alleged miscreant, not prolific career criminals.

 

I suspect that RLP do not bother with professional shoplifters - the ones who steal high value goods in quantity and who operate in well organised groups. RLP will know that these people are often not caught; that the goods will be fenced very quickly, and that professional criminals are rarely deterred by sanctions imposed by the courts, and so RLP's silly demands are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How wrong you are.Girls are worse than boys.
*I'm* not wrong, your average security guard is. I don't think feminist enlightenment ranks highly on the qualities required to be employed by RLP, and so the good ol' stereotypes should be firmly in place. I therefore stand by what I said, which as before is qualified by a "maybe". Since we were in the range of suppositions, it wasn't exactly a stretch of imagination to think that Mr Monobrow finalist of 2008 sees a girl trying on a lipstick and a guy nicking a pair of trainers and goes for the girl. ;-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the cases RLP appear to become involved with involve petty pilfering or tampering with low-priced goods that are often recovered. The kind of incident likely to involve immature young girls (or youths). RLP's business model is predicated upon claiming disproportionate 'damages' from the occasional alleged miscreant, not prolific career criminals.

 

I suspect that RLP do not bother with professional shoplifters - the ones who steal high value goods in quantity and who operate in well organised groups. RLP will know that these people are often not caught; that the goods will be fenced very quickly, and that professional criminals are rarely deterred by sanctions imposed by the courts, and so RLP's silly demands are likely to fall on deaf ears.

 

Spot on SP RLP & their clients see this as a simple revenue stream It's got less to do with fighting crime than anything I know If it was truly about fighting crime there would be large unequivocal easily understood notices all over the stores rather than some obscure reference to "this store operates a policy of civil recovery" What on earth does that mean to the ordinary consumer I'll tell you nothing zilch & nor is it meant to because if many ordinary consumers understood the lengths these firms are prepared to go to to punish people for the slightest mistake, such as checking the contents of a box, they probably wouldn't shop there again

 

The sooner RLP & it's ilk are no more the better

Link to post
Share on other sites

*I'm* not wrong, your average security guard is. I don't think feminist enlightenment ranks highly on the qualities required to be employed by RLP, and so the good ol' stereotypes should be firmly in place. I therefore stand by what I said, which as before is qualified by a "maybe". Since we were in the range of suppositions, it wasn't exactly a stretch of imagination to think that Mr Monobrow finalist of 2008 sees a girl trying on a lipstick and a guy nicking a pair of trainers and goes for the girl. ;-)

 

Oh dear....these type of comments really do the reputation of this site no favours.

 

No doubt you have evidence to back up your last ludicrous sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, about male/female stereotypes? Yes, volumes as it goes. :-?

 

 

PS: I don't see how my personal opinion does anything for or against the reputation of this site. If in doubt, check my signature. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookie has produced evidence that security guards would rather get a female for a lipstick rather than a male for trainers?Yes i would like to see that evidence on any board,please provide.Ludicrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on this with Booky far to many bad apples work in 'se cu rity' Many are just bullies with small thingy's trying to impress those around them by terrifying people - In fact many of these types find work as debt collectors I wonder why - erm no I don't

 

I am sure there are plenty of bullies with "small thingies" attempting to work in the law too,and many other occupations ,no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a simple reason why so many teenage girls get arrested, it's because teenage girls are the most prolific shoplifters! This comes from my own experience, but I am sure there will be some statistics to back this up. I believe that males steal higher value items, generally, but I suppose it depends on the business and what they actually sell. I do not believe that any security guard will choose one thief over another to catch, he would be likely to get assistance and catch both if they were simultaneous incidents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought a 35 year old bloke determined to enhance his make up collection for free, would be more inclined to nick a Range Rover and ram raid the local Boots, along with any store detective who was foolish enough to get in the way...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should say that, on saturday, a foreign national male, 30 - 35 yrs old, came into the store where I work, and tried to steal £35.28 worth of make-up! It was mostly mascara, so maybe he wanted to get in touch with his feminine side :roll:. He claimed not to understand english, but produced the concealed items when he heard the word "police". He was lucky, no police called and no civil recovery notice, just verbally banned.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...