Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
  • 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
      • 160 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 - Boots v My 15 yr old daughter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5244 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 15 year old daughter was shopping with friends in Boots and handed loads of different lip glosses to a 15 year old male friend she was with saying 'hold this, hold that etc' while making her choices. She then decided on one, put all the rest back and queued with 2 other girls to pay. They bought theirs, but she realised that if she purchased it she would not have enough money to get something to eat after. She gave the lipgloss to her male friend and asked him to put it back on the shelf. She did this quite openly - she did not 'palm' it. He protested that she was being lazy and didn't want to put it back, and she laughingly shoved him and shouted 'PUT IT BACK!'. This I believe is all on CCTV. She continued her way out of the store but he did not put the item back but unknown to my daughter made a split decision to steal it. On leaving the store he was stopped and they were both interviewed by 2 male security guards. She was really frightened and tried to explain the situation to the security but they would not listen so she clammed up and decided to wait for us to get her to explain. They were both taken to a police station and he had to write their names and addresses on 2 forms which they signed. My daughter has no idea whatsoever what she signed. They were told no charges but may have to pay a 'small admin fee'. They were photographed and evidently banned from Lakeside Shopping Centre for a year. The boy was crying so much he did not give any reason for what he did. They have received a demand from a recovery company of £137.50 each.

 

I do not think that my daughter should have to pay for his decision, and furthermore, its so out of character for her friend that I would like to help him too if possible. Surely thay should BOTH be charged £137.50 for the same thing?

 

I called RLP and told them I believed they were operating without a licence (confirmed to me by phone by OFT) and a very shirty lady told me they DID have a licence for CIVIL recovery - not debt recovery.

 

Can anyone help please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is reasonable they should pay an administration fee to cover exactly the losses they were suffered by Boots as a direct result of their wrongdoing.

 

Don't do anything more on the telephone with anybody. You should always record your calls if you do decide to deal on the phone.

 

I suggest that you don't respond to RLP. They will keep on badgering you with threats. In the end it would probably be Boots would have to sue you and it would be Boots would have to establish the actual losses in court.

 

You could write to Boots, apologise for what has happened, point out that by and large it was a misunderstanding and tell them that you appreciate that the incident may have caused them some administrative loss and if they will let you know what this is a you will be pleased to pay.

 

If Boots give you a proper break down for a sensible figure then pay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thank you I'll write to Boots. My daughter is certainly guilty of laziness, but she did not at any point in time request or ask her friend to take the lipgloss for her.

 

One of the male security guards said to the boy 'was it for her?' and the sobbing boy just nodded. He meant he took it to give to her. However he was not stealing it on her instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BankFodder.

 

I just read your reply again and I do not agree it is reasonable that THEY should pay an administration fee to cover Boots costs. My daughter did not steal anything, or request that any items were stolen for her.

 

Thank you for the advice though.

Edited by Feline007
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I made a post earlier about my 15 year old daughter being with a friend who stole a lipgloss from Boots (value about a fiver).

 

I do not want to pay RLP one penny as my daughter did not steal or coerce anyone to steal anything.

 

However, the boy she was with who DID steal a lipgloss from Boots is very distressed and has not told his parents about the incident.

 

He has received a bill for £137.50 from RPL. As he did take the item - should he pay the fee or not? I don't know what to advise him.

 

If he pays will his details be removed from the database?

 

I'd appreciate any advice as incident was 27th Aug so time is ticking for the 21 day period to expire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two threads merged.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely she didn't commit any offence? She didn't steal it, nor did she ask someone to - he chose to steal it without her knowing.

 

So why is *she* banned/being illegally fined?

 

Funnily:

- both are being asked for 137.50 as RLP always charge

- despite the fact the goods were recovered

- despite the fact it's the same incident, so it didn't cost the guards twice as much to deal with them anyway

 

He should possibly be asked to pay for some expenses if they can prove they were directly as a result of him attempting to steal (but they recovered the goods, and the guards/cctv would be there anyway, so no idea how much this could reasonably be, or if it's even quantifiable) but she's done nothing so should she be expected to pay any?

 

I'd be more worried about them being added to any naughty DB RLP are running - they're fifteen so they're in year 11 and in the summer will probably do their GCSEs and want to get a job... if they're checking against this it might work against your daughter when she has not committed an offence.

Edited by ForestChav

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

She was taken with the boy because they said he had taken it for her - and she must have asked him to, and that was even WORSE in their opinion than if she had taken it herself because she had made an innocent do a criminal offence!

 

The police phoned us and asked us to collect her and said, don't worry there is no charge. Furthermore, they said to my daughter as we were leaving there is no charge, nothing recorded, and when you leave this station no-one will know about it except you two (her and the boy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.So glad that it went no further.Interesting how the phrase "Did you take if for her?",can be interpreted in two ways.

 

Rlp are shocking aren't they!

Are you saying the Police Officer got her to sign a form?Without you being present?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, she was made to sign the standard RLP form that everyone seems to sign, that they do not give you a copy of. When my husband went to pick her up they did not go through anything with him, or show him the form. They just let her go and said that was the end of the matter. I am not going to pay this amount as she didn't do anything wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole situation is getting me down to be honest. I told my daughter we are not paying it, and the boy who actually stole the flipping lipgloss has also written to RLP saying he's not going to pay it as I told my daughter they are crooks. I don't know if I've given him the right information though as if his name gets added to a bad debt list I'd feel responsible as though I advised him wrongly. Why oh why did she go shopping that day!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is something you need to take up with the Police. A Police Officer should not be getting a juvenile to sign a form,it is not police business.

 

I suspect that this was at Boots

 

I also suspect that they "had to sign it" and that they had no idea what they were signing or the implications of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is true. My daughter is 15 and has never had so much as a school detention. Unfortunately she didn't know her rights. I wish she had refused to sign anything, quoted she was a minor, and asked for e telephone call to me, but that didn't happen. I'm writing to Boots to tell them of the situation, however I can't believe they are unaware - they must be getting this sort of thing every day - or maybe most people just pay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is true. My daughter is 15 and has never had so much as a school detention. Unfortunately she didn't know her rights. I wish she had refused to sign anything, quoted she was a minor, and asked for e telephone call to me, but that didn't happen. I'm writing to Boots to tell them of the situation, however I can't believe they are unaware - they must be getting this sort of thing every day - or maybe most people just pay it.

Isn't it unenforceable anyway because she is 15 and too young to enter what is effectively a credit agreement? Hell, under 18s can't even consent to contracts, in most circumstances.

She was taken with the boy because they said he had taken it for her - and she must have asked him to, and that was even WORSE in their opinion than if she had taken it herself because she had made an innocent do a criminal offence!

Surely they should have to prove this, then, or else it is defamation?

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume so - unfortunately I need to know what our rights ARE! I need someone who knows the law who can say to me 'RLP cannot hold information about your daughter, and any threats they make are unenforceable'. If there are any solicitors or barristers out there - please let me know!

 

Also, as the boy DID steal the item - where does it leave him if he refuses to pay? He is also 15, and believe it or not is a nice kid who is considering a career in LAW! I know it sounds ridiculous and I wish he had not stolen the lipgloss and involved my daughter by association, but kids do stupid things and learn by their mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can only legally recoup any losses they incurred by the boy stealing the item.

 

The security staff would have been employed anyway if he had not stolen it, and had just walked out without it, so their time doesn't matter. They presumably recovered the item undamaged as well so that is still in a saleable condition so they can't really claim for that either.

 

The police attended and didn't charge either of them with anything, didn't they? So they're not guilty of it because if they were the police would have given them a caution or something.

 

It's always the nice kids who are more likely to get caught by this, I'd imagine - he probably just did it on a whim because they didn't have enough money (and the whole association thing is flawed logic anyway, because they would surely have to prove the intent i.e. that your daughter asked him to steal it for her) and thought she would like it anyway - the kids who are used to stealing would be more used to evading being caught. Plus (as he did) they're often more likely to lose their nerve because they didn't intend to do anything wrong...

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you - it's all very helpful. I've written to Boots asking them to request RLP stop the action against my daughter and I've also asked the manager to cancel the lifetime ban from shopping in Boots that they put on my daughter (although whether its wise to spend money in Boots is questionable!).

 

I've also written to RLP telling them my daughter is not responsible and will not pay (£275.00 total costs for a security guard walking 10 feet outside the store and stopping 2 kids).

 

I just hope that I've made the right decision and her name is not blacklisted somewhere but at the end of the day she's 15 and they would have to prove intent.

 

Wish me luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you could ask for the data to be removed from file by RLP considering she isn't guilty of anything. Presumably she'll be looking for jobs soon, as will he (even if they go to sixth form/uni they might want some little jobs) and if they have ended up on a blacklist and not been found guilty of anything then that might affect them if they're using that referencing source.

 

The boy I can understand - he did walk out of the store with an item which hadn't been paid for, regardless of the circumstances, so he did steal (even though it was recovered and he wasn't charged by the police) but your daughter has done nothing wrong, she didn't ask for it to be stolen, and she didn't steal it herself - HE made the decision to steal it for her. Teens thinking they know it all again, really.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, no answer from Boots yet but there has been a new development regarding the boy. He wrote and said he was only 15, not old enough to work and there's no way he could pay the fine.

 

They have written back and said if he sends a copy of his birth certificate showing he is under 17, they will reduce the fee to £35!

 

Evidently they made it very clear at the time that they were both only 15, so RLP was obviously chancing its arm.

 

I wrote to RLP saying I'm not paying for my daughter - if they send me a request for £35 I'm still not paying it because it would be an admission of guilt.

 

If the boy pays the £35 (I think he will as he did steal the item) will his name still be added to this supposed blacklist do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, no answer from Boots yet but there has been a new development regarding the boy. He wrote and said he was only 15, not old enough to work and there's no way he could pay the fine.

 

They have written back and said if he sends a copy of his birth certificate showing he is under 17, they will reduce the fee to £35!

 

Evidently they made it very clear at the time that they were both only 15, so RLP was obviously chancing its arm.

 

I wrote to RLP saying I'm not paying for my daughter - if they send me a request for £35 I'm still not paying it because it would be an admission of guilt.

 

If the boy pays the £35 (I think he will as he did steal the item) will his name still be added to this supposed blacklist do you think?

 

Hi Feline,

 

The boys name and your daughters name will already be on their 'database of defenders', regardless of payment or not!

 

RLP are above the law in this country, and it is up to the defender to prove their innocence, rather than the other way round!

 

It is proving very difficult in ensuring my details are removed from RLP/Cireco Ltd! Aparently, Boots withdrawing the action is not sufficient for RLP??!!!:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x

Edited by Button1
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't send the birth certificate at all. It gives them some more "data" to add.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't corresponded with RLP at all only Boots, they certainly won't see my daughter's birth certificate. I suppose you could send a copy to Boots on the strict instruction that its not to be passed on to RLP.

 

Still awaiting a reply regarding my daughter from Boots, 3 RLP letters, 3 debt collection letters I wonder what the next step is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...