Civil Recovery Limited

[moviemakernow]

Some more information on CRL. They appear to keep changing their registered office! I wonder why! this is not normal practice for a legitimate company.

 

287 21/07/2009 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 21/07/09 FROM:

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 21/07/2009 FROM

SECURITY HOUSE 485 HALE END ROAD

HIGHAMS PARK

LONDON

E4 9PT

UNITED KINGDOM

288a 23/06/2009 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR JAMIE CAPLIN

 

 

288a 23/06/2009 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI

 

288a 23/06/2009 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MISS VANESSA JASMIN GARDEZI

 

287 23/06/2009 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 23/06/09 FROM:

GISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 23/06/2009 FROM

IST FLOOR OFFICE 8-10 STAMFORD HILL

LONDON

N16 6XZ

 

288b 23/06/2009 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED DIRECTOR MICHAEL HOLDER

 

NEWINC 31/03/2009 INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE

DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

 

Further research on the first director makes interesting reading.

 

Search Results - 3 Directors and/or Company Secretarials Found page 1 of 1

19300385 - MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI

Address: E4 9PT

D.O.B: 1974

No of current directorships & company secretarials held: 1

13620294 - RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI

Address: E4 9PT

D.O.B: 1974

No of current directorships & company secretarials held: 16

19296691 - MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI

Address: LONDON, E4 9PT

D.O.B: 1974

No of current directorships & company secretarials held: 1

 

So 3 separate listings for people with the same name dob and address. Now if the name had been John Smith then one would think nothing of this, but with this name! looks like it could be the same person. So why would he want to register separately hmm has he something to hide?

 

Only one listing for the second director

 

15634951 - VANESSA JASMIN GARDEZI

Address: E4 9PT

D.O.B: 1980

I wonder why MICHAEL HOLDER is no longer a director? perhaps he would like to tell us .

 

Oh and by the way TSS have the same post code!

 

TOTAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED

SECURITY HOUSE 485 HALE END ROAD

HIGHAMS PARK

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

E4 9PT

Company No. 06656104

 

AND the same Director!!!!!

 

Company Filing History Include Allotment of Shares

Type Date Description Order

363a 27/07/2009 RETURN MADE UP TO 25/07/09; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS

288a 23/06/2009 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI

287 23/06/2009 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 23/06/09 FROM:

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 23/06/2009 FROM

FIST FLOOR OFFICE 8-10 STAMFORD HILL

LONDON

N16 6XZ

288a 23/06/2009 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR JAMIE CAPLIN 288b 23/06/2009 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED DIRECTOR BUYVIEW LTD

07/08/2008 COMPANY NAME CHANGED ALIXA LIMITED

CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 11/08/08

NEWINC 25/07/2008 INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE

DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

 

So we now know that TSS the company providing the security Guards to Tesco and CRL the so called independent authority are both owned by the same person MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI.

 

Need to investigate this individual a bit more.

 

On there website TSS claim to have been established for over 25 Years!! I'm not sure how they can claim this when they only registered as TSS (Total Security Services) Limited on 11/08/08 according to companies house! Dishonesty appears to come easy to these people.

Edited February 20, 2010 by moviemakernow

[Conniff]

I wonder why MICHAEL HOLDER is no longer a director? perhaps he would like to tell us .

 

 

Perhaps they want to keep it in the family.

[moviemakernow]

Some more information. The TSS Managing Director is Ricky Gardezi. looks like this lot like to keep it in the family.

 

Now they go to grate lengths to keep people away from any personal addresses they constantly use PO boxs. Well here are the actual addresses.

 

Security House

Ricky Gardezi

Applicant Address

485 Hale End Road

Highams Park

London E4 9PT

 

This looks like a personal address.

 

33 Forest View

Development Address

Chingford

London

E4 7AU

 

Nothing underhand about this looks like Ricky Gardezi applied for planning permission. All planing details are public domain.

 

Also use google maps steet view and take a look at the offices of TSS and CRL. Remember TSS claims on its website that "TSS (Total Security Services) Ltd aims to be the UK's Number One retail security supplier of manned / uniformed guards."

 

Looks more like a mickey mouse outfit.

 

Also not sure but this also came up when researching Ricky Gardezi!

OC Lodge

 

Now I'm not sure its the same person but made me smile:)

 

The more I look into this the more amazed I am that these large blue chip company's are dealing with such a small doggy company. I wonder if any of the directors of these blue chips have ever visited the TSS offices?

[moviemakernow]

surprisingly I've just had a reply from the main customers service desk at Tesco. I email them at the same time I emails Tesco's Boss. Here is the email.

 

"Dear Mr Brown, (name changed)

 

 

Thank you for your email, I must apologise that it's taken us a few days to reply, we have been experiencing an increased number of contacts due to the Clubcard mailing.

 

I was very concerned to read your account of what happened to your wife in our Hayes Bull Bridge store, I can appreciate how upset you both must be.

 

I understand that one of my colleagues in our Chief Executives office has replied to your complaint and I'm confident that they will be able to address your issue.

 

Thank you for letting us know and if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] quoting xxxxxxxxx.(number removed)

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Kim Wright

Customer Service Manager

Tesco Customer Service"

 

 

Well what can I say! even I'm confused now. Look like they don't know what each is doing!

 

 

It also looks like Helen Duke is involved in this [problem] in some way! as she was defending CRL in there actions. A least Kim is expressing some understanding of my wife's situation.

 

 

I wonder if it's worth perusing this with Kim?

[moviemakernow]

moviemakernow have you sent me a copy?

 

 

Yes it was included in the first set of stuff I emailed to you.

 

Did it reach you? I just got a mail not deliverd message from your email!

 

The following message to was undeliverable.

The reason for the problem:

5.4.7 - Delivery expired (message too old) 'timeout'

 

 

Let me know and I will send again if required.

 

My sincere apology JonCris for this silly amateurish mistake. It was never my intention to post the details! Simply forgot to edit the cut and paste. Lesson learned. Sorry.

Edited February 21, 2010 by moviemakernow
Remove personal details

[ScarletPimpernel]

Moviemaker - don't post personal contact details on the forum. Apart from being picked up by spammers, any disreputable company that might be reading these forums could exploit such details and cause problems for individuals.

[moviemakernow]

Moviemaker - don't post personal contact details on the forum. Apart from being picked up by spammers, any disreputable company that might be reading these forums could exploit such details and cause problems for individuals.

 

 

Very Very Sorry! A silly mistake on my part will not happen again.

[moviemakernow]

I decided I would keep up the pressure on Tesco so I replied to their latest communication. Who knows maybe someone at tesco will come to their senses!

 

" Dear Kim,

Thank you for getting back to me. No apology required I fully understand that it can take time to respond to all the emails you must receive.

 

Yes I have had a response from a Helen Duke, Customer Service Executive. She was replying on behalf of Sir Terry Leahy who she stated was away from the office.

However I have to say I found here response to be very disappointing. She was very dismissive and unsympathetic of my wife situation. More over in the two communications I had with Ms Duke she clearly contradicts herself and is misleading in the statements she makes. I can only conclude from these communications that she is either deliberately trying to misinform me or simply is not fully aware of the true nature of the event, in which case here communication is simply unprofessional.

 

One particular statement made by Ms Duke caused concern. She stated in both her communications that Civil Recovery Ltd were “a wholly independent authority”. I have investigated this statement and found it to be totally false.

 

Civil Recovery Ltd is NOT an Authority. Authority is defined as:

a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials

 

Civil Recovery Ltd does not meet any of these criteria. They are simply a privately owned limited company who has been trading for less than 12 months. Their date of incorporation as shown at company’s house is 31/03/2009. This is a small family owned business, owned and run by a MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI who is a company director.

 

The second point is as to Civil Recovery Ltd being “wholly independent”. Once again this is simply not true. The Security guard who made the allegation against my wife works for TOTAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED. My investigations have shown that TOTAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED is a company owned by MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI who is a director of the company.

 

So the company that the Security Guard making the allegations works for, and the company which MS Duke claims to be an “a wholly independent authority” who are sending my wife the threatening letters demanding payment are both owned and run the same MR RAZA LOUIS GARDEZI. I fail to see how she can describe Civil Recovery Ltd as being “a wholly independent authority”.

 

I find the behaviour of TOTAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED and Civil Recovery Ltd to be highly questionable. The Citizens Advice Bureaux have described the behaviour of companies like Civil Recovery Ltd as “Citizens Advice considers such claims letters, and their threat of escalating costs, to constitute ‘deceitful’, ‘unfair’ and ‘improper’ business practice, as defined by the Office of Fair Trading.”

 

In light of these findings I would ask that you please revoke the 4 month ban imposed on my wife.

 

I would also ask that you instruct Civil Recovery Ltd who claim to be action on your instructions to with immediate effect stop sending my wife their threatening letters demanding payment.

 

I look forwarded to receiving a positive reply."

[sillygirl1]

This is very interesting, I think your next route would be to approach Companies House about the continual change of directors and registered addresses, unlike other organisations Companies House can investigate and prosecute companies for misleading information and have them closed down.

 

I think the whole concept of Retail Loss Prevention is crazy, how can you get money for something that hasn't happened and probably isn't as much of a problem as they conceive.

 

One example of the 'Zero Tolerance' policy, no wonder many large shopping centres have empty shops, people don't want to shop in them for fear of being banned from everywhere for one slip up during a busy shopping trip.

 

If you read the papers there are plenty of cases of Tesco taking people to court for stupid things and loosing... one day they will realise that not everybody is a 'civil criminal' who goes into their stores.

 

I've caught the smaller Tescos out for dodgy pricing several times and don't use them any more. Under their own rules they should be prosecuted and made to pay the fines for double charging and misleading their customers!

[cjaynap]

Please be careful how you descibe shoppers. I am sure Tesco's would like to introduce the term "Civil Criminal" but it has no meaning. Either a shopper has allegedly committed a criminal offence or they have not. If they have its a matter for the Police who can decide whether to charge the shopper with a Criminal Offence. Any other dispute between a shopper and Store is a matter for the Civil Courts.

 

As you can see we already have the legal framework work in place to resolve both criminal and civil disputes.

 

Civil Recovery is a [problem] in this instance carried out by a bunch of wheel clampers with the 100% knowledge and backing of Tescos.

[Huff&Puff]

I know one thing for sure, it's a good reason not to use the self-service checkouts (not that I've ever been tempted to anyway). Not only do they not have to employ so many checkout staff, but they can use them for this money-making [problem] for any poor sod who mistakenly doesn't put an item through

[moviemakernow]

This is the latest reply from Tesco.

 

"Dear Mr Brown (name changed)

 

 

Thank you for your further email.

 

I'm disappointed that you believe I've not addressed any of the issues you have raised. Please be assured that there was absolutely no intention to cause you any further annoyance.

 

I'm sorry that you remain unhappy, however we have followed the correct procedures.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Helen Duke

Customer Service Executive"

[moviemakernow]

I'm not going to give up on this issue! I decided to contact the OFT and the Citizens advice Bureaux. The CAB got back in contact and were very interested in my wife's case. They are still investigating and need to collect as much information as possible against companies like CRL and Tesco. They also had some very good advice.

 

I have sent them all my correspondence with CRL and Tesco. I will be defending this all they way.

Edited February 22, 2010 by moviemakernow

[JonCris]

Did you have CAB's consent to post their email to you

[moviemakernow]

Did you have CAB's consent to post their email to you

 

It was only a extract which was simply repeating what is said in their report and contained no personnel info. However I have removed it just to be safe.

[JonCris]

I & they realize that however accept in the case of the opposition you should get the consent of the sender before posting

 

I still have not received your attachment

[moviemakernow]

I & they realize that however accept in the case of the opposition you should get the consent of the sender before posting

 

I still have not received your attachment

 

 

Not sure what is happening but the emails keep being rejected. All I get is an error message in return saying email too old can not be delivered!

 

I will send the attachments again now.

[JonCris]

Got em

[moviemakernow]

The Centre for Retail Research helped to introduce civil recovery to UK retailers. It also set out some clear guidelines for the application of civil recovery by UK retailers.

 

The guidelines defined civil recovery as,

“Civil recovery is the name of a process allowing retailers and other businesses to obtain compensation using the civil law from wrongdoers who cause loss by theft, fraud, damage, trespass, or similar offences. Recovery can be used against staff thieves as well as customer thieves.”

 

The guidelines states that “Civil recovery should never be used to avoid involving the Police.”

 

Yet this is now common practice by most of the large retailers like Tesco. They have no interest in contacting the police all they want is your personal information to allow them to issues civil recovery demands.

 

The guidelines state that “It is important that these civil recovery processes are only used against actual thieves, not innocent parties.”

 

Shops like Tesco are now routinely applying civil recovery to ordinary customers who simply forget to pay for an item.They simply don't care if you are a long standing customer who may just have made an honest mistake! They see you as just another opportunity to make more money.

 

The guidelines state that “It is also important that civil recovery is used equitably”

 

How can companies like Tesco and Civil Recovery Ltd claim they are acting impartially when the security guards who make the allegations work for Total Security’s Limited which is run and owned by the same person that owns and runs Civil Recovery Ltd.?

 

Even the Centre for Retail Research now believes the guidelines need to be reviewed and updated.

 

“A Code of Practice was developed for ACPO and the National Programme. It probably needs a revamp by now to cover:

 

• What categories of offenders should ALWAYS be reported to the police including juveniles.
  
• What is best practice to be followed by retailers in administering civil recovery (eg the use of warning notices near shop entrances, the phrasing of the civil demand letter, how to handle disputes, etc).
  
• Policy about access by police to information held by retailers about shop thieves.
  

A civil recovery law is needed to provide a proper framework for the process that would be fair to all parties. This would give retailers the right to levy a civil demand against any shop thief, and lay down a framework of penalties covering large and small thefts, juvenile and adult offenders, first-time offenders and habitual offenders.”

 

This clearly shows that misuse of the law by many retailers is now starting to cause concern among the people who helped introduce it to the industry.

 

It’s interesting to see that the client list for the Centre for Retail Research includes most of the worst offenders in the abuse of civil recovery guidelines.

 

“Client List: includes Tesco, Boots, Dixons, HMV, Bhs, B&Q, Lloyds Bank TSB, Photoscan,The Co-operative, Checkpoint Systems, London Archives Libraries and Museums, The Scottish Office, and The British Retail Consortium.”

[triton]

Hi Moviemakernow, I read with great interest all your finding out about Civil Recovery Ltd. I too am in the same situation as your wife - Tescos. I'm at the stage where they've sent a second demand letter asking for the full amount now. I am just ignoring them. I had the police called & the policeman knew it was a genuine mistake & he rang me later in the day after he spoke to his sergeant to say the matter is dropped, no further action. I feel it's so unfair of civil recovery to make such demands, like I have read previously, anyone can make a demand & say pay me £99.00 or £70.00 now if you pay in 21 days. I don't know what the next stage will be from Civil Recovery but in my opinion they can jog on.... they're worse than thieves!!

[moviemakernow]

Hi triton,

 

sorry to hear about your problem! your not alone in this! hundreds of people are being caught out by this despicable behaviour by Tesco.

 

I'm not a legal expert but their are people on this forum that can help.

 

I'm not sure if ignoring them is the best answer! although many do recommend this. I decided to write to them (CRL) once stating this would be my only correspondence with them on this matter. At least this way I have been seen to try and resolve the matter if it ever does go to court.

Certainly from my findings so far it would appear that they simply keep pestering people with letters that get more and more demanding hoping they will give in and just pay up. They simply behave like bully's! knowing that many people will simply pay up just to stop the threatening letters.

Edited February 26, 2010 by moviemakernow

[triton]

I really appreciate all the trouble you're going to & please keep us up to date, all the civil recovery companies are crooks & I do feel for anyone going through what we are. I'll keep you up to date with all my threatening letters I get.

[moviemakernow]

Well it's been 40 days since the first letter from Civil recovery Ltd which stated that unless we pay within 21 days they would take further action. I can only assume that there simply incompetent and not capable of keeping up with there own threats! or simply are not wiling to risk taking the matter to court. just goes to show that you need to stand up to these bullies and fight back.

[triton]

Yes, same with me! Not heard anything, for quite a while. I'll keep you posted if I do, and please if you do!

[bigsteve0000]

Well to get to the point she was detained against her will by the guard and Tesco staff in a back office for over 20 minutes. She asked for the police to be informed but was told it was not a police matter. She was told to sign a form. She initially refused but this went on for nearly fifteen minutes. Eventually another Tesco staff member entered the room and told her just sign it it’s just a formality and then you can go.

 

 

MovieMakerNow

 

 

Kidnap and false imprisonment. If they had no intension of calling the police and refused to call the police then they were holding her against her will. They have the right of citisen arrest and nothing else. this means they can only hold you if you HAVE commited a crime and they can only hold you until the police arrive. even though they didnt restrain her they did intimidate her and refused to let her leave until she sighned the paperwork, If she had got up and walked out they could not have legally stopped her. If they had man handled her at any point after telling her they did not intend to call the police then they are guilty of assault.

 

go to the police, explain the situation and make a complaint. the police dont like people taking the law in to their own hands.