Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lolerz
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By lolerz · Posted

      In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
    • COCOPINEAPLE1234
      Shoplifting in Waitrose - Banned No Police called

      By COCOPINEAPLE1234 · Posted

      @Whyisitthisthank you very much for asking. I am still feeling anxious, especially when someone rings the doorbell, or when I receive a letter I feel a it paranoid. I stopped going to the shops unless I really have to. I shop online now. When I see security I feel paralised. 
    • Badtimes123
      LC Asset/Link/Kearns Claim Form #1 - Halifax CC

      By Badtimes123 · Posted

      My expectation was their WS would include the best paperwork, like at least true copies of originals, but these just look wrong somehow, perhaps the font and size of font... Not sending me the DN in CCA request but producing it for evidence I would argue could be a tactic used by them... - Page 11 with ticks - there is no reference to IP addresses - Home addresses are correct for dates in documents   Just looking up example Defendant WS's while awaiting your thoughts on this
    • Whyisitthis
      Shoplifting in Waitrose - Banned No Police called

      By Whyisitthis · Posted

      Hello lovely, just posting to check in to see how you are feeling now? Hopefully your feeling better? 
    • Badtimes123
      LC Asset/Link/Kearns Claim Form #1 - Halifax CC

      By Badtimes123 · Posted

      Sorry my redactions made it harder dx. Tick dates are 11/12/2014

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Boots RLP Civil recovery Very aggressive

HeilSieg
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5125 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

HeilSieg

HeilSieg

Posted
Posted

I was recently caught removing the plastic wrapping on a bottle of aftershave in boots, with a friend who took the aftershave out of the store without paying, along with a second bottle which I did not touch.

 

As soon as we left the store, 4 security guards grabbed us, we were taking into a back room, the police were called but they said because of our clean records they would let us off, yet after they had left the security staff made us fill out a civil recovery form, and told us we must write a letter of apology to the store.

I sent the letter the next day to them.

 

About a week later I received a first letter from RLP. Explaining the costs of the aftershave (28 GBPounds per bottle), and they expected us both to pay for both the bottles each, despite stating that the store had recovered the battles.

 

About 2 weeks after that they sent a second letter arrived, they now said because of other costs I must pay them 137.50 GBPounds, or about 100 GBpounds if I could pay in the next 31 days.

 

I did not make a payment, as I'm an A-level student without an income, not even EMA.

 

After the 31 days, I received a letter saying I had 14 days to pay 137.50.

 

After the 14 days had passed they are now saying my credit will be ruined, and I owe them 137.50 but it will increase by 5% annually.

 

I havn't heard anymore , but it's been about 14 days now.

 

 

I'm worried about data protection, I want the security recording and I want them to stop sending letters.

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Snefclarb

Snefclarb

Posted
Posted
the police were called but they said because of our clean records they would let us off, yet after they had left the security staff made us fill out a civil recovery form, and told us we must write a letter of apology to the store.

I sent the letter the next day to them.

Any ideas?

 

Just out of interest, because I'm unfamiliar with the RLP area, how were you actually made to sign something?

 

Did the police turn up and say you'd be let off? Or was it the Boots folks saying you'd be let off?

 

Also, you say you're an A-level student, I assume that means you're probably under 18? Can anyone comment on the validity of contracts signed by a minor?

The adverts that this forum puts around my username and message are not endorsed by me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Old_andrew2018

Guest Old_andrew2018

Posted
Posted

Hi

Please send a PM to JonCris, please remember to include a link to your thread, he will advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chez

The Chez

Posted
Posted (edited)

First off, if this were me, I would not have signed a thing. They cannot do anything with no details. After that I would have quoted that being kept inside the store was false imprisonment, and if the police wanted to arrest me, then I would go willingly, they still wouldn't get so much as my first name.

 

It's also a grey area as to the powers security guards have. My partner says if they lay a finger on you, that is classed as an assault. They do not have the power of arrest, that is reserved only for the police & agencies working with the police such as FBI, CIA etc, regualted government authorities, not private security. Private contractors & store guards do not have these powers, and are as liable for their actions as any tom, dick or harry.

 

Do not make a payment, as soon as you start paying, the 'costs' will go up and up. It is a [problem], and should be treated as such. The letters you are getting are computer generated and designed to frighten you into paying. I doubt a human being even knows who you are.

 

You could find out if you could make a freedom of infomation request to boots for the security footage, although your likely to be fobbed off by 'it's been erased' etc.

 

Also, why did your friend walk out of the store without paying for the item?

Edited by The Chez
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chez

The Chez

Posted
Posted
Since when did the FBI and CIA have the power of arrest in the UK?

 

I was just mentioning some of the agencies that have this power, not what country they operate in.

 

Have you come here to be petty or to help the OP? Also, these agencies do work with our police from time to time to apprehend/help remove globaly wanted criminals & terrorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My Real Name

My Real Name

Posted
Posted
Security guards CAN arrest a person, but they must have good grounds to suspect a crime has taken place AND that the perpetrator intends to flee the scene
They must have more than suspicion - The power to arrest on suspicion alone is a power that only a police constable has (and various other officers of the law, such as HMRC etc).
Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
They must have more than suspicion - The power to arrest on suspicion alone is a power that only a police constable has (and various other officers of the law, such as HMRC etc).

 

Incorrect A security guard can arrest a person based on the suspicion that he HAS committed whereas a police officer can arrest if he thinks an offence is about to be committed

 

The security guard acts reactively whereas the police officer can act proactivley

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chez

The Chez

Posted
Posted

That aside, some people posting in this forum, talking about RLP, did actualy steal, or hang around with theives, what do they expect to happen? The OP still hasn't explained why their 'friend' took the aftershave out of boots without paying for it.

 

At the end of the day, we do have rights yes, but stores also have rights to protect. Nobody has the right to steal anything from anyone, big company or a garden gnome from the old lady down the road. RLP isn't the best way to deal with theives, personally I think people caught stealing should face criminal charges levied only by the police, not by credit companies.

 

If you don't agree, thats fine, and for the record I am very, very against RLP and the stores that use it. Boots should be ashamed at how they treat customrs as criminals before they've done a thing wrong, what on Earth would Jessie Boot think?

 

Boots also STILL test their products on animals, when a lot of other companies have abandoned this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
They must have more than suspicion - The power to arrest on suspicion alone is a power that only a police constable has (and various other officers of the law, such as HMRC etc).

 

Incorrect

 

They do arrest on suspicion which is why 'suspects' are known as suspects

 

They have to have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has already been committed whereas a police officer can arrest if he has reasonable grounds to suspect a crime is about to be committed

 

Reasonable grounds would be either what he witnessed or based on what he was told by other persons

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chez

The Chez

Posted
Posted
Incorrect

 

They do arrest on suspicion which is why 'suspects' are known as suspects

 

They have to have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has already been committed whereas a police officer can arrest if he has reasonable grounds to suspect a crime is about to be committed

 

Reasonable grounds would be either what he witnessed or based on what he was told by other persons

 

How do you know all this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted
That aside, some people posting in this forum, talking about RLP, did actualy steal, or hang around with theives, what do they expect to happen? The OP still hasn't explained why their 'friend' took the aftershave out of boots without paying for it.

 

At the end of the day, we do have rights yes, but stores also have rights to protect. Nobody has the right to steal anything from anyone, big company or a garden gnome from the old lady down the road. RLP isn't the best way to deal with theives, personally I think people caught stealing should face criminal charges levied only by the police, not by credit companies.

 

If you don't agree, thats fine, and for the record I am very, very against RLP and the stores that use it. Boots should be ashamed at how they treat customrs as criminals before they've done a thing wrong, what on Earth would Jessie Boot think?

 

Boots also STILL test their products on animals, when a lot of other companies have abandoned this.

 

I agree & that's why we have a police force & a criminal justice system

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chez

The Chez

Posted
Posted
Cos I does;)

 

Sorry I couldn't resist

 

 

Just wondered thats all lol, nothing bad meant.

 

I do feel though that some people posting on this section need to rethink who they hang around with though. If I was hanging around with a theif, and they did it while I was with them, they'd never be coming within 1000 foot of a shop with me around again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

Chez the problem is that even when some admit to theft it's found on questioning there was no such thing they have just been made to think they have committed a crime when they haven't In many cases there is no intention to steal it's often just a mistake either way there has to have been an intention to steal before it meets the burden of proof

Link to post
Share on other sites
My Real Name

My Real Name

Posted
Posted
Incorrect

 

They do arrest on suspicion which is why 'suspects' are known as suspects

 

They have to have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has already been committed whereas a police officer can arrest if he has reasonable grounds to suspect a crime is about to be committed

 

Reasonable grounds would be either what he witnessed or based on what he was told by other persons

I stand corrected.

 

Section 100 of SOCPA adds Section 24A (1) (b) "anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence".

 

The test would be as to what constitutes reasonable grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JonCris

JonCris

Posted
Posted

Correct

 

Let me give a you a scenario Chap buys cassette remains in store whilst his friend completes her shopping. Leaves store followed by store detective who assumes on seeing the cassette in the chaps hand it's been stolen. Calls police who acting on the information of the store detective & despite his protestations of innocence arrest him in a nearby cafe & take him to the nick. 2 hours later he's released when the assistant who sold the cassette phones to confirm it had been paid for

 

Also I should mention that by the time the police arrived he had thrown the receipt away

 

What do you think happened next?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...