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


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Alfy
      Iva with Hanover now been passed to credit expert

      By Alfy · Posted

      Creditors Name / Brand Acct Ref POD Balance Received (£) Claim Admitted (Y/N) Cabot Financial IVA 33749505 642.90 Y Cabot Financial IVA 35707961 8,162.07 Y Direct Legal Collections Q5180215 0.00 N Direct Legal Collections Q5185144 0.00 N Ee 157920642 0.00 N HMRC VAS JN434119D 0.00 N Lantern UK IVA M6152941 284.68 N Lloyds Bank IVA 6288 2,692.00 N Lloyds Bank IVA 30963530231568 5,596.00 N Lowell Financial 300092756 1,014.00 Y Lowell Financial 294767660 228.00 Y Lowell Financial 274783943 1,538.00 N Lowell Financial 241096338 1,343.68 Y Lowell Financial 280654617 22,446.00 Y Lowell Financial 264807132 1,189.00 Y Lowell Group 263221038 246.00 Y Perch Capital E0QZ6R22 0.00 N Zopa IVA E04E25C3B7434C8361 0.00 N Total Unsecured Creditors 58,978.33 Total SOA Claim 58,692.00 Fees and Costs £ £ Fee Type Proposed Approved Nominee Fee 1,900.00 1,900.00 Supervisor Fee 1,750.00 1,260.00 Disbursements 0.00 31.00 Adjournment Fee 0.00 0.00 Dividends Approved Dividends at first MOC (p in £) 8.87 Revised Estimated Dividend  (p in £) 8.83 Total Dividends Paid to Date (£) 276.29 Dividends Paid to Date  (p in £) 0.78 Case Details Income and Expenditure Reviewed N Arrears (Y/N) N Value of Arrears (£) 0.00 Current Balance at Bank 185.72 No. of Months Arrears 0 Original Duration of IVA 60 Payment Break Agreed (Y/N) N Current Duration of IVA 60 Breach Notice Issued (Y/N) N Subject: Request for Settlement Proposal Due to Changed Circumstances   I am writing to discuss the current status of my Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), now in its 36th month. Following a recent income and expenditure review with a debt charity this morning, it has become clear that my financial situation has deteriorated significantly, making the continuation of the agreed monthly repayment of £140 unfeasible.   The primary reason for my financial hardship remains the ongoing health challenges faced by my two Sons, which have necessitated frequent hospital visits and medical care since 2017.    As a result, my employment opportunities are limited, and I am self-employed with Uber Eats to accommodate their medical appointments, hospital stays, and monthly infusions.   It is crucial to highlight that pursuing Debt Relief Orders (DRO) or bankruptcy would not yield any additional funds for creditors, as I reside in rented accommodation and possess no other assets or savings.   Furthermore, I do not foresee a change or improvement in my circumstances in the foreseeable future due to the long-term nature of my children's health conditions, and the health issues I am now suffering for to the stress of this IVA.    I have faithfully maintained my IVA payments for 36 months without missing a single installment. Regrettably, my situation has become increasingly untenable, leading to depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts related to the financial strain of the IVA.    To avoid defaulting on payments, I have resorted to borrowing money from friends and family, resulting in a further deterioration of my health and consequently even more debt which is definitely not the solution I expected from you.   Based on my recent income and expenditure assessment, I am currently experiencing a monthly deficit of approximately £650 due to the escalating cost of living. Therefore, I respectfully request that you propose an early settlement to my creditors, based on the payments made to date, taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances surrounding my children's health and my own mental well-being. My wife too is unwell and unable to work leaving me to look after them all with zero support from the government or council.    If it is not deemed appropriate to request an early settlement, I will have no alternative but to cancel the IVA and manage my creditors directly.   Additionally, I must convey my dissatisfaction with the service provided by Creditfix, to whom I have been referred from Hanover. The level of service at Creditfix has not met acceptable standards, and I feel confused and unsupported throughout this process. Despite my worsening situation, Creditfix has shown little interest in understanding my circumstances and instead has pressured me to increase payments. Your last email requesting modification and an increase in payments clearly demonstrated to me that you have no interest or concern for my family or my welfare and are our solely to get what you as much as you can, giving zero regard to my situation.    Lastly, I want to clarify that I have exhausted all avenues of financial support, and I do not have any friends or family who can lend me further funds to cover the outstanding amount on the IVA.   I appreciate your understanding and assistance in this matter. Please advise on the next steps and provide any necessary documentation to facilitate the negotiation of a settlement with my creditors.   I have attached a copy of my latest income and expenditure form that I completed this morning that shows how struggling I am right now and can't afford to pay this any longer.    Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I eagerly await your response.   Yours sincerely,
    • AndyOrch
      Backdoor Link CCJ - old Barclaycard debt - Default Judgment set a side - hearing in 2 days - Witness Statement help urgent!

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      No because telling a story in your statement chronologically it would be out of run sequence. 
    • Alfy
      Iva with Hanover now been passed to credit expert

      By Alfy · Posted

      I have just sent my IVA company the following letter in going to wait to see it credit fox accept my request to put to my creditors or request to accept payments so far as my full settlement but I suspect credit fix will try they're best to avoid that happening - I'm confident the credited will agree but getting credit fix to agree is another story.    I have today sent them the following letter and if they don't accept I'll stop the agreement and ignore and on that instance plese help me clear all my issues guys as I'm sure I'll need lots of help to get the likes of lowell and Cabot of my back.    I do know that most thus debt was taken out around 2009 and 10 and some in 2015 meaning the original debt are all. Over 6 years for sure and I hope you guys can guide me how to deal with them now  firstly below is a list of all the creditors with amounts and some are duplicate and then followed by the letter I just sent to iva company 
    • FTMDave
      CEL PCN Claimform - Appealed - Red Lion Car Park, Wetherby LS22 6LR

      By FTMDave · Posted

      I see CEL accepted all the stuff about you being a genuine customer and offered to settle the matter for £20. What was your logic for refusing their offer of settlement? I'm not saying you were wrong, we have plenty of cases where motorists have quite rightly told the PPCs where to stuff their £20 offers.  Just interested in your reasons for making the decisions you have been making about your case.  
    • AndyOrch
      Backdoor Link CCJ - old Barclaycard debt - Default Judgment set a side - hearing in 2 days - Witness Statement help urgent!

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      Because its not connected to this claim.....Ideally if you had received the claim you would have requested information pursuant to CPR 31.14 and a CCA request for the agreement. DSAR only reveals your personal data held which would be minimal with the this claimant. You can leave it in if you desire but it adds no weight to your statement.   .

  • 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 5126 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...