Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello I am a resident of a communal block of flats owned by a Housing Association and since Tuesday 14th May 2024 Matthews and Tannert had put up scaffolding for a job on the roof last week, which was up for the best part of nine days. They had removed the scaffolding on Thursday 23rd May 2024 but my Sky box is still not working because of the satellite dish outside, and I was wondering whether the scaffolders had touched the dish while it was there and as a result had probably knocked the dish and probably made the dish go out of signal or whatever. I needed someone to check this out as well as to see my Sky box to see what could be the problem, and hopefully sort this out. I have had my Sky Digibox for many years and I have got recordings saved on them that I have had a long time - it would break my heart if I had lost them forever.       I contacted Sky but I almost made the mistake of accepting an offer where I would have to pay £31.50 and wait a whole month without television in my front room for it. I am in debt at the moment and I don't want all this on top of everything else - thankfully I have since cancelled it two weeks later when I told the person on the phone that it is the dish which is at fault as well as the fact that I live in a communal Housing Association property, and so that is one of very few weights off my mind. I emailed the Housing Association's Repairs department and they said that they will contact an electrical company to come out and see to the dish outside. I received a telephone call on Friday 24th May from the man to say that he will arrive on Wednesday 29th May 2024 to do the job. He arrived at around 9.40 am on Wednesday as promised; he went into my flat and had a look at the Sky box and saw the blue screen on my front room TV set, indicating no signal. He also looked outside as to where the dish was.  The main problem was that the ladders that he had with him were not enough to reach the dish outside as the dish was towards the top of the building - obviously the Health and Safety aspect of the job didn't allow him to do this. He then mentioned that whether he could do the job as a result of getting onto the roof and doing it like that as the dish is closer to the top. He said that he needed the key to enter the loft part of the building in order to reach this, and he needed to contact the Housing Officer at the Housing Association who had key to this, but lo and behold, he came on the Wednesday to do the job, and guess what? Wednesday was the Housing Officer's day off and so therefore he was unable to contact him for the key so that he could do the job! I just couldn't believe it myself. I am personally annoyed because this has not been sorted, and the man who came to do this is also annoyed because he came all the way to Nottingham from Peterborough, and he said to me that he won't get paid if he cannot do the job, so you see, we are both angry about this for different reasons. We are both in the same boat with regards to frustration, and we both want to see a conclusion to this, once and for all. Sometimes I wish that I didn't live in a flat which is in a communal building and I am thinking of getting a transfer to a one bedroom flat that isn't in that sort of place. I pay around £85 a month in a Direct Debit to Sky to receive their TV services which I cannot use at the moment, and I don't have much money in my bank account as it is due to one thing and another. I also pay nearly £14 a month to TV Licensing so that I can legally watch TV in my front room. I pay for Sky hence the fact that I want the Sky service in my front room and not Freeview. Also, as the General Election is coming up in five weeks' time, I want the satellite TV to be working properly so that I can catch up with what is on the news channels, and I feel rather "cut off" from that at the moment, and I want it working in time for Thursday 4th July 2024 for ovbious reasons . I have Freeview in my bedroom, but that is not the point  - I don't want to be limited to my bedroom every time I want to watch TV. I have tried putting the Freeview in te front room but it doesn't seem compatable for the same uses that I usually have Sky for.  Sunday 9th June 2024 is Day 27 of the satellite TV not working in my flat, and I feel that something needs to be done about this. You can take this message as a complaint if you like, but nevertheless, I want this message to be acknowledged and also something to be done about what has happened. I have enough on my plate with regards to health problems and depression without things like this making things worse. I would appreciate it if something was done.  I don't like naming and shaming but it is Matthews and Tannert's fault that I am in this situation in the first place, and sometimes I wish that I could sue them. In a nutshell, I have had more than enough after being without TV in the my front room for nearly four weeks. Also, at a time like this, I am missing so much of interest on TV what with the General Election comning up in just a few weeks.
    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
  • 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

Canary Wharf Security Guards.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4672 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

I have been working down in the big city in Canary Wharf (no I am not a banker :) ) recently and at Canary Wharf there are loads of security staff wandering around in pseudo looking Police uniforms complete with bat utility belt :).

 

Now I know CW is a bit of a weird place as apprently its all under a private Landlord so I heard so here are a few questions...

 

1) Anyone know if they are private security staff or attached to the Police, i.e. some sort of PCSO?

 

2) They have no SIA ID but Police type numbers on their shoulders. How come they do not show it?

 

3) They seem to go round enforcing parking, are they allowed to?

 

4) There is a recent edict from CW management that no smoking with so many metres of office or you will be fine. Can they enforce this?

 

Ta,

Yorky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like its this crowd of plastc monkeys

 

Security Supervisor (Retail) - Canary Wharf, London

 

they are not POLICE nor have any legal status

 

the cannot use the word FINE anywhere nor can they issue a fine and it is public roads etc , they are not an official body

 

I know a few black cab drivers that had a run in with them, mate ran over one of the idiots foot when he tried to stop his cab, mate called the police , cant actually say here what the copper told the plastic idiot ( well not on here anyway , somthing like go forth and multiply ) and something about the next time he jumps in front of a car and tries to stop it he will arrested for impersonating a real policeman :D

 

seems like a crowd of want'a'bee's

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kip,

 

This ad relates to a security guard fr a shop, I am pretty sure I know the one in question as well as still boarded up but has Tiffanys plastered all over the outside.

 

The guards I am talking about are the external ones which 'patrol' the streets around Canary Wharf. They are done up like policeman even down to the caps and chequered log around there security badge, however as I said they do not have any SIA ID anywhere, something I thought they were not allowed to do.

 

I think they are private and operating above their remit, especially with trying to fine people, etc,

 

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think they are private and operating above their remit, especially with trying to fine people, etc,

 

Any ideas?

 

they are they have no powers just like the [problem] private parking invoices

 

ignore them.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they could be covered in green stripes and purple spots the answer is the same , beyond their legal remit

 

the only actual private police force ( for want of a better definition ) are those at the Dartford tunnel but are santioned by the Home Office and other goverment bodies

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

means nowt sadly

its only a trade body.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

the canary wharfs are private corporate ones the canary wharf like may private companies buildings etc are privately owned .

 

and if one was to approach me for my name and date of birth etc i'd be more than happy provideing i had'nt done anything wrong to kindly wisper in the ear pee off :)

 

or ask them for thiers and then aen for a copy of the recent crb check and identity then you may disclose your own data or even charge them for it lol film then aswel record them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx - Am I missing something, I thought all guards, clampers, door staff, etc had to registered with the SIA and display their ID, except plain clothes store security who have to produce when requested. So more than just a trade body.

 

LordC - That would be thoughts exactly, for the most part they dont hassle anyone but if they did try to 'fine' me for anything I wouldnt take it lieing down.

 

Yorky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but that trade body means nothing!!!

 

its just a body to give them some credibility to people they try to fleece or boss around

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If their uniform &/or their behaviour can be mistaken (by anyone) as being that of a police officer they are committing a serious offence. If I were you I would complain to a senior police officer, super or above

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

correct they should have an sia badge showing and there uniforms should not be like police uniform and they cant fine anyone as they have no powers but welcome to great britain where sia where brought in by the goveremnt to charge people to work as a security guard for 3 years as low pay long hours jobs plus a lot of the companies do employ non sia people because they can if they get caught they just get slap on wrist fine and get telled dnt do it again hahahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

A so called security guard at the Forest Holidays development near Sherwood Pines Centre, near Clipstone in Notts. was reported to police on Friday 18th March 2011 for verbally abusing and assaulting a member of the public who had simply walked past the fenced compound containing materials and plant for the construction of holiday cabins. The man had stopped when requested to do so by the security guards who came out of the compound and followed him when he had gone some 50 - 70 yards past the compound but when asked to say who he was, refused and asked why they were asking and requested to see their id and authority. He was grabbed forcibly by the arm whilst being called offensive names and when he, quite naturally, struggled to free himself without striking the security guards was himself struck in the face by one of them and dragged to the ground whereupon two "guards" (more like thugs) manhandled him in a different direction to where he had been going claiming to be escorting him "off the site". If he had simply been allowed to continue as he had been doing no harm would have been done and there would have been no incident.

Edited by a_friend
Correct organisation name
Link to post
Share on other sites

They look like police, act like police but do not have policing powers other than those of a private citizen. You should google 'love police' and 'canary wharf' you will see these clowns in action or should we say inaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hmm, this is a rarity,a member of the site team getting it wrong? sorry dx100k but youre completely wrong here. The SIA is not a trade body. It is the licensing authority charged by the home office with vetting and licensing all sectors of the security industry.

 

As foe the displaying of the licences, yes security staff MUST display their licences. 'any person undertaking licensable activities must hold and display a valid SIA licence.'

 

To not do so is an offence and is in breach of the conditions under which the license was issued and can be punished by withdrawal of the licence, fines, and in extreme cases imprisonment.

 

The only exceptions to this are the security staff that are not required to be 'immediately identifiable' Ie, plain clothes store detectives, close protection officers.

But even they must carry their licence and have it available for insepction by an authorised person.

Now dont get me worng, Im a dual license holder my self, door supervision and cctv, and I dont particularly like the SIA, buts as shown in the prosecution cases V Sabrewatch and Advance (then securiplan) they are the regulatory body and have the power to prosecute and police the industry. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As foe the displaying of the licences, yes security staff MUST display their licences. 'any person undertaking licensable activities must hold and display a valid SIA licence.'

 

 

Unless they are directly employed in-house, and not 3rd party contractor like 99% the rest on the guards in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be the case in most outfits, but there is exceptions. for instance, when I was working in a leading retail supermarket all of the security were 'in house' except for me. I was brought in specifically to make the actual arrests or detentions.

 

Only reason for that set up is for the the client to be able to claim plausible deniability in the case of it being done wrong. Which it never did with me I hasten to add.

 

Its a little daft that the SIA have brought in compulsory licensing but left such a huge gaping loophole in the legislation. Not big enough for sabrewatch or securiplan to get through tho lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plausible deniability?

 

Simple really. Company A brings in company B to provide frontline security. Company A has security staff there but they deal with CCTV, radio comms, etc that sort of stuff. those staff work directly for company A. Company B sends down Joe Bloggs to work with the staff from company A, but has to actually make arrests, detain alleged offenders etc. Joe Bloggs cocks up one day, or it turns out they dont have have the evidence needed to back up their actions.

 

Company A hangs Joe Bloggs out to dry, whether company A staff had worked with him on that case or not and just say 'Joe Bloggs doesnt work for us he works for Company B there fore any mistake, misconduct, yadda yadda is the responsibilty of comapny B. Company A wouldnt knowingly let this happen, were squeaky clean your honour'

 

Seriously Ive seen it happen time and time again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i tend to disagree on this

 

Any private security guard is acting under instructions of the client (supermarket ) if the security guard make a mistake then its up to the client to take responsability for his/her actions

 

private guard or in house

please supply any case law to back up your sinario

 

NOT HAVING A POP AT YOU

 

JUST INTERESTED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a matter of law, its a matter of whats actually happened. Without identifying retailers I cant provide specific examples but suffice to say this is exactly what happens when theres the remotest iota of doubt or wiggle room in an arrest. Its just easier for large chains to have the ability to step away from something and claim the person in question doesnt work for them. Thats why contracted in firms have insurance for wrongful arrest and so on, because the clients will always hide behind the firm theyve hired in order to protect themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they may hide behind a third party but at the end of the day, its the supermarket who employs the third party and its the supermarket who is liable

 

ime going by personal experience and i left tesco with £500 worth of vouchers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I think a lot of you are being really unfair with your uneducated opinions. Most of Canary Wharf Security Officers are ex-military and have served you and the counrty on many tours overseas. Canary Wharf is considered to be a high threat area due to the large infastructure. The Security Guards are there for your protection, so i think a little respect is deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...