Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
    • There is no evidence that I was issued a PCN that was placed on the car and removed. It seems that I was issued a £60 PCN on the 8th of March (the parking date) but it was never placed on my car, instead,  they allege that they posted the PCN on the 13th of March and deemed delivered on the 15th. I never got this 1st £60 PCN demand. I only know about all of this through the SAR. I only received the second PCN demanding £100, which was deemed delivered on 16/04/2024 - that is 39 days after the parking incident.  I did a little research and "Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations." as per London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The main issue is that I was not aware of the 1st £60 PCN as I didn't receive it - I'm not sure how this relates to the 28-day rule because that rule applies to the initial £60 PCN. PCM could say that "we sent him the letter by post and it was deemed delivered on the 15th of March" therefore the 28-day rule does not apply.  As regards the safety of the parking attendant, that is clearly something he chose to feel and he made the decision that his safety was threatened - I didn't even see him or had any interaction with him. I'm nearly 50 and I definitely don't look aggressive  I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.  From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator." From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image. The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts? I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • okay will do. I'll let you know if anything transpires but once again - many thanks
    • Personally I would strongly suggest not risking going there with debts. Very possible you wont get back out again. And I know many in that position. Not jailed just unable to leave. the stories of Interpol in other countries sounds far fetched but in and out of Dubai is not a good idea. only two weeks ago a mate got stopped albeit a govt debt.
  • 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

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'm ashamed to say, I shoplifted, or attempted to shoplift from Boots today. It was an expensive electric razor, costing something like £250. I wanted to sell it to pay my rent. I got caught half way down the street, and I admitted to stealing almost instantly. They took me to a back office, and took my name and address, searched my bag and got me to sign a few documents. This is the first time something like this has happened to me. I didn't really read on what I was signing, but they said they weren't going to contact the police, but I have been banned from all Boots stores for a year, and will be contacted by the RLP by post. The security guard was very friendly and down to earth, getting my permission before searching my bag and wallet.

 

I have a few questions that I looked for the answers for in other threads, but could not find.

 

1. Are the RLP envelopes marked obviously? I would prefer it if my housemates did not find out about this. I am very embarrassed.

 

2. I am currently unemployed and looking for work. I cannot even afford my rent at the moment. I have read that it is possible to persuade the RLP to end their requests for money, if your financial position is already in bad shape. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

 

3. The security guard said that because it was a high value item, the charge would be quite high, something like 200/250 pounds. However, as they have retrieved the item, and it is still sealed and available to resell, should it be this high? I guess I should wait for the dreaded letter.

 

I really don't want to tell anyone about this, but how do I avoid going into Boots with my girlfriend/friends/family?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tony

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

 

1. Are the RLPlink3.gif envelopes marked obviously? I would prefer it if my housemates did not find out about this. I am very embarrassed.

 

I'm not sure, but I very much doubt they have RLP on them, people would be reluctant to open them.

2. I am currently unemployed and looking for work. I cannot even afford my rent at the moment. I have read that it is possible to persuade the RLP to end their requests for money, if your financial position is already in bad shape. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

 

If you need money as a matter of urgency, why don't you apply for a Crisis Loan providing you qualify:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018856

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_4017683

 

3. The security guard said that because it was a high value item, the charge would be quite high, something like 200/250 pounds. However, as they have retrieved the item, and it is still sealed and available to resell, should it be this high? I guess I should wait for the dreaded letter.

 

Well,they got the item back, so that shouldn't come into it. Have a read of the stickies, the CAB report, be aware that Boots are attempting to bring an action against someone to court.

 

The guys won't judge, just advise, it's happened don't punish yourself, keep positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my recent experience (I'm a postie) the envelopes are franked at the top with the words "retail loss prevention" in small red writing.

 

Not something you'd spot unless you were looking for it, but it is there.

 

(whenever I see one I have to resist the urge to tell the recipient to use it as bog roll)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant imagine for a moment that this will stick. Rule of thumb, it doesnt make a blind bit of difference how high the value is. especially since the item was recovered untouched, and they can still sell it. They tend to try and tack on charges for time involved, evidence gathering etc. I would take the viewpoint of theyve got it back, deal with it.

 

The security guard shouldnt have said a word about the RLP, its got nowt to do with him. I think that boots are using AFC group for their security at the mo and they boots RLP procedures dont involve them other than at the most initial stage.

 

Second, personally, Id have told the security to go whistle when they asked to search you. Ive been in security for a V long time, and its always best to leave that sort of thing down to the police.

 

Your financial situation is something that can be looked at by the benefit centre, I would suggest you look into housing/council tax benefit etc to help with your rent, its a reasonably longwinded process, so best bet is to crack on with it as soon as you can.

 

I wouldnt worry too much about the RLP process, the odds of them making it stick are massively in your favour, in fact I cant think of a single case off hand that theyve won without scaring people into paying before court etc.

 

Take control of your situation proactively, I know its easy to say that typing on a keyboard, but every one on here will help you however we can, Ive learnt that from the things Ive needed help with and things can get better so much quicker once you really attack the things that need sorting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the helpful replies everyone.

 

I didn't really want them to search me, but also, didn't want for the police to get involved. I thought it would be better to just get out of there as soon as they'd let me. I think they were just trying to be helpful about RLP, they were surprisingly open about it all. I'll let everyone know when I've received the letter, and detail numbers etc.

 

I'd rather not ignore it though, I don't want any more letters than necessary. Perhaps calling them detailing my situation would help? Or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey, I got a letter from RLP and I was also worried about the envelope. It included RLP in the address watermark but it's tiny and kind of a faded light grey colour. You wouldn't notice it if you weren't looking for it.... my mum's boyfriend got the post this morning and didn't notice at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Again, thanks for the helpful replies. I received the letter on Saturday. I guess they change the watermarks regularly, as mine was stamped with not a large, but clearly visible red mark, which read Retail Loss Prevention. Luckily, I was the first to check the post.

 

Would it be helpful for me to type out the full letter? It wouldn't cause me much bother to do so.

 

In summary, the letter asks me to pay £187.50. I feel this is far too much for any loss I caused.

 

What is my next best step?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HiFrom personal experience I wouldignore it, I neve replied to any of their letters and certainly never sent any money. They will eventually go away after a few more threatening letters. Don't worry! I know it's easier said than done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've had 2 letters from them so far. The first one stating the amount they want me to pay (not gonna happen) and the second telling me I'm required to pay or respond, whether it's to defend my case or ask for more time etc. I replied via e-mail, asking for a full breakdown of the costs and how they justify these costs. No reply yet, but I'll let you know when I get one.

 

I certainly have no intention of paying them, although it can get worrying when you start getting threatening letters from them. From what I've heard, though, they are empty threats. I've been researching into it a LOT since I got my first letter, and all the threads I've read basically say to ignore them. But I haven't really found many people who have ignored them and said from personal experience how long it has taken them to stop sending letters, so I can't really help you out on that one. Although I can say that they themselves have no legal rights to make you pay and their clients are unlikely to take further action as they could get prosecuted for blackmail and harassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...