Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

What should i do with being wrongly treated by asda security staff


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4470 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 regulary shop at my local asda, at least twice a week. I got my few items and went to checkout and paid upon this i was approached by two security guards who stated to me " we believe you are banned from this store" i was shocked and said " no why whats up"". I had used the same store for over 20 years.

 

The one security guard said " we have a photo of you with someone in a wheelchair". i was shocked i said they must be wrong. he insisted that it was true. so I said what have i supposed to have done? . he said we cant tell you because of data protection. So I then get rather upset and disraught as lots of customers was around me.

 

The guard advised me to leave the store. So i did and i got to my car and thought i want to know more what is going on. So i went back in and asked for the manager. who came and soon as i had explained what was going on she asked the guards to show them the file with the photo. They then proceeded to deny that they had ever said such things !!! i was in massive shock and began crying and lots of people was gathering around looking. I demanded that they didnt call me a liar and to show the manager the file and photo they said they NEVER said such things.

 

The manager asked them to go through the files which they began doing whilst i was left stood in the middle of the store crying. she said they have lots of photos so it take some time. i said it shouldnt take that long if they just so called seen it while i was shopping in the store. she walked off and left me.

 

At this i telephoned the police for advice who explained to me i do have rights to know why all this was going on and to contact asda head office. which i have just emailed them.

 

So i walked up to these two guards who was randomly picking through photos and said im leaving and this wont be the last of this im seeking advice. goodbye.

 

they jeered at me and said "whatever".

 

while i was driving home i was thinking and i recalled that my eldest son had fell out with his girlfriend and that she and her mother both worked in that store on various shifts and i assumed that they had asked for me to get banned from the store so that i wouldnt bump into them...... i may be wrong but yeah....

 

anyway i feel utterly disgraced and lots of people at the school where i fetch my youngest son from are asking what i did in asda.. i feel a criminal and done nothing.

 

can anyone advise me of what i can do please?

 

thank you to anyone who can help me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shocked

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Write a Formal Letter of Complaint, mark it as such. Explain whats happened, tell them you want a full explanation as security guards have made 'false allegations against you', explain what you want them to do.

 

 

Send it to:-

 

Andy Clarke, Chief Executive

[email protected]

 

Some tips:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1242161/How--write-letter-complaint.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shocked

 

Mention that you are considering taking further action because you were accused in front of other customers on the shop floor and even when they were wrong,

they didn't have the courtesy to say, 'were sorry we got it wrong', tell them how you felt.

 

thank you for your reply i will get onto it right away. I didnt know wether to contact a solicitor but i will take this step first.

 

much appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a email back on friday from one of andy clarkes collegues who said he was looking into it. Today i get a telephone call from the local asdas manager saying he doing a full investigation. He stated i was definatly wrongly treated and the staff in question didnt follow company policy and i was to accept his appology. Should i take this further for compensation or just accept the appology or what should be my next step of action. thanks people :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shocked

 

Well Done. The store thats got it's procedures wrong is investigating, that makes a lot of sense. I would definately pursue it, don't let them off lightly, send another e-mail, tell them you want to be compensated for the embarrassment and distress caused and your happy to purse the matter through the courts.

 

i had a email back on friday from one of andy clarkes collegues who said he was looking into it. Today i get a telephone call from the local asdas manager saying he doing a full investigation. He stated i was definatly wrongly treated and the staff in question didnt follow company policy and i was to accept his appology. Should i take this further for compensation or just accept the appology or what should be my next step of action. thanks people :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

IThe one security guard said " we have a photo of you with someone in a wheelchair". i was shocked i said they must be wrong. he insisted that it was true. so I said what have i supposed to have done? . he said we cant tell you because of data protection.

Not only can they tell you, if you make a request under the Data Protection Act 1998, they must give you copies of documents and pictures. Make this request at once. When they can't supply this information, you've got them.

 

Did you feel that they were about to use unlawful force against you? If so, that's assault. Were you initially prevented from leaving? If so, that's a restraint from liberty (ie an arrest), and also actionable if unlawful.

 

Do not attend the store to 'discuss' this. Do not use email. Do not deal with this over the telephone. Strictly everything in writing. Don't be bullied or fobbed off. Hit them hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

no company is allowed to keep a picture of you without your permission, the only allowable storage of images is on cctv which can only be held for 30 days unless requested as evidence by police. if a guard tells you they have your picture on file they are breaking the data protection act. i see alot of so called retail security companies with black books of photos and details of people banned or watched for, these are illegal and if they say you are in one then call the police and ask them to sieze the images.

 

oh and so we are clear , only the police can arrest you in the UK security guards have no more rights than any other civilian. They can detain you if they have good suspicion that the store's goods are being removed without being paid for, but they cannot insist on searching you or searching your belongings. If you refused to co-operate, they candetain you until the arrival of the police, who CAN search you. Detaining includes the use of "reasonable force" to do so. BUT they must be able to provide a reasonable and actionable reason to do so.

Edited by nikontomh
Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that apply to the Pub Watch 'barred from one, barred from all' scheme, then? I can't remember off-hand if photo's of barred individuals were distributed to pubs who were members, but it would be very difficult to enforce the barred from one, barred from all policy if photographic evidence wasn't supplied to the other member pubs. How would they know who had been barred elsewhere?

"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the pub scheme is not allowed to use photos unless they are given to them by the police, they can only use names and descriptions. I also worked in the door security sector for many years This is a long disputed topic on weher images are allowed to be kept but i know from working in the sector we were told its not allowed and we would be liable to individual prosecution if we kept our own "black book of images" . The data protection act clearly prevents companies from doing this and if you think your image is being used in this way then you have the right to have it removed as the company is breaking the law

 

Over the years security guards have always gotten a bad press but this is because nowadays they are badly trained, badly paid and generally not suited the job anyway. But people need to use the rights they have and prevent these bullyboy companies and tactics.

 

i will find the regulations and guidelines for images for this and post it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Pubwatch scheme intends to store or share information such as CCTV images as a Watch between its members, it should register its activity with the Data Commissioner. Registration is an easy process which can be carried out online and is subject to a relatively modest fee. In addition you should produce your own protocol for the secure handling of data by Watch members. Any data; which includes photographic images, should be dealt with sensitively. A sample data sharing protocol can be found on our website.

 

Sometimes a Watch will also be able to obtain photographs from other sources; such as the press or on publicly accessible social media sites where the individual has posted their image or as previously mentioned, voluntarily direct from the banned person in exchange for a reduced period of exclusion.

The Police may also be willing to provide you with police photographs of banned individuals, but this will be at their discretion and will be for a police purpose e.g. prevention of crime and disorder. It will also be subject to a locally agreed data sharing agreement. Police forces deal with this issue in different ways. Some will produce a folder of police photographs which has to be signed for by the Watch member; others will share them by using a system such as Pubwatch Online where the member has to use a secure password to access the site and the photograph is given a watermark to show who has downloaded an image.

 

which means, they register with the data commissioner and become liable for inspection, or from the banned person themselves for a reduction in ban, or from public domain sources. They must still heed to the regulations and not allow the image to seen by the public or to tell people they hold the image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info. I'll have to ask my OH how it worked in the pub he was licensee for, but I have a vague recollection that they were shown the pictures by the police at the Pubwatch meetings, but not actually allowed the images. I could well be making that up though.

 

Sorry to the OP for the slight thread hijack - I hope your situation was resolved, as best it could be.

"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
no company is allowed to keep a picture of you without your permission, the only allowable storage of images is on cctv which can only be held for 30 days unless requested as evidence by police. if a guard tells you they have your picture on file they are breaking the data protection act. i see alot of so called retail security companies with black books of photos and details of people banned or watched for, these are illegal and if they say you are in one then call the police and ask them to sieze the images.

 

oh and so we are clear , only the police can arrest you in the UK security guards have no more rights than any other civilian. They can detain you if they have good suspicion that the store's goods are being removed without being paid for, but they cannot insist on searching you or searching your belongings. If you refused to co-operate, they candetain you until the arrival of the police, who CAN search you. Detaining includes the use of "reasonable force" to do so. BUT they must be able to provide a reasonable and actionable reason to do so.

 

Wrong. If the photo is taken in an area covered by CCTV, or taken off CCTV, as long as the CCTV signage is displayed images can be kept, providing the company has a data protection policy in place, and has a "reasonable" suspicion that the person has or is likely to comitt an indictable offence.

 

CCTV can be kept for any length of time, ours is currently 90 days then it gets overwritten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...