Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate the time that has gone into replying. I have read so much about this tonight that hopefully I can be a step ahead.  If I gain a reply from the head office I shall let you guys know. 
    • yep. they are all simply trading names of perch to try and scam people into thinking their debt is going up some kind to mystical legal chain...which is BS. all dca's pull these stunts and have done since the late 1970's
    • just type no need to hit quote. what you really need to do is forget about it now they have  just steer clear of THAT ONE STORE for a few months. other B&Q's are OK. even if you do go back in, they'll simple ask you to leave, then if you return again, could invoke trespass laws BUT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN IT HERE. as for getting out of your tree about police, prison, criminal record, arrested, knocks at doors, letter of claim....NONE OF THE CAN EVER HAPPEN. and has not on these joe public low level shoplifting incidence since 2012. you've already got a scary letter ratchetting on about some mystical FAKE civil restoration scheme .  you'll probably get a few more ...NOTHING THEY CAN EVER DO. bin shred burn give to your pet hamster any money people pay CRS/RLP/DEF etc regarding their letters goes straight into their pocket and off they go down the pub and LAUGH at people they mugged. the retailer never sees a penny.  i admire your action of send £5 to B&Q. its done now and its over with....move on with your live. dx
    • 4.  Under The Pre-Action Protocol 201?, a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior too and including ,The Pre action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claimform dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 9.   The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2nd February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. re: 13 & 15...they dont need to produce the deed, thats a private b2b document only the judge can demand sight of. i would remove 13 totally as within their WS they have produced the Notice Of Assignment. and delete it from 15 a few ideas. dx  
    • Underp04 (I think it was him) put up the statement IDR used in court from some supposed expert mr edge. can you find it? It stated 10 years was the statute barred limit but also that the laws were very confusing. very much worth digging out!
  • 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

Accused of Shoplifting


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4399 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

TKM have made false allegations that they will be unable to back up from their own tapes.

 

The accused's employers have wasted thousands of public money paying someone not to work over a dubious £4 allegation.

 

I think I would be getting my lawyer to seek an apology from TKM as they cannot show what they must have been able to show from tapes to make the allegations.

 

Meanwhere - look at the free money and no work related expenses. I would be taking a nice holiday!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that rather than looking at the free money & revelling in the free time, the OPs GF is totally stressed out at the thought of losing her job.

 

I totally agree that she should be getting some proper legal advice, getting her union involved if possible and banging on HR's door demanding to know what happens next and when.

 

In the circumstances she should not be accepting any **** from her employers, but re-instatement with no adverse record made

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Sorry to have came into this at the tail end but please listen up. The Police have advised there is to be NFA(No further action)end of. That is it.End of story.One of the other contributors is absolutely correct when they said that you should be banging on doors,that is exactly what she should be doing and NOW! I noted that you haven't mentioned her union involvement in all of this. I imagine that she is in a union,given her type of job etc. If so she should be banging on their door as well,using them as an intermediary between her and her employer. But it is vitally important that she takes the lead here and doesn't let the grass grow under her feet. I can also tell you that "Anus Horribilis" is totally WRONG when he/she said that her employers have probably seen the evidence,video etc. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. She has confidentiality rights like everyone else and they would be breaking their own rules of conduct if they had access to the "supposed" evidence that has since been discounted.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are quite wrong. There will almost certainly be a second review of the case, addressing the employment aspects. In making that decision they have a duty to consider all the evidence available to them. If the Police consider that Ms Teessider cannot be trusted in her post or that the reputation of the force may be harmed by her employment, then they may wish to dismiss her. "Banging on doors" will achieve nothing, but the involvement of a union or lawyer would certainly be useful when they 'invite' her to that meeting.

 

One last thing i would recommend and that is to find a very good "criminal work" only solicitor. You will not find one by contacting the CAB or other mobs like them. However may i politely suggest YOU fire yourself along to the magistrates court,i am assuming you are in England and speak to as many people as you can,by people i mean court clerks,solicitors who you will see darting around and,more importantly the accused themselves..

 

Why does Ms Teessider need a criminal lawyer? The criminal investigation is complete, no charges are to be brought. A civil lawyer with good experience in employment law could be worthwhile if things get sticky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that rather than looking at the free money & revelling in the free time, the OPs GF is totally stressed out at the thought of losing her job.

 

I totally agree that she should be getting some proper legal advice, getting her union involved if possible and banging on HR's door demanding to know what happens next and when.

 

In the circumstances she should not be accepting any **** from her employers, but re-instatement with no adverse record made

 

It was solely a suggestion attempting to take the stress off the real victims.

 

To me the main issue here is not the accusation of shoplifting - but the employee fabricating details to claim there had been four quid crime.

 

So the real dishonesty here caused thousands of pounds in public money wasted by someone lying to attempt to back up a four quid allegation, in addition to the obvious stress and threats to the victim of this fabrication.

 

So I stand by advising to make the best of a bad situation, and have a go at the maker of the misrepresentation that caused these events once the tape substantiates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...