Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • 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

Scared got letter from retail loss prevention


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4348 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

HI There,

 

I am a single mum and so scared I was out shopping with my daughter in Primark and she was playing up and got a phonecall on my mobile I had a pack of vests and socks which I forgot about had the money for them but because I was not thinking walkked out then security approached me and took my datails I told them this was my first and last time doing this but was not thinking. Now I have recieved a letter saying I have to pay £87.50 which I can not afford to pay now I am worried I will have to go to court so scared .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome.

Please try to calm down and have a read of others in a similar situation.

 

Just as a matter of interest, how long were you held?

Did they take you to a back office? did you have a choice?

 

These 'speculative' invoices have no legal standing (YET-if at all)

 

You will get lots of help but the main thing is. YOU WILL NOT GET A CRIMINAL RECORD

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not held long just gave my address and date of birth then they gave me the information about RLP then I was escorted out as my daughter was playing up. I am just so scared as have not got the money to pay it as all my benefit money pays for my bills and my daughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get this straight. They will send you some letters demanding this that and the other then they will get a debt collector to chase you and they may even try the solicitor letter.

The only person that can force you to pay this invoice is a judge and RLP very rarely do court.

 

As I said, read around this forum and you will see just how seriously we at CAG regard this (NOT being the answer)

 

Do not even offer to pay them. You were not arrested-no crime-simple as

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's more, because the goods were recovered in a saleable condition, the shop did not suffer any loss. The security man was doing the job he was paid to do, so he didn't spend any time away from his normal job.

 

I suspect that the security man saw exactly what had happened and saw you as an easy target for an RLP speculative invoice.

 

Ignore the first letter, but if they continue to write, send them a single line reply to their next letter, literally "I deny any liability to you or your client.". That is best sent second class, but get a certificate of posting (free from the post office) to show that you sent the letter. Don't add anything else to the letter.

 

Don't provide any further information (eg excuses or reasons)

 

Don't talk to them on the phone (I don't think that they do call) - don't go through their "security" process if they do call, just tell them that you will deal with the matter in writing only.

 

In my eyes, as well as dealing with thieves, the security people are there to remind forgetful shoppers who have forgotten to pay or are distracted of what they have done, not to treat them like this. They need re-educating. The way that shops are laid out encourages you to wonder around looking for your remaining purchases and it is all too easy to forget that you have picked up some items that you are considering purchasing and then get distracted and leave the store. When I did that, fortunately I wasn't stopped and just returned the items (I had decided not to buy them) to the shelves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chrissy

 

Write a Formal Letter of Complaint, explain what happened, that you are totally innocent (you got distracted by the phone call and you had monies to pay for the goods on you) and this is a case of an over zealous security guard.

As the guys have said, try not to worry.

 

Send it to:-

 

Paul Marchant, 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

  • 1 month later...

Hi Chrissy

 

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having sent letter stating deny no liability now I have a letter stating that they have considered all the issues raised and have attatched a Defence to civil claim form. and that if I reject all the alternatives that their client will be entititled to issue a Claim in the county court. Worried now . I can not afford to pay £87.50 and the goods were returned straight away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Don't worry about this new letter. You have written stating your case so in my opinion, you should now ignore their letters.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, RLP has invited you to make a contribution to their funds ()maybe their Christmas party and you have declined. They can't issued any claim through the courts and their clients haven't either.

 

At the moment there is nothing to provide a defense to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi All,

 

I have received another letter today titled " Claiments Offer to Settle Claim Pursuant to Part 36 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 " Says the claiment is willing to make a offer of £70 .00 in full but I still can not afford this . Do I still ignore the letters worried again that they will take me to court when it was a mistake as stated in my thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your client is fully aware of my version of events, the CCTV backs this up. I am currently considering making a claim against your client and I am happy to include RLP if you continue to represent them. At the moment I am willing to accept an offer of £200 from your client" ... just a thought

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, since you've told them you deny any liability, I'd continue to ignore RLP. They send these letters quoting legal procedures to try to intimidate you into believing that they have some sort of legal authority; they have not. If they want to waste stamps, let them.

 

I agree. If you had formally admitted theft to Police/Court, then they might sometimes have a basis to recover some damages. But you did not admit a theft, you did not commit a theft and you have not been convicted of a theft. So they would find it virtually impossible to win a civil claim against you. This is just speculative bullying by computer-generated form letter, ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...