Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

Equality act and morrisons supermarket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3865 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

Tonight I went to the store to purchase a crate of 24 cans of lager and a few other bits and bobs. I am disabled but walk without aid but abhiet cannot walk far nor carry heavy stuff.

 

Because my daughter is 17 i carried the beer and went to the till, self service

 

I got refused sale because someone under 18 was with me

 

I complained to management whom said because I had a teenager with me they would not serve alcohol. Their policy. I explained it was my daughter, I am disabled offered proof of disability and to look in the disabled spaces for my car and to ring my partner, daughters mum to verify, They were not interested

 

I am appauled i cannot buy a bank holiday tipple if my kids are with me, i have an 8 year old son and 17 year daughter and they say if my 17 yr old is with me they wont serve me beer

 

I said to the manager your discriminating against me, he actually said he may well be but he is not interested he is only going on the facts that i have a 17 year old female with me. I am 39 by the way

 

Do i have grounds to sue his backside off or morrisons for this treatment, or am i best going into the store tomorrow and accidently knocking over a stand of wine , remember i am disabled

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i have grounds to sue his backside off or morrisons for this treatment, or am i best going into the store tomorrow and accidently knocking over a stand of wine , remember i am disabled

 

Sue them? What for? I'm afraid that the risk of losing their alcohol licence far outweighs any need to allow a minor to assist with buying beer. I certainly wouldn't advise damaging stock in retaliation either. Your 'remember I am disabled' quote I'm afraid I find a little distasteful.

 

I have to say that the tone of your post almost suggests that this is a wind up, but to give the benefit of the doubt...

 

Retail stores are under HUGE pressure, quite rightly, to act in such a way that they are not risking any breach of their licencing conditions. Their actions in this case seem perfectly in order, as they are required to demonstrate an awareness that those over the age of 18 may often collude with minors in purchasing alcohol which may be wholly or in part for consumption by the minor - and very often this involves parents buying alcohol for their children! For that reason, unless ALL parties are able to prove that they are over 18, even where only one person is buying alcohol, the store is entitled to, and rightly should, refuse the sale.

 

There may be a clear exception to this where the child is obviously not the intended recipient of the purchase - so a parent with a toddler for example might be able to buy drink, but with a teenager, I'm afraid it's a no-brainer, irrespective of any disability. That's just the way it is.

 

Of course there would be nothing to stop you entering a store on your own, advising a member of staff of your disability and request for somebody to help you to carry your purchase to the car. I'm sure they would be delighted to assist. Far better that than to get into an argument that you can't win.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not a wind up and I am complaining to morrisons.

My daughter which I had proof, so what they are saying is anyone does a family shop then if one of your teenager kids is with you then one cannot buy alcohol.

 

They had no evidence or grounds to refuse sale on the basis it maybe for a minor. My child for heavens sake. Anyway if my 17 year old daughter wants to consume one of my cans in my house then it is not illegal. But I had the beer and I stated i was paying via my credit card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The manager was grinning and even admitted jokingly he was discriminating against me whilst disabled. I asked him if he was and he said yes. Grinning away like a jumped up idiot. I had proof that it was my kid with me and I even offered him my number to ring the missus. I am not letting this lie I am afraid I have been discriminated against because i seek help from my kids to help me shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i have grounds to sue his backside off or morrisons for this treatment, or am i best going into the store tomorrow and accidently knocking over a stand of wine

 

Sue for what? You've not lost any money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst you can complain about his grinning or dismissive attitude and in the manager not explaining the policy in a way that you can understand, you simply can't make a case that this is discrimination - the rules apply to everybody irrespective of disability! I am not disabled, but I would not be allowed to buy alcohol if I was accompanied by minor.

 

Your complaint is with the licensing authority, NOT with the retailer. The store cannot bend the rules for the sake of disability - that would require the LA implementing a clause which exempted the disabled from the rules which apply to others!

 

It matters not that you could prove that the child is your daughter. It matters not that you are disabled (in this case). It doesn't matter if your missus, the Queen or His Holiness the Pope could vouch for the fact that this was your daughter - you cannot prove that your daughter was not going to consume some of the alcohol which you were buying.

 

If you buy drink, take it home and then give it to the child, that is lawful. A retailer cannot though knowingly sell alcohol where it might be for the benefit of a child. Trading Standards routinely make test purchases in circumstances precisely the way that you have described, and stores have had licences suspended, fines imposed and worse.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The store were totally correct in refusing to serve you as you could have been buying alcohol for your 17 year old to take to a party if nothing else. Alcohol licences are strictly controlled and it is the person serving you not the store who would be fined had there been an infringemnet. as most shop workers are not highly paid why should they risk their salary just so you can have a drink?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It's not discrimination, they are not treating you any less favourably than a non-disabled person, they were treating you as they do all adults accompanied by a minor and according to the law. It is possible that the manager had an attitude problem which you can complain about but not sue for, or it could be that s/he were reacting to your attitude, if so then that wasn't professional of them either but is not a suing matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it is wrong to be refused when it is your child with you! I often buy a bottle of wine whilst doing my shop and my children are always with me (my oldest is 7) does this mean when my son is a teenager I will suddenly be refused? My eldest has autism and it is likely he will still be shopping with me when he is much older as he is hard work and no one will look after him for me! As far as buying alcohol for your children the people who do that are much more likely to go without them! I don't see the harm in letting a seventeen year old have a small drink, my mother used to leave me have a half or 2 when I was under her supervision and it didn't do me any harm - infact it taught me to drink responsibly whilst with someone responsible whilst all my friends were stealing liquor from their parents and drinking it under a local bridge - which is very dangerous! As far as sueing goes I don't think that would be appropriate but I would demand a letter of apology simply for belittleing you infront of your child, How are we supposed to command respect from our offspring when we are belittled by shop staff - as they say the customer is always right x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look younger than my age. I was with a friend last year and we were using a self service till in Sainsburys. Because he wanted to buy alcohol, he got ID'd. A sales assistant came over and just swiped his card with no questions at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of if you think it is right or wrong, the law will penalise the assistant who serves a person under the age of 18, or if they sell alcohol to a person who then supplys it to a minor

Supermarkets are used on a very regualr basis for test purchasing so it is safer to refuse to sell to anyone who either looks too young or is accompanied by a person who looks too young.

It is not the store that gets the fine, it is the sales assistant who is probably working on minimum wage and cannot afford a fine.

If you need to buy alcohol leave your child at home, order it online or get someone else to buy it for you, alcohol is not a necessity so if you are refused service its hardly the end of the world.

Actually in my opinion, the customer is always right, except when they are wrong.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was absolutely no proof that the alcohol was for the minor! I am not going to pay £5 delivery when the shop is just down the road and there isn't anyone who can get it for me as the only person who helps me is ME! And as far as leaving the children at home - well I am just astounded, did you even read my comment? My son has a disability and I have another 2 small children my partner works a 60 hour week and I have no other support, so are you telling me to leave my 7, 4 and 2 year old home alone? I think you will find the penalty for this is far worse than buying alcohol for a minor!! And btw when you have to deal with a child with autism all week I think an alcoholic beverage on the weekend is a necessity as its what keeps me sane!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Interesting that you advance the supposition that the sales assistant, should they sell alcohol to a minor ( presumably under 18 ) might be charged, convicted and fined.

 

Any case law to support this ?

 

I should have thought that vicarious liability would operate in this respect with the company subject to prosecution, after all a large company is a target worth pursuing as opposed to a humble sales assistant.

 

Thanks...

Edited by mike c
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for Asda up until Xmas 2006 and all cashiers then were charged/fined £80 if they sold alcohol to a minor on each occasion. For a part timer, that could be practically your weekly wage if caught just the once.

 

When the statement said "leave your child at home" they obviously meant a child of the age where the assistant or law enforcer might reasonably believe that you were buying the alcohol for them. So children of that age, can safely be left alone at home.

 

I have a spinal deformity and as such cannot carry heavy things, so I shop online every 2-4 weeks making sure all heavy items are in that shop so I can pop to the shop inbetween times for light things. I shop with Sainsburys and if you spend more than £100 for deliveries on Tues, Wed or Thurs the delivery is free, so maybe if you have a disability yourself or a child with a disability you could take advantage of the free delivery they provide. The Sainsburys drivers are very obliging and bring my shopping in and place it on worktops so I do not have to bend at all, and can lift items one at a time to put away. There should be no barriers to obtaining alcohol should you want it.

 

There is law that says you must not sell alcohol to a minor or to an adult where there is a possibility that they are buying it for a minor and that has to be interpreted by stores as meaning if you are together, how else can a supermarket think it might be for a minor? It is a fact that supermarkets have been fined and have had penalties placed on them when they have sold alcohol to an adult when they were buying it for a child they were with. Supermarkets have penalties such as not being able to sell alcohol for so many hours/days/weeks or have their alcohol licence suspended indefinitely for repeated offences. I can't provide case law as I am not a lawyer, but am someone who worked for Asda and so I do know that this regularly happens to stores and supermarkets. In my town there was facebook uproar this very month as Asda lost its licence for 48 hours and people were frantic with the loss of their alcohol source!

 

If people don't like this law, write to your MP to complain, not the supermarket who are just fulfilling the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option is to do what I did after my accident when stuck in a wheelchair for a bit, get an assistant to come round with you to do the lifting and carrying and then load your car.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if that is the law then it is a joke I'm sorry!! I should not be made to do online shopping, I happen to enjoy going to my local supermarket - I have no childcare and see it as a way to socialise as I live in a small town and all the people I know also shop there - I don't feel I should face social isolation to get my 1 bottle of wine a week! As for leaving my children at home then yes maybe the younger 2 when they are at that age, but my AUTISTIC 7 year old may never be able to be left alone as he does not understand the concept of danger! I stated this in my original comment! If the law states that shop workers cannot sell alcohol to anyone with minors accompaying them then where will it stop? Will we not be able to buy tobacco and lotto tickets? Will we be stopped from getting medication from the doctor? They are trying to turn us into a 'what if' society, 'What if' they are buying alcohol for a minor, 'what if' they will give that prescripion medication to their minor. I am sorry but they may as well stop selling it altogether because the next step will be to prove you haven't got any children 'just incase' you give it to them when you get home!! I completely understand them stopping people with minors that are not theirs with them, but there comes a point when you have to trust the responsibility of the minors parent and look at perhaps fining them if caught instead!

Link to post
Share on other sites

(((Heidi))) do your children go to school? Is it possible to pop to the shop then or are you never able to go to a shop without them? Maybe by the time your children are old enough for this to be an issue they may be in school sometimes when you can access a shop? Maybe then there are ways around it and this may not be an issue? Despite having many friends with their own disabilities and many friends with children with severe disabilties, they have all found ways to comply with the law on this one without much trouble at all.

 

Sometimes when we are angry about something it blinkers us to ways around a problem or to be able to see things in persepctive as your anger discounts all reasonable possibilities, not saying you are doing that, but that that can happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right and there probably will be a solution by the time the children are older but situations like this make me furious! What will this country be like in a few years it is no longer innocent until proven guilty everyone is just tarred with the same brush! By the time mine are in their teens I probably won't be allowed a car anyway 'just incase' one of them drives it underage and then I will be forced to internet shop - but of course not alcohol as I have minors living with me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just lucky they never declined to sell you condoms, and equally ridiculous!

 

I think you are right to feel wronged, and the Jeremy Kyle comments here wrongly vilify you rather than the shop.

 

However, it is pretty trivial. Suing is overkill and unlikely to be viable.

 

Vote with your feet - take your custom elsewhere. If you still feel the need to do something - write to their head office expressing your disability discrimination concerns and the manager's attitude.

 

Asda has 20 cans of John Smith's ES for £14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...