Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So do I gather that you are out of pocket to the tune of £2500 which is part of the purchase price and a further £1800 in respect of the warranty? The £2500 was used to buy the car. Did warranties200 per year or did they pay big motoring world directly?
    • Farage has agreed to be interviewed by Nick Robinson on Panorama. 7pm this Friday, BBC1. He didn't do very well last time he was questioned on specific policies.
    • I did what I told my husband not to do…and I telephoned them. All credit where it’s due, the lady on the phone was very helpful. I’m not gonna lie I broke down on the phone as this has been incredibly stressful. Perhaps that helped, but I would like to think they just realised they sold us a faulty car.    so we only bought one extended warranty and that was with Nissan. The car salesman gave us the hard sell and we fell for 100%! Part of the sell was if there was ever a problem then we would only ever take the car to a Nissan garage. There was a problem after a few days and we were instructed to go to a third party grange! We contacted Nissan on the phone and they said they would put on a complaint for us so maybe that helped too.    we just want to try and get all of our spend back now. The deposit, money for the finance and money for the extended warranty. I reload we will probably have to pay costs but I guess we can’t argue with that. We just need a new car!!!! Aaarrgghhhh!    thanks so much for your help once again. 
    • Right I see I didn't realise it had to be laid out like that. I have had another go, sorry I'm really struggling here! 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. The claimant has thus far been unable to produce any evidence that the alleged debt has been legally assigned to them. Nor have they been able to provide evidence that notice of assignment was given to the defendant on the dates stated in the particulars of their claim. 3. The claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim or what dates it relates to. As a result the defendant is unable to specifically defend the claim until the claimant can show how the amount has been reached. In the claimants particulars of claim, the claimant openly admits that they have a copy of the agreement and its terms and conditions but have failed to provide these to the defendant. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a  written agreement: (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s)  should be available at  the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 5. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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

Help! what happens next after got caught stealing?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4426 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

Apologies if you mentioned it earlier, but who is the retailer involved?

 

If RLP were to be involved then you would normally have been advised that the matter would be reported to them and what you might expect. Although I would be the first to say 'don't count your chickens', it is possible that you might never hear from a Civil Recovery company.

 

At the end of the day though, if RLP are involved, then there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop the trail of letters. They are designed to intimidate, but your defence here is clear in that although your actions were wrong, no loss to the store occurred, and no additional expense was incurred by the store as the security were working on those duties anyway.

 

You can completely forget about any negative reporting on a CRB check though - even an enhanced one. For that to happen the police would have to be involved as all information is drawn from Criminal Records or Police databases, and if they were not called, then there will be no report to file. Although RLP maintain a database of 'dishonest persons' through their subsidiary company Cireco, not all employers use their service, and it isn't something which Universities would use either. It is more tailored towards high-level screening.

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

Apologies if you mentioned it earlier, but who is the retailer involved?

 

If RLP were to be involved then you would normally have been advised that the matter would be reported to them and what you might expect. Although I would be the first to say 'don't count your chickens', it is possible that you might never hear from a Civil Recovery company.

 

At the end of the day though, if RLP are involved, then there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop the trail of letters. They are designed to intimidate, but your defence here is clear in that although your actions were wrong, no loss to the store occurred, and no additional expense was incurred by the store as the security were working on those duties anyway.

 

You can completely forget about any negative reporting on a CRB check though - even an enhanced one. For that to happen the police would have to be involved as all information is drawn from Criminal Records or Police databases, and if they were not called, then there will be no report to file. Although RLP maintain a database of 'dishonest persons' through their subsidiary company Cireco, not all employers use their service, and it isn't something which Universities would use either. It is more tailored towards high-level screening.

 

hi Sidewinder, it's topshop. there's something that i don't understand why i signed the banning notice from shopping centre not from the store itself as many cases i've seen here were told to sign a form from the store. does that make any differences?

Edited by kate11
Link to post
Share on other sites

It m,aybe possible that the shopping centre itself has decided to ban you, as it is private property it is perfectly entitled to do so.

 

There are many here with a very close eye on RLP and Cireco and their dubious practises, so you are in good hands, get back to us if you receive any correspondence from them.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

It m,aybe possible that the shopping centre itself has decided to ban you, as it is private property it is perfectly entitled to do so.

 

There are many here with a very close eye on RLP and Cireco and their dubious practises, so you are in good hands, get back to us if you receive any correspondence from them.

 

Andy

 

thanks, i will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Andy. This sounds like simple banning order from the centre. Although I stand to be corrected, Topshop do not appear on this forum as a business who use civil recovery, certainly not RLP.

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

I take it you weren't given a copy of what you signed Kate.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's usual practice that they ban people in privately owned shopping areas if they're caught and admit to whatever they have done. Their security operates throughout the centre and not just one individual shop. I can understand why they do that as retail losses are huge and they also have pick-pockets that operate on a massive scale so they have to be seen to be doing something to secure the premises for both the shops and the customers.

 

They are just doing their job so don't take it personally Kate. It's not worth getting upset about as they probably treat everyone in the same way. If you don't have a copy of what you signed then ask them for it as you should be able to find out who the security company is fairly easily. As Sidewinder has said, you have paid so there is no actual loss and I think you've paid enough already by the stress it's causing you. It's civil action and not criminal as the police don't seem to have been involved and only they can put that on a CRB.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Andy. This sounds like simple banning order from the centre. Although I stand to be corrected, Topshop do not appear on this forum as a business who use civil recovery, certainly not RLP.

 

Could it be the shopping centre who use civil recover or RLP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi caro, I have a copy but I left it at home.

 

To be honest I wouldn't worry about it if you don't hear anything. I have never heard that Top Shop are one of RLP's clients, but if they do, then I think silverfox has a good point. Keep that piece of paper safe. Seems to me you signed it under duress.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I wouldn't worry about it if you don't hear anything. I have never heard that Top Shop are one of RLP's clients, but if they do, then I think silverfox has a good point. Keep that piece of paper safe. Seems to me you signed it under duress.

 

When the store manager asked me to follow her to the back of the store, I didn't know that was the holding room. I have to admit I was terrified by the way they talk and I couldn't think of anything but crying and shaking. So I did what they told me to do. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can well imagine that you would just to get out of there.

 

At the moment this is not a problem for you, so don't worry about it and get on with your life. As you've been advised, it won't show on any CRB check.

 

If it becomes a problem at a later date, then will be the time to take action to resolve it, but otherwise just learn from the experience and put it behind you.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...