Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Not nice to meet you, rlp!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4265 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 Situation

At the end of last month I finally have received my first letter by RLP.

I was caught shoplifting in Tesco in September.

a. No police was involved.

b. The total amount in goods was around £15, and I am pretty sure that it could be reselled.

c. Everything was done in 20 minutes. There were two security guards asking me questions, and I was asked to give them my name, address, telephone number, and passport number.

d. I did sign on two sheets--a banning notice and a notice of intended civil recovery respectively.

e. The 'fine' was £137.5.

f. I am now over 18.

 

II What have I learn from CAG:

a. I am now still innocent, and it is extremely unlikely that I will be sued.

b. RLP does not have any legal rights to 'fine' me, although its threat will be harsher and harsher.

c. The best choices are either ignoring them completely, or sending them a short note a single line reply "I deny any liability to you or your client".

d. I promise I will NEVER do such stupid things again. This is a very good lesson.

 

III What do I still have in doubt?

a. With regard to their 'database', is it very unlikely that it will really affect my future employment and credit?

b. Does it make any difference whether I send them that short note reply?

c. In usual cases, how long does it take to eventually stop from hearing from RLP? Will they call except from threatening letters?

d. I will be applying for a student Visa in a year or two, will it be influenced by this stupid mistake?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sincerely look forward to your replies.

THANK YOU!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

Other people will help you with the RLP stuff.

 

However, you are not 'Still Innocent'. Presumably you were caught and admitted the fact fact that you were shoplifting, a crime, albeit a minor one. Tesco are not prosecuting and you are now in the RLP stage of this.

 

Yes it's unlikely you will be sued but that does not make you 'Not Guilty'.

 

A good lesson learned but I'm afraid you have lost your innocence.

 

H

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, retailers and their security staff have no right or power, legal or otherwise, to demand your personal details from you. Only the police have that power.

 

Which would then give the retailer / security staff a conundrum - to let the alleged offender go without getting their details or to call the old bill

 

It still smacks of blackmail to me - agree to pay or we will call the police

 

I wonder if offering a payment to "security" would work better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would then give the retailer / security staff a conundrum - to let the alleged offender go without getting their details or to call the old bill

 

It still smacks of blackmail to me - agree to pay or we will call the police

 

I wonder if offering a payment to "security" would work better?

 

There is a provision within Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968 which means a retailer does not have to accept any offer of payment from an alleged shoplifter. In order for Blackmail to be proven, it has to be established that an unwarranted demand has been made, that the person making the demand has no right in law to make the demand, that menaces (threats) have been used and that the use of menaces is not a proper means of enforcing the demand being made. However, there is a requirement, in cases of Blackmail, that the defendant proves they had grounds or a right in law to make the demands and that the use of menaces was a proper means of enforcing the demands.

 

With private security staff now coming within the jurisdiction of Section 24A, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, retailers will need to ensure that the sort of behaviour highlighted does not happen if they are to be taken seriously as regards any alleged offender. The retail industry has been flouting the law for years where alleged shoplifters is concerned. I speak as someone who has worked in the retail industry and been a warranted police officer.The practice by some retailers to set arrest targets for their security staff - TK Maxx is one such retailer - is ill-conceived, misguided and dangerous as it encourages security staff to make irrational decisions and behave in a wholly unacceptable manner, as this case illustrates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...