Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2151 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I'm new here, I've been lurking around for some time (it's always good to learn from all the smart people on here) but never did I think I would be in the situation where I would need help.

 

I was shopping in Sainsburys a few weeks ago and brought about £25 worth of items, anyway, after walking through the exit, one of the guards grabbed me and said ''I know what you did''. Took me to the back room, looked at my receipt and apparently one of the items did not scan, I was shocked, in hindsight, I know I was on autopilot mode and if the item doesn't scan, the self checkout alerts me via 'unexpected item' response, so I carried on unaware.

 

I explained that to the guard, but he wasn't having it, and looking directly over me in an intimidating manner whilst I was seated and said ''you purposely covered the barcode with your hard and waived it over the scanner!'' At this point, I wanted to headbutt him, but had to control myself. Anyway, they gave me a form, banning me and let me go. To be honest, I was glad to get out and didn't care if I was banned for life.

 

Today, I get a letter from DWF stating:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Our Client: Sainsburys Supermarkets

Balance Due: £150

 

This sum is broken down as follows:

 

Value of goods stolen £0.00

Value of goods damaged £0.00

Value of cash stolen £0.00

Security costs £150.00

 

 

From reading this forum, I would venture to ignore them, however I have a few issues, I am moving house next week and then relocating the following week again, but this time down south, so how do I respond back to their letters if I don't know what they send, what are their timeframes in sending letters? Since I don't want or need a royal mail re-direction service.

 

I also have a new job as a 'Immigration Officer' and was wondering if this would affect it, I have to hold a high level of security clearance.

 

Please Advise guys! Many Thanks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore it. There are no "security costs". These muppets are doing the same thing as RLP. And RLP's basis of gaining money has already been laughed at by a judge.

 

Regarding your job, if the police were not involved, then nothing will ever appear on your criminal record.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone, I'm new here, I've been lurking around for some time (it's always good to learn from all the smart people on here) but never did I think I would be in the situation where I would need help.

 

I was shopping in Sainsburys a few weeks ago and brought about £25 worth of items, anyway, after walking through the exit, one of the guards grabbed me and said ''I know what you did''. Took me to the back room, looked at my receipt and apparently one of the items did not scan, I was shocked, in hindsight, I know I was on autopilot mode and if the item doesn't scan, the self checkout alerts me via 'unexpected item' response, so I carried on unaware.

 

I explained that to the guard, but he wasn't having it, and looking directly over me in an intimidating manner whilst I was seated and said ''you purposely covered the barcode with your hard and waived it over the scanner!'' At this point, I wanted to headbutt him, but had to control myself. Anyway, they gave me a form, banning me and let me go. To be honest, I was glad to get out and didn't care if I was banned for life.

 

Today, I get a letter from DWF stating:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Our Client: Sainsburys Supermarkets

Balance Due: £150

 

This sum is broken down as follows:

 

Value of goods stolen £0.00

Value of goods damaged £0.00

Value of cash stolen £0.00

Security costs £150.00

 

 

From reading this forum, I would venture to ignore them, however I have a few issues, I am moving house next week and then relocating the following week again, but this time down south, so how do I respond back to their letters if I don't know what they send, what are their timeframes in sending letters? Since I don't want or need a royal mail re-direction service.

 

I also have a new job as a 'Immigration Officer' and was wondering if this would affect it, I have to hold a high level of security clearance.

 

Please Advise guys! Many Thanks!!!

 

The usual advice is "ignore", or "send one letter stating 'I deny any liability to you".

 

If you are concerned that they might issue a court claim to your current address, and get a judgement by default if you then didn't oppose any such claim because you didn't know about it : you could always get any such judgement "set-aside" if you weren't aware of a claim.

You might consider writing, saying "I deny any liability, oh, and by the way, I'm moving, here is my new address, in case you decide to attempt to pursue this", so that:

 

a) if they did follow it up, you'd know about it if they used your new address,

b) any "set-aside" if they used your old address would be easier to show you hadn't tried to evade the paperwork, and they'd had your new address and chosen not to use it.

 

You could send it by ordinary post & get a certificate of posting, or by recorded delivery. If sent by RD : if they didn't get a signature on delivery you'd get your postage back, and could resend it, but RD doesn't guarantee delivery, only a signature IF they deliver it.

The more expensive "Special Delivery" allows for both signature on delivery AND is a "guaranteed delivery" service : options for you for whichever will give you the level of "peace of mind" you desire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the quick replies!!

 

Regarding the 'I deny any liability' quote, is it better to send a letter stating that rather than just simply ignoring them. Does this give me some sort of security or protection?

 

Also, I have read on other forums/threads, they sometimes get your number and keep ringing you, how exactly do they get a hold of a telephone number if I have not provided one?

 

Also, does anyone know if they eventually begin to write 'final demand' or any other threatening remarks on the envelope? I only ask since I don't really want my parents or siblings to find my post when I am not home and get unnecessarily frightened.

 

Thanks for all your help so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider being more pro-active on this one.

 

  1. You used the self-scan and the equipment
  2. One of the items failed to scan
  3. You didn't notice the lack of a bleep due to the many other bleeps from other customers
  4. the equipment failed to register that item being placed in your bag (lets face it, it frequently goes off when you have scanned the item)
  5. the store personnel had noticed their equipment failure
  6. rather than resolving their problem by pointing out what had happened, they take you to a room and accuse you of theft, then claim money from you at a later date

 

I would be asking for a copy of any cctv that they have, including the room that you were taken to.

 

This is appalling really, they need to be stamped on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if many of sainsbury's customers know that this is the action that they will take if you make a mistake and their equipment doesn't register it?

 

Maybe somebody should be contacting the consumer columns in the newspapers / watchdog on TV

 

Maybe then they would think again about treating their customers so shabbily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supermarkets usually say it is the customers responsibility to ensure that all items are scanned. Even when going through a manned checkout.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would consider being more pro-active on this one.

 

  1. You used the self-scan and the equipment
  2. One of the items failed to scan
  3. You didn't notice the lack of a bleep due to the many other bleeps from other customers
  4. the equipment failed to register that item being placed in your bag (lets face it, it frequently goes off when you have scanned the item)
  5. the store personnel had noticed their equipment failure
  6. rather than resolving their problem by pointing out what had happened, they take you to a room and accuse you of theft, then claim money from you at a later date

 

 

In this case I agree. A polite but firm letter stating that this was a mistake with no dishonest intention, and if it had been brought to your attention more constructively it would have been resolved very easily. You do not accept that there was any theft, or any attempt or intention of theft, and you do not accept any liability towards the spurious charge they wish to make. I will not respond to further offensive accusations, will not be shopping in Sainsburys any more if this is how customers are treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A polite but firm letter stating that this was a mistake with no dishonest intention

 

A polite but firm letter stating that this was an equipment failure on their part an with no dishonest intention or actions by you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know how long these supermarkets spend training their own staff on "How to Scan an Item". It appears that they expect their customers to manage with no training whatsoever. It would also be of interest to know what action they take if one of their own till staff fails to scan an item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually go on a small course. the operators are told to help a customer if the light is on, the customer requests it, or the customer looks like they need help.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They actually go on a small course. the operators are told to help a customer if the light is on, the customer requests it, or the customer looks like they need help.

 

So if the customer doesn't know they have made a mistake no lights will go on, they will not request help and will not look as if they need help. Seems to me that supermarkets are going to have a very difficult time PROVING that it was a deliberate act rather than a genuine mistake. Shoplifters are going to have a field day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supermarkets train their staff in such an eventuality. As such it, each supermarket has different practices, but they dont release them to the public.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't scan an item at the self-scan then put it in your bag, there is an announcement along the lines of "unexpected item in bagging area" or equivalent that roughly translates to "that last item didn't scan too well". If it doesn't scan and you don't get the warning, that amounts to an equipment malfunction ...

I doubt that all of these actions are logged ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always the possibility of things like that happening, but lately, the self scan areas seem to have been updated, so now they it is done by weight as well. This is to stop people having a 2 x 2litre bottles of coke and a bottle of JD. The person scans the coke 3 times and puts the JD in the bag. Saving themselves £10-20. Theres a LOT more to it than what you guys are discussing here.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is always the possibility of things like that happening, but lately, the self scan areas seem to have been updated, so now they it is done by weight as well. This is to stop people having a 2 x 2litre bottles of coke and a bottle of JD. The person scans the coke 3 times and puts the JD in the bag. Saving themselves £10-20. Theres a LOT more to it than what you guys are discussing here.

 

Indeed. Up to date versions of the software are VERY accurate!


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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your help guys, I received the second letter which is pretty much the same as the first. I have responded with 'I deny any liability to the spurious claims made'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck arc-ryder,

 

Do not worry about anything showing up on your record, as the police weren't involved, as far as they or any of their records are concerned the incident never happened.

 

To be guilty of theft they need to prove that you were intentionally dishonest. If they get grumpy with you I would request a copy of the CCTV footage, by submitting a subject access request and if its nice and clear cut that it was a genuine mistake (i.e. your hand wasn't over the barcode when you were scanning) then I would invite them to take you to court as you refute the allegation that you acted dishonestly.

 

Quick question, did you pay for said item before you left at any point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck arc-ryder,

 

Do not worry about anything showing up on your record, as the police weren't involved, as far as they or any of their records are concerned the incident never happened.

 

To be guilty of theft they need to prove that you were intentionally dishonest. If they get grumpy with you I would request a copy of the CCTV footage, by submitting a subject access request and if its nice and clear cut that it was a genuine mistake (i.e. your hand wasn't over the barcode when you were scanning) then I would invite them to take you to court as you refute the allegation that you acted dishonestly.

 

Quick question, did you pay for said item before you left at any point?

 

Thanks, I would venture to guess most stores delete their CCTV, if they have any within a few months, by the time this is escalated, there probably won't be any footage left.

 

I did not pay for the item before I left, I was not aware it did not scan and was stopped outside as I left the premises.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late replies, I still don't have an internet connection at my new address and can only get on sometimes when I tether my phone, but this kills my data allowance, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi there something similar has happened to me recently and i have now got the same letter, my question is did you pay it? or what was the outcome? thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi there something similar has happened to me recently and i have now got the same letter, my question is did you pay it? or what was the outcome? thx

 

Please start your own thread and give us some background info. Also, take some time to look around this forum and read the advice given to others.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx

 

i was wondering on the outcome of the demanding letter that was received

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The letters are empty threats. As i said, have a good long read of the forums. Youll know what to do then.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply

 

i have only found this thread that relates to the info i need,,, i found info on a similar site,,,, its just worrying considering nothing was proved and in my case my partner and I have both received letters for £150 security costs despite the security team dealt with it as one offence,, let me state thou they did not even talk to us and listen to our side of the miss understanding before they called the police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...