Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello I've got a parking ticket, see here... https://ibb.co/DfHqg9F https://ibb.co/QvqH52m https://ibb.co/pbPPdDg https://ibb.co/X2F1X25 I've been parking at a particular corner in a small Tesco car park for years. Recently they put two electric charging plugs, one where that spot is and one at the bay next door, so I stopped using them out of courtesy in case they need to be used (I use that Tesco every day and drive past every day but have yet to see anyone use them). Recently I went back to Tesco when it was reasonably dark. All the bays were full, including the three blue badge bays. I have one but none of the cars parked in the bays did, I noticed as I walked past them (nobody ever gets pulled for that because Tesco have never policed this small car park before). Since there was two free electric bay spaces, and since I wasn't going to be long (just one product), I parked into my former 'regular' spot. There was a notice on the wall but if I'm honest I didn't read it because (a) I'm thick, and (b) I honestly thought it was just telling people how to use the device (like I said, I'm thick) rather than this being a parking fine. I went back during daylight and the sign is very obvious (as you can see from the picture), although not so obvious at night, although probably still obvious enough for you to tell me "tough luck, pal". Now they want £100 or £60 if I pay quickly. Am I doomed?
    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
  • 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

barred from supermarket ...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4045 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

a couple of years ago i struck up a friendship (purely platonic) with a check-out girl at my local supermarket. this year i was told that she had complained about me to her management because i gave her a small present at christmas (i have done this in previous years without any such problem). i was told that she interpretted this as a romantic gesture, though she has never said anything to me about it. i had not had the oportunity to ask her about this when i was told by the police that they had been contacted by the supermarket and that i have been barred from shopping there because of harassment. given that i felt this friendship was mutual and that i was never given any indication by her that she was in any way unhappy with me, i feel i have been treated very unreasonably by this supermarket. accordingly, i have written to the supermarket twice by recorded delivery to complain about their conduct. i have not received any reply. now feel i need to take this to a solicitor in order to get a response from this supermarket. and i really need to do this on a no win no fee basis as i cannot justify any significant expense. i am not looking for any compensation per se. i just want this unreasonable decision reversed. any advice would be gratefully received.

Edited by NSC
re-formatting. no change to text.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Move on.

 

The supermarket is private property that they allow the public access to. As such if they choose to withdraw your permission to be on their property, you can write to them (as you have done) but they don't have to reply, and certainly don't have to reverse their decision to deny you access to their property,

 

You might think their decision unreasonable, but it is still a decision they have the right to make.

You might feel you are "owed" a reply, but (in a way) you've had a reply : it appears they don't want to engage in correspondence with you.

 

Involving a solicitor won't change that they are within their rights to behave this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it's the only food shop for miles because they drove their competitors out of business? What if you have to get on expensive buses to reach another food shop? Isn't there some kind of human rights issue like you must have access to food shops or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it's the only food shop for miles because they drove their competitors out of business? What if you have to get on expensive buses to reach another food shop? Isn't there some kind of human rights issue like you must have access to food shops or something?

 

Who said the OP had no other access to a food shop : I detect a "straw man".

 

Since it is only a 'very short straw man', here goes for "stubble burning" ........

 

Which Human Right are you claiming is being breached?.

The right to a family life? The right to a 'private' life? (Article 8)

 

Unless the right is an absolute one, then it is 'qualified' (see the recent speech from the Home Secretary about deporting convicted immigrants, and that their right to a family life is qualified rather than absolute).

 

So, the "right" of an individual to have a food shop nearby (even if that did fall under Human Rights legislation) would be tempered by the right of the store to ban people to protect its staff.

 

Bear in mind we are only hearing "the OP's side of things". I don't have reason to doubt them, but from their posting they are saying the police told them the member of store staff felt harassed. What of their (the staff's) Human Rights?

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree but for some people banning them from their local supermarket is banning them from access to food. I have wondered myself whether the OP is being quite as honest with us as they might be but I wonder too if there isn't a broader issue being brought up here, the ability of supermarkets to ride into town, lower their prices to the point where all the competition goes out of business, then up their prices and provide an appalling service secure in the knowledge they're the only game in town. Any complainers could be banned from the store thus causing them big problems if they want to buy life's staple, food. The supermarkets are way too powerful in my opinion. I suspect the OP brought their problems on themself but when it comes to supermarkets banning people there's a bigger issue which needs to be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree but for some people banning them from their local supermarket is banning them from access to food. I have wondered myself whether the OP is being quite as honest with us as they might be but I wonder too if there isn't a broader issue being brought up here, the ability of supermarkets to ride into town, lower their prices to the point where all the competition goes out of business, then up their prices and provide an appalling service secure in the knowledge they're the only game in town. Any complainers could be banned from the store thus causing them big problems if they want to buy life's staple, food. The supermarkets are way too powerful in my opinion. I suspect the OP brought their problems on themself but when it comes to supermarkets banning people there's a bigger issue which needs to be considered.

 

Note that I wasn't accusing the OP of being

'Economical with the truth' : quite the opposite!, though there are usually 2 (or more!) sides to every story.

 

As for your "banning people from buying food" : wouldn't this be so newsworthy we'd know about it?.

Can you give examples if where it has actually happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i am being economical with the truth: i'm not telling you the name of the supermarket and i'm not telling you the name of the check-out girl either, though i could do. i'm a little awestruck that if you strike up a friendship with someone who works somewhere you risk not being allowed to shop there again. and i'm also a little awestruck that one doesn't have to do anything criminally or civilly wrong to be treated this way too. i didn't force my attentions on her. she made it quite clear to me that she wanted to get to know me. if she had told me she'd changed her mind, i could accept that. but to be treated like some sort of criminal is just plain offensive. and yes, this was a significant source of food for me, which i relied on heavily both economically and in terms of diet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please dont take offence to this, but it seems like you are slightly obsessed. It might be better to forget about this checkout assistant, and negotiate with the store directly. Perhaps use their online shopping. The fact is, that the person you were friends with, no longer wants the attention you are giving her. If you continually try to chase up after her, you leave yourself wide open to criminal charges of harassment and stalking.

 

Infact, you said yourself that the police were already involved. This should be a huge pointer that she doesnt want your friendship anymore.

 

Yes. She was your friend for a while, but only when you were shopping. Nothing more. Move on and take it s a lesson learned.

 

Regarding the supermarket, they can ban anyone they like for any reason they like. It is private property and they are within their rights to do so. It is unlikely that they will allow you back on the premises after you have been accused of harassment. You can always write back and negotiate, but chances are you'll have to find somewhere else to shop now.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm no longer interested in pursuing this friendship. i didn't say i was. my grievance is that i get barred from a supernarket that i depended on heavily because she complained about me to her management rather than telling me she had a problem with me herself. that's not a very adult way of behaving. nor is being barred from this supermarket without any opportunity to put my side of this story to anyone. it's just plain shabby and offensive. and i am offended. that's why i haven't simply let it drop, yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should approach your MP. I'd be interested to see their response.

The local Tesco girls once asked me to have a word with one of the local drunks who they were refusing to sell to as he was clearly several sheets to the wind and being argumentative. I wouldn't as I regard it as being up to Tesco to protect their staff and if they undercut all the local offies with a view to putting them out of business and succeed then they've got to live with the consequences, namely that all the local drunks will then be lurching through their doors in all sorts of conditions. I've no doubt this is not a problem for the board members many cosy miles from the front but it's potentially a real problem for the staff. It's also potentially a problem for us as if Tesco can ban our presence from the local food supply that gives them an authority their corporate status doesn't merit. Who elected Tesco to say who eats and who doesn't? No-one, but increasingly they can. That needs knocking on the head. Private property it may be but they're providing an essential service for all the piublic, not just a chosen few, and that's by design not some happy accident. The big supermarkets have got far too much authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you wont really have much choice but to let it drop. Beyond asking the supermarket management unbarring you as a goodwill gesture there's nothing you can do.

They can ban you for whatever reason they like and have no legal obligation to unbar you for any reason and don't have to give you any opportunity to put across your side of the story.

 

The only other thing you can try is to write to the head office of the supermarket involved and see if they will over-rule the local manager, but given the circumstances I doubt they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police were involved as he was accused of harassment. Meaning the girl ont he till he only saw when he went shopping didnt want the attention anymore. The shop followed their procedures and legal rights and banned the person from entering their premises. It is no concern of theirs that there are no other shops around.

 

Why would you advise someone to go to their MP?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impression I got was that the police were called because the supermarket were worried that there may have been some form of harassment going on, so by calling the police they felt they were acting in their employee's best interests.

 

Also, when were the police called? Immediately? Or was it only after an attempt to return to the supermarket?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one thing is for sure. They wont let the OP back. If they do, then it shows they couldnt care less about the harassment of their employees. Reading the posts int his thread again, it seems like we are not being given the full story 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wrong though. It is their legal right and they can have you removed and charged for trespassing as well as enforcing the potential harassment. The shops rules were clearly broken, so they have every right to deny you entry.

 

Also, please do not advise that people break the law simply " to call the supermarkets bluff". They deal with things like this day in, day out, and they will not hesitate to prosecute.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, great, get done for trespass as well as harassment, that should help.

 

H

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

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police were involved so there was harassment somewhere. Re-read the thread.

 

i was told by the police that they had been contacted by the supermarket and that i have been barred from shopping there because of harassment

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wrong though. It is their legal right and they can have you removed and charged for trespassing as well as enforcing the potential harassment. The shops rules were clearly broken, so they have every right to deny you entry.

 

Also, please do not advise that people break the law simply " to call the supermarkets bluff". They deal with things like this day in, day out, and they will not hesitate to prosecute.

 

I am not advising anyone to do anything. I simply said what I would do..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would call the supermarkets bluff and continue to go shopping there. A food shop is every ones concern and banning someone just because they can is wrong..

 

By that same logic I should be allowed to just walk into people's homes whenever I like because they have a nicer TV than mine that I want to watch, or take my dog for a walk on someone's back garden because it's bigger than mine.

Supermarkets being able to ban people just because they can isn't wrong. It's private property in exactly the same way my home is private property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police were involved so there was harassment somewhere. Re-read the thread.[/quote

 

Fair point however I'm not sure that any harassment was actual. It sounded like the girl complained and it was decided that some thing was harassment but what was said or done to confirm this..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh i agree. However, since the police are now involved, it would be very very silly to go back to the store. It would appear to the police that you ignored their advice, and they would prosecute for trespass AND continued harassment. The OP could also be subject to a restraining order if they went back a few times.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...