Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2347 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

The other day myself and 2 colleagues were shopping and

as we left the store one of us got stopped and

 

it transpires she had stolen a packet of sweets.

 

She claims she wasn't taken into an office and was dealt with in the shop floor.

 

The police were not called but the store manager said he would inform our employer

as he had a duty of care due to the hysterical state she was in.

 

The security guard also allegedly stated that he knew all 3 of us had been taking things.

 

The next day we were all summons to head office as the sore manager had phoned our employer

and all 3 of us are now been investigated for gross misconduct

as we gave brought the companies name into disrepute.

 

I think this is slanderous and possibly a breech of data protection

as myself and another college I did not get caught stealing.

 

They got our names after bulling my colleague who was caught

by saying they had an a tip off from another colleague that we were always talking things.

 

Obviously this is not true.

 

Can anyone advise please on why the shop had the right to inform our employer without any proof

Edited by blonde123
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why the heck did they inform your employer? THey have no right to do so.

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

They said they had a duty of care as the person caught shoplifting was an emotional wreck

 

I can only assume they bullied our names from her as we left the store no problem as we didn't steal anything.

 

I have been told that when the store contacted our employer

 

they claimed 3 people from your company have been helping themselves to what they want.

 

This is not true for 2 of us.

 

Surely if they had proof they would have contacted the police?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duty of care? It has nothing to do with them if she's an emotional wreck. The correct course of action would be to contact the police or an ambulance or a friend. Definitley not her employer. And roping two innocent parties into it as well.... Should you lose your jobs here, i forsee a nice big lawsuit coming their way.

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 agree

 

we are now been treated by our employer as guilty.

 

We have been suspended from some duties as we hold positions of trust.

 

I myself have been moved to another office which is causing gossip and speculation and stress.

 

And we are all under formal investigation for gross misconduct.

 

I am concerned now that the store know they have messed up

and may fabricate sone evidence against the 2 innocent people.

 

It is their right after all to ban people.

 

But do they need evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for now, you are just under investigation. I would get in touch with this retailer and demand a full apology in writing about the way you were treated and an admission that you had nothing to do with the alleged offence.

 

As for banning people from a shop, the store does not need any evidence as it is private land. They can ban anyone for any reason they like.

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

Personally I don't care I'm banned for obvious reasons.

 

So would you advise contacting the store before the disciplinary hearing?

 

We were thinking from the stores point of view it was guilt by association.

 

So perhaps they don't need to apologise for that.

 

The security guard also claimed the shop had been tipped off by someone else we work with.

 

I think that's nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you need to get your defence straight first. So demanding a full apology from that shop would be a good start. As it stands, your employer has reasonable suspicion that you were in a shop and have been reprimanded by the management for shoplifting, while on company time. That normally is enough for him to dismiss you.

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 was our lunch hour so not company time.

 

Also myself and my friend were not stopped by security

 

we only found out later what had happened when the guilty one returned.

 

w E have never been told by the store that they suspect us.

 

Instead they chose to call our manager which has caused merry he'll.

 

Thank you for your replies .

 

I think the store is in trouble for naming innocent people

Edited by blonde123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi blonde

 

You could write to their Head Office, explain that an incident alledgely took place involving an individual. That you have been accused of something which you categorically deny. State that your solicitors want further information on the accusations made by xxxxxxxxxxxxx (name of company) against you. Tell them they have 14 days to provide either the information requested or a full and unequivocal apology. You are consider taking further action against xxxxxxxxxxx (name of company) as serious allegations have been made.

 

Give them the date and the store where the incident took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks rebel. I think I may do this as the stress is killing me. I also think my employers are at fault as they don't gave ant evidence simply because it can't exist! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi blonde

 

Post up the letter without personal details so the guys can check it for you.

 

Thanks rebel. I think I may do this as the stress is killing me. I also think my employers are at fault as they don't gave ant evidence simply because it can't exist! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do

I'm hoping yo run it past the other innocent party and if she is in agreement we will either write to the store or phone them as ideally Web need the letter by next Wednesday. But thank you all so much for your help x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty

 

Only in criminal law. Industrial law is effectively the opposite.

 

But definitely do as Rebel suggests. To quote you above the store doesn't really need to apologise for almost anything, outside of a court room. However, the possibility of solicitors' fees and bad publicity- for no real reason except for an over-zealous member of staff- is very likely to give them pause for thought. Likewise, you should remember that (re: guilt and innocence) your employer only needs reasonable suspicion to discipline you to the point of dismissal; whereas this letter should deny them those very grounds: "Q.E.D," as it were.

 

Just looking at the worst case scenario, don't panic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Now that us a worry concerning reasonable suspicion. But I know you said it's worst case scenario.

I am still perplexed though as to why the store contacted my employer. Especially as I was not the one caught theieving and never gave stolen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really meant that, if the worst came to the worst, and any dismissal went to a tribunal, the employer doesn't have to pprove you did shoplift- only that they acted as any other 'reasonable' employer would have done. And if you're in a position of trust facing an allegation of theft, any dismissal might be found to be reasonable. But with a withdrawn allegation- probably not. Anyway don't worry bout all that.

 

It's bizarre about the store contacting your company- almost to the point of suggesting some personal motivation, if that's possible? Either way, I believe slander and defamation are still offences ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really want to know is do the store gave a right to contact our employer. Even though one of my colleagues was guilty myself and my other companion have never stolen anything so surely the store is on dangerous grounds and is this not a breach of data protection?

Link to post
Share on other sites

blonde123: Are you in a union ?

 

If so, it would be worthwhile discussing the case with your union rep - They may even be able to offer legal advice/aid in persuing the store in question for defamation.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a common law claim for "Breach of confidence"

 

You have a right to find out what information has been transmitted to an outside party. Any information transmitted must have been proven, relevant and relate to you.

 

Grotesque,

 

The employer only has to have reasonable suspicion you committed an offence, stating what another employer will do is reasonable in a similar situation is stretching it a bit. The employer who has suspended you might be looking at a fundememtal breach of your contract of employment if dismissal results

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bizarre. This is like the local sweet shop contacting the headmaster of the local school complaining about pupils stealing.

 

This sounds more like a long running silly competition that has gone wrong. People have been going out in their lunch time, egging each other on to do something. Over a few weeks they have been in this particular store up to some Tomfoolery and eventually the store staff have got fed up with it. This is why they asked the person caught for the names of the people with her, as they are trying to get this nonsense to stop.

 

Whether this is correct or not, obviously you cannot admit. The girl who got caught, she should get legal advice. Perhaps she should say that she got into a conversation and forgot to get into the queue to pay for the item. She was not intending to steal. She should ask what CCTV the store have. As for the other people, they have done nothing wrong, they should ask for strict proof of any act they have been accused of which is illegal or would be considered misconduct by any employer. If this is not forthcoming, they should be provided with a relevant apology.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi blondie

 

What's happening 'Next Wednesday'?

 

Will do

I'm hoping yo run it past the other innocent party and if she is in agreement we will either write to the store or phone them as ideally Web need the letter by next Wednesday. But thank you all so much for your help x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi blonde

 

Ask them if they can postpone your Disciplinary Hearing as you are awaiting some important information in your defense and it would be unfair if that information was not available in time for your 'Disciplinary Hearing'. You need to write to the store concerned, send it Recorded Delivery.

You can show your company the RD slip.

 

Disciplinary hearing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Grotesque,

 

The employer only has to have reasonable suspicion you committed an offence, stating what another employer will do is reasonable in a similar situation is stretching it a bit. The employer who has suspended you might be looking at a fundememtal breach of your contract of employment if dismissal results

 

The point is that a Tribunal will look at whether the disciplinary decision was reasonable in the sense of having been within a range of responses that a reasonable employer might make, not whether it was (proportionately) reasonable in and of itself.

 

Apologies if it was unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...