DWF & Asda security costs

[dpoly]

I have today got my second letter from DWF demanding £125 for Asda security costs. Following advice on these forums I am ignoring all correspondence. As some forums suggest replying denying all allegations and no money is owed. I prefer to just ignore - as this seems like a case of car parking notices from private companies. I ignored them and the letters stopped.

 

So basically, my query is:

- has anyone ever got a CCJ from something like this?

- how many letters do they send before stopping?

- are DWF genuine? As they seem genuine, but seem to be partaking in this cowboy act?

- should I respond to them stating the following or continue to ignore "Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxxxx.

 

Any liability to your client is denied. No further correspondence will be entered into.

 

Yours etc."

 

Thank you in advance for replies.

 

D

[silverfox1961]

DWF don't publish data on court cases taken to court by the retailers they act for. Only RLP do this and the last reported case was in July 2012 shortly after getting a slapping on court.

 

If they follow the usual rules, expect 5 or 6 letters followed by a debt collector letter (or two). These also have as much power as I do (none)

 

You could send the letter but it is my opinion that this just goads them into sending more spurious letters containing legalese intended to confuse and try to instill in you that they are in the right legally.

 

You say ASDA? did you mean Sainsbugs? Either way, security costs are already factored into the prices paid at the till. Security costs are part of the store infrastructure and the security staff get paid irrespective of whether they apprehend anyone or not.

[dpoly]

DWF don't publish data on court cases taken to court by the retailers they act for. Only RLP do this and the last reported case was in July 2012 shortly after getting a slapping on court.

 

If they follow the usual rules, expect 5 or 6 letters followed by a debt collector letter (or two). These also have as much power as I do (none)

 

You could send the letter but it is my opinion that this just goads them into sending more spurious letters containing legalese intended to confuse and try to instill in you that they are in the right legally.

 

You say ASDA? did you mean Sainsbugs? Either way, security costs are already factored into the prices paid at the till. Security costs are part of the store infrastructure and the security staff get paid irrespective of whether they apprehend anyone or not.

 

Thank you for replying.. It really sounds like the dodgy private car park scams. Sending fines/costs dressed up as a legal document scaring people to pay the money.

 

Yeah it was in Asda. Seems that all the supermarkets are at it. I think I will continue ignoring- you're right, if I reply they will know I have received the letters.

Also, they have spelt both my first and surname wrong, so in fact although the name sounds like mine. It's not my correct spelling. What do you think ?

[dx100uk]

own thread created

[silverfox1961]

Any spelling mistakes don't really matter. It is my belief that DWF will give up eventually but as we have very little data about them, we cannot be 100% certain of what they 'might' do.

 

Can you post up both letters in pdf format minus all identifying data (name, address, reference numbers, bar codes etc.) as we don't see them often.

 

In the highly unlikely event court action is taken by Asda, there is already a case that was taken in the county courts by a retailer (can't name them) who lost big time on security costs amongst other things. This case is only persuasive and not a test case as such.

 

I say carry on ignoring.

[ericsbrother]

You have to ask yourself, why is Asda asking a separate company to write to you to ask for the recovery of their security costs and on what basis in law can they do this? Well, it has been determined that if you employe security guards it is part of their normal work to deal with such matters as shoplifting (why else employ them) and thus the costs of employing them is part of normal business practice and usual costs so you cannot claim that a loss hase been suffered by the company because they did the job they are paid to do. This means that if Asda knw they cannot recover the money then why is someone else claiming to do so on their behalf? Have Asda assigned the security operationd to a third party,if so is this party DWF? the answer is no. If you dont believe me phone up the SIA (Security Industry Authority-branch of Govt) and ask about DWF licence and what its terms are. I bet I can answer that quicker than the SIA can. They have no interest in the matter whatsoever and therfore no rights or powers to do anything.

It is possible they are breaking the law by claiming what they do but without seeing the letter that is not possible to determine.

[Ganymede]

You have to ask yourself, why is Asda asking a separate company to write to you to ask for the recovery of their security costs and on what basis in law can they do this? Well, it has been determined that if you employe security guards it is part of their normal work to deal with such matters as shoplifting (why else employ them) and thus the costs of employing them is part of normal business practice and usual costs so you cannot claim that a loss hase been suffered by the company because they did the job they are paid to do. This means that if Asda knw they cannot recover the money then why is someone else claiming to do so on their behalf? Have Asda assigned the security operationd to a third party,if so is this party DWF? the answer is no. If you dont believe me phone up the SIA (Security Industry Authority-branch of Govt) and ask about DWF licence and what its terms are. I bet I can answer that quicker than the SIA can. They have no interest in the matter whatsoever and therfore no rights or powers to do anything.

It is possible they are breaking the law by claiming what they do but without seeing the letter that is not possible to determine.

 

Nonsense. DWF are acting for and on the instruction of their client, ASDA, and will not be claiming ownership of anything.

 

DWF are a massive corporate law firm and are not a two bit dodgy operation like RLP.

 

Hopefully DWF won't be instructed by their client to take matters further for the reasons you mentioned about the security costs being factored into ASDA's overheads.

[silverfox1961]

Nonsense. DWF are acting for and on the instruction of their client, ASDA, and will not be claiming ownership of anything.

 

DWF are a massive corporate law firm and are not a two bit dodgy operation like RLP.

 

Hopefully DWF won't be instructed by their client to take matters further for the reasons you mentioned about the security costs being factored into ASDA's overheads.

 

I hope so too as I would think Asda would lose. Security costs are core costs attributed to the running of the store and are factored into the price people pay at the till. These costs are paid irrespective of whether or not they apprehend any shoplifters. The only costs they could claim for is if a member of the store staff who is not involved with store security was diverted from their usual duty (i.e cashier) and then only for the actual time spent, not a fictitious amount claimed.

 

Depending on what the letters actually say, they 'could' be breaking the law. You just have to look at RLPs letters to see what they could do. People now have a remedy against companies who send out misleading or harassing letters.

 

Yes, we will have to wait to see them but if they are anything like RLPs, misleading is the norm.

[dpoly]

I hope so too as I would think Asda would lose. Security costs are core costs attributed to the running of the store and are factored into the price people pay at the till. These costs are paid irrespective of whether or not they apprehend any shoplifters. The only costs they could claim for is if a member of the store staff who is not involved with store security was diverted from their usual duty (i.e cashier) and then only for the actual time spent, not a fictitious amount claimed.

 

Depending on what the letters actually say, they 'could' be breaking the law. You just have to look at RLPs letters to see what they could do. People now have a remedy against companies who send out misleading or harassing letters.

 

Yes, we will have to wait to see them but if they are anything like RLPs, misleading is the norm.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I did not realise a new thread was created. I will take a picture of the 3 letters I have since received.

[dpoly]

Sorry for the late reply. I did not realise a new thread was created. I will take a picture of the 3 letters I have since received.

 

 

See attached, unsure when I uploaded the images which way it uploaded.

Letter 1: dated 28/07

Letter 2: dated 04/08

Letter 3: dated 11/08

[silverfox1961]

I wouldn't mind a copy of the questions and answers sheet as well but if you can post it up, can you do it in pdf format.

 

As to these letters. Very amateurish in my humble opinion and from a law firm at that. In the third letter they state that they 'may consider' court action. That doesn't say will so for now it is all bluff and bluster.

 

There is no way they can justify a bill for security costs when they are paid anyway by the store. If the store had come after you for the actual losses and not this inflated amount demanded by DWF, I would probably side with the store because they would know that ONLY actual losses can be claimed for.

 

I wonder that as DWF are a law firm, they are in breach of their licence conditions from the SRA??

[dpoly]

I wouldn't mind a copy of the questions and answers sheet as well but if you can post it up, can you do it in pdf format.

 

As to these letters. Very amateurish in my humble opinion and from a law firm at that. In the third letter they state that they 'may consider' court action. That doesn't say will so for now it is all bluff and bluster.

 

There is no way they can justify a bill for security costs when they are paid anyway by the store. If the store had come after you for the actual losses and not this inflated amount demanded by DWF, I would probably side with the store because they would know that ONLY actual losses can be claimed for.

 

I wonder that as DWF are a law firm, they are in breach of their licence conditions from the SRA??

 

I can upload the FAQ questions however I am unable to do so as a PDF due to not being able to upload it via iPhone (I can email it as a PDF).

 

They are attempting to claim a set £125 for security costs, however as you have mentioned, security were just doing there normal job, also I must mention, I was purchasing over £100 of Clothes for a holiday on the self scan, 2 shirts didn't scan, once I realised when I was "stopped" I immediately explained it wasn't intentional (which it wasn't) and requested to pay for the items which hadn't been scanned due to "unexpected item" errors . Therefore Asda have no losses.

 

Do I continue to keep ignoring, as i am unsure if anyone has dealt with DWF/Asda until they give up ?

[silverfox1961]

As I have said, we have no real data on whether Asda or DWF have acted on the threats.

 

Let me ask you this question. Would you take court action against anyone where the chances are 50/50 and you would get back less than it cost to go to court? They would have to use a solicitor who charges £150-300 per hour but this would be a small claim so only the £125 plus fixed court costs are generally allowed (court filing fee and hearing costs). The solicitors costs would not be covered (usually).

Along with the slapping RLP got in July 2012 (and probably the reason they don't have any more cases to report) the costs outweigh the risks.

 

If you want to be pro active, complain to Asda. There was no intention to steal, you have not been given a criminal conviction and DWF are assuming you are guilty without any evidence of the sort.

Otherwise, I would suggest you continue ignoring

[ericsbrother]

the letters sent are simple demands for payment without any explanation of how the amount is justified or even why it is demanded. The wording at the end is the usual and cannot be read as a LBA. It is likely that they are merely acting as a DCA for themselves and do not actually have the explicit authority to do anything more than they have. If they do fancy their chances at a court claim they would have to show upon demand the basis for claim and then they would have to reveal the relationship between themselves and their supposed client on demnd. Should they then want to try and hide behind their "lawyers" mantle that would then necessitate getting the retailer to show their losses and since security costs cannot be claimed they are stuck.

It it was possible to claim for such costs then every shopper who didnt steal could reclaim a percentage of their spend that is apportioned to that in the company accounts. It is never going to happen as the store will claim that security also acts as a deterrent so in effect we are all treated as potential criminals until we prove we are criminals. all very well for the balance sheet but not so good when put in words at the shareholders meeting. In other words, the store wont touch it with a barge pole so nothing to worry about.

[dpoly]

the letters sent are simple demands for payment without any explanation of how the amount is justified or even why it is demanded. The wording at the end is the usual and cannot be read as a LBA. It is likely that they are merely acting as a DCA for themselves and do not actually have the explicit authority to do anything more than they have. If they do fancy their chances at a court claim they would have to show upon demand the basis for claim and then they would have to reveal the relationship between themselves and their supposed client on demnd. Should they then want to try and hide behind their "lawyers" mantle that would then necessitate getting the retailer to show their losses and since security costs cannot be claimed they are stuck.

It it was possible to claim for such costs then every shopper who didnt steal could reclaim a percentage of their spend that is apportioned to that in the company accounts. It is never going to happen as the store will claim that security also acts as a deterrent so in effect we are all treated as potential criminals until we prove we are criminals. all very well for the balance sheet but not so good when put in words at the shareholders meeting. In other words, the store wont touch it with a barge pole so nothing to worry about.

 

Thank you. Everything you stated makes sense. To be honest I had this once when I got a parking ticket in a McDonald's car park and ignored their silly letter demands, as it seems to have empty threats in.

 

The fact that Asda in this case didn't not suffer any losses, if they did want to pursue court action, they would find it real hard to justify a loss.

[Ganymede]

I wouldn't mind a copy of the questions and answers sheet as well but if you can post it up, can you do it in pdf format.

 

As to these letters. Very amateurish in my humble opinion and from a law firm at that. In the third letter they state that they 'may consider' court action. That doesn't say will so for now it is all bluff and bluster.

 

There is no way they can justify a bill for security costs when they are paid anyway by the store. If the store had come after you for the actual losses and not this inflated amount demanded by DWF, I would probably side with the store because they would know that ONLY actual losses can be claimed for.

 

I wonder that as DWF are a law firm, they are in breach of their licence conditions from the SRA??

 

Nope. Not at all.

[caledfwlch]

It is all a "Speculative Invoicing" scheme, exactly the same as the infamous ACS:Law

and it's pursuit of alleged movie downloaders using pirate sites.

 

After RLP's total disaster in Court it seems highly unlikely that anyone would dare try it again,

unless they believed the "Defendant" unlikely to Defend, or to get assistance from the likes of the CAB.

 

 

These new people might well try it on, in the hope of the Defendant ignoring, and thus getting a default judgement,

or just in the hope the Defendant gets no help.

 

 

Many people don't know about the wide range of help the CAB provides, but will have seen that legal aid has been vastl cut,

so may not think they can get any help to fight, or they may not have the access, skills etc to find somewhere like here to get help

, so it's possible DWF might assess the people they are chasing and take a bet.

 

The real security costs are caused by the "Professional" Shoplifters and are factored in to the stores costs as mentioned.

The Speculative Invoicing is purely about trying to make a bit of easy profit from people who make a one off stupid mistake,

but have never done it before, nor likely will again.

 

 

RLP and DWF are no threat to the Professional Shoplifters, they see a night in the cells,

community service, fines and in rare cases, Custodial Sentences as the normal risks of their chosen way of making a living,

they don't care about getting Fines, and will be equally unimpressed by a County Court Judgement.

 

 

The Professionals also tend to know the Law and their Rights, and would be able to avoid paying the CCJ for 6 years,

including attempts by Enforcement Agents to collect, since Fines are part and parcel of their trade,

they will be well versed in Bailiff's, the Bailiff's powers and their rights as a Debtor,

and be able to avoid EA and HCEO Enforcement, with a bit of basic thinking and understanding of powers and rights.