Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

Rlp/TKmaxx ..letter before claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2710 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've read a fair few posts about ignoring these letters and all but would like to know if my situation is any different.

 

I set off the security things on my way out from work one night (I used to work at TkMaxx)

and we couldn't find what set the beeping off.

 

 

I later phoned back to say i'd found a soft tag that i'd been playing with stuck to my magnetic name badge.

The only thing bothering them was that i had a top in my bag that i had no receipt for.

 

The last purchase i made was for a grey vest and the top i had in my bag was white with black sleeves.

i had had an accident with makeup in my bag and rolled up this vest with the top i grabbed from home to protect it as i was intending to return it....

 

long story short (and the details dont particularly matter)

 

they dragged out this 'investigation' for about 2 weeks,

during which i was obviously suspended. my anxiety was through the roof.

 

during my final disciplinary he had said to me that he did not feel that i had sufficiently explained the incident

and that based on those grounds he was going to dismiss me for gross misconduct.

 

he did not once say 'yes we believe you have stolen it' or 'yes we are 100% certain you have stolen'

he just said he didn't feel my explanation was good enough.

 

fair enough, i wanted to leave anyway.

i did not enjoy working for them.

 

 

HOWEVER. during my disciplinary, i was in a holding room and pointed to the RLP poster on the wall

(as i had heard about them from researching before my disciplinary)

and asked the note-taker (a Team Leader at TkMaxx) whether or not i would have to pay a fine

as I had heard the LP next door dial RLP on speakerphone......

 

He said to me, 'i don't think so, otherwise you would have been informed

and they would have mentioned it today' and i never thought anything else about it.

 

Fast forward to now and

 

 

i've just started an apprenticeship (so will be on waaay lower wages)

and i've just got a RLP letter through the door that first of all says LETTER BEFORE CLAIM at the top and then says:

 

Value of goods which was not recovered: £7.99

Contribution towards the cost of the time spent investigating blah blah blah £197.50

 

TOTAL £205.49

 

I'm panicking, my anxiety is starting to rise and i'm just worried about whether or not my situation is any different?

Will i have to pay this?

will they press charges because i worked there??

 

I will not be able to afford it either way :/ and i'm 23 btw

Edited by kgfalcon
Link to post
Share on other sites

letter before claim means nothing

its letter before action that means poss court.

 

they can 'claim' what they like!!

 

bottom line is they cant do anything anyway.

 

can you scan it up a PDF suitably redacted upload

 

for our collection

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to scan it somehow and post it, so that means I just do as you've all been saying and just IGNORE everything unless it mentions court? Thank you for the quick reply btw coz I actually felt my heart drop out of my bum when i opened the letter this morning, feeling a little bit calmer now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and it is not a fine!!

yes totally ignore everything

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it literally just them trying their luck to see which vulnerable people agree to it and pay up? like do they just terrorize people with these letters?

 

i read that its gonna go on for quite some time, do you have any idea how long i'll be receiving letters for??

 

thanks x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Shoplifting and employee theft are different. In some cases the store will take action against an employee if the value of the stolen items is high but this is not the case here.

 

RLP use this letter before claim to scare the individual into falling for their ploy. I don't feel TKMaxx will do anything with this as they do not have absolute proof of anything.

 

The most feel would happen is that RLP pass this on to a tame debt collector who have as much power over you as I have.

 

It would be nice to see all the letters that have been sent to you (suitably redacted to cover up all identifiable ID)

 

Follow the instructions that DX posted and make sure they are all pdf's

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that in the letter it states that I HAVE taken something

and says yes i'm guilty and i have stolen. I have not.

 

 

It literally is just a case of things adding up which aren't related

but which make me look like i am guilty which is why when i explained it,

it did nothing to help my case because i know how it sounded.

 

 

its a pooey situation and i would never put myself in it because of my anxiety.

2016 staff theft letter before claim.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's their usual twaddle

if you read it carefully doesn't say will anything.

 

two things they can do are:

Bugger

and

all

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that your (ex) employer had to say was "we don't consider your explanation is good enough" but stopped short of saying "we believe you have stolen this item", I would consider sending Ms Lambert a terse reply:

 

I accept your offer to negotiate an alternative settlement. Namely four weeks of pay in way of compensation for a sloppy investigation and dismissal based on conjecture and lack of hard evidence. A cheque made payable to myself within fourteen days will be acceptable.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that your (ex) employer had to say was "we don't consider your explanation is good enough" but stopped short of saying "we believe you have stolen this item", I would consider sending Ms Lambert a terse reply:

 

I accept your offer to negotiate an alternative settlement. Namely four weeks of pay in way of compensation for a sloppy investigation and dismissal based on conjecture and lack of hard evidence. A cheque made payable to myself within fourteen days will be acceptable.

 

I hope you were joking there. :| RLP won't even entertain the notion and it may alert them that they may have a bite!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you were joking there.

 

Tongue in cheek a little. RLP's letters are full of threats couched in "may" and "possible" phrases. In doing so, it does leave the list of options open to alternative interpretations whilst failing to give one more: Ignore completely.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely ignore, due to the Oxford case they will be unlikely to try court.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely ignore, due to the Oxford case they will be unlikely to try court.

 

Although this is a bit different, rip have had more successes chasing employees as Oppossed to shoplifters but in this case the op says they didn't steal anything and if appears this wasn't alleged at the time, although I think I'd like to know the actual reason for the gross misconduct accusation, was there any paperwork from tk maxx to the op, what did it actually say ?

 

But yes best advice is to ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this is a bit different, rip have had more successes chasing employees as Oppossed to shoplifters but in this case the op says they didn't steal anything and if all ears this wasn't alleged at the time, although I think I'd like to know the actual reason for the gross misconduct accusation, was there any paperwork from tk maxx tk the op, what died it actually say ?

 

But yes best advice is to ignore.

 

Absolutely agree here. Stores can(and have) taken civil action to reclaim losses caused by employee theft but that has not been confirmed in this case. RLP will chase anything they are told to do. Stores also don't bother with small staff theft as it would cost them more than they would get back. They tend to go for the large scale employee where theft can go into the thousands. Again, not in this case.

The disciplinary cannot be claimed for as that is part of a stores operational and management costs. There was no surveillance, just an erroneous tag. Even if the security staff had been watching, these costs cannot be reclaimed either as they were just doing the job they are paid to do.

 

Eventually RLP will pass on the case to a DCA but they all write 'A debt that we believe is undisputed' If it wasn't disputed, why would they get involved??

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

always ignore RLP

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was told that once they get a response they won't stop. But this letter mentioned further actions being taken against me several times, it feels like they're saying 'do you have anything else to add before we do you over?'

Link to post
Share on other sites

letter rotated and converted to PDF.

 

it doesn't say anything of sorts read it properly.

 

it s a begging letter.

they have no legal powers whatsoever

totally ignore

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See,

I want to talk to someone about it without being judged or looked down on,

and as far as I know there aren't many people I can confide in that can help me.

 

This site is helping me so much,

I literally came home and had a cold flush all over and pins and needles and felt sick but im starting to calm down.

 

I really appreciate the quick replies too.

 

And thank you for fiddling with the letter.

 

I did try and read it over and over to really understand it but those certain words and sentences really freaked me out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to laugh..." settle the claim "...what claim? :lol:

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

the claim s/he owes them money..laughable

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that (and similar) letters from RLP. Nothing whatsoever to worry about.

 

While I would take action is this happened to me, you still need do nothing. TKMaxx cannot prove on the balance of probabilities you actually stole something therefore this is just an allegation. As such, I would see these letters as harassment. Taking direct action against RLP would elicit the weak response of, " We are only doing what our client told us to do."

 

I would be taking TKMaxx to task as they couldn't prove theft therefore they should not have involved RLP in the fist place. Just because 'something didn't add up' means nothing.

 

I could go on and on but then I would be ranting on your thread.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...