Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2087 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

Attachments approved.

This is something I have seen before and DWF are claiming for security costs. When a Retailer (can't name them) took a case to court in 2012 with RLP, the issue of security costs were brought up.

It was one (of many) that was fatal to their claim as the security costs had already been factored into the costs the store faced and the price of the goods in store included a small amount to cover those costs.

The store security company were already paid to deter crime, detain suspected shoplifters, monitor the store via walkabouts or CCTV and investigate any shoplifting event.

Had a member of store staff NOT associated with security assisted in any detention which took them 'away from their normal duties' (i.e. cashier) then those costs could be recovered but only those costs. The store could not gain a profit as that would be called betterment.

 

So, that long winded reply is basically saying they haven't a leg to stand on nor would this case be likely to end up in a county court.

 

There will be more letters but unless a letter arrives stating Letter Before Action/Claim or court papers then there is nothing to worry about.

These companies dish out their own special versions of rubbish.

 

IGNORE!!

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

So you don't see any need to send them a letter? Would it be a bad thing to do?

 

I'd really just like the phonecalls to stop (so far there's only been 1 but the day is still young). I know it's like the car park penalty letters, but with the car parking thing I would be happy to wait it out , and have no concerns with my work/family finding out about it, but this is different.

 

I was thinking of something along the lines of:

 

...While shopping in Asda that day I was accused of a crime, which I denied. When the police arrived they confirmed that I had committed no crime and I was allowed to leave. Apart from the attending police officers, the only members of security staff I encountered were regular staff I'd seen working there previously, and presumably would have been paid regardless of my visit to the store, therefore I do not understand what extra costs you claim "occurred at the time of the incident". In any case I was accused of a crime which I did not commit and therefore deny any liability to you or your clients.

 

I have "met" a friend of a friend online who had a similar letter from another supermarket (different but similar sort of accusation) and they sent a letter basically saying what I've put above and then that was the last of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could send a letter. Firstly, I would demand that they remove your phone number from their database and deal with this matter in writing only.

 

I would then state;

" As police officers were in attendance and confirmed that no crime had been committed, I deny any liability to you or your client. I am also fully aware of the case in 2012 where a retailer lost a similar claim in court and while not a precedent, would be raised in court should you continue with this fruitless action."

 

"As no crime has been committed, your letters are tantamount to harassment and the excuse that you are only following your client's instruction will not stand. Should I have need to complain about your actions to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority I will raise this issue with them.

 

" Any further letters will be acknowledged but not responded to. Should you continue with this matter, I will have to charge for my time at the prevailing rates."

 

You could do that or adjust your own to fit. You don't need to mention Asda at all or the fact you were shopping.

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

letters merged and rotated..

 

 

I like the way they say that a retailer gets nothing fron if your are fined so this iswhy we do civil recovery..

 

 

...urm its already been proved that the retailer gets bugger all out of these charges too!!

they don't see a penny!

 

 

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

Thank you for the very helpful advice re sending a letter.

I understand you are not allowed to mention the names of those involved in the 2012 case, but could you point me in the direction of where I may read more please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oxford case kills the pig for DWF makes any action pointless.

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

I know this will sound odd to some but I woke this morning thinking of this thread :|

 

I notice that DWF are only claiming security costs however, if Asda security had deemed your use of the vouchers to be fraudulent then why did they not add them to the amount claimed?

 

No crime committed.

No value demanded

Can't claim security costs

No due diligence by DWF

 

They have no proof any alleged crime has been committed so they are claiming security costs on spurious grounds therefore (IMO) they must be in breach of the SRA codes of practice.

 

If they wish to continue with this, they must go back to Asda and get the proof (of which there will be none)

 

It beggars belief that any solicitor will lower themselves to gutter standards in the hope of a quick buck!

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

There is no credible claim here, just the usual Civil Enforcement MO of threats and coercion, they have no more grounds for court here, than they have to sue me when I get that invoice from them shortly for Security investigating the incident a couple of days ago when a codger ran into me in an Asda on a scobility mooter (sorry had to Spoonerise it)

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a wee update to let you know...

I sent the letter using the phrases Silver Fox posted above nearly 2 weeks ago, and have heard nothing from them since.

(I did get a 3rd letter reiterating the first 2 and saying they'd "consider" legal action unless I paid,

but it came the next day so will have crossed in the post.)

 

 

Hopefully that's the last I'll hear, and I just wanted to say thank you again for your help.

 

Would it be helpful for you to see the 3rd letter?

TBH it's just the same but with added court "threat"

but I think I read somewhere that you are not that familiar with the supermarket/Dwf procedure, time frame etc.

 

For me the time frame worked like this:

just over a week after the incident I received the first letter (dated 3 days previously - rolls eyes),

then exactly 7 days later the 2nd (same 3 day lag).

The 3rd came 8 days later but I assume this was BH post related as the date on the letter was 7 days after the 2nd.

 

1 letter every week until I replied to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As good as it may seem now, I suspect that this isn't the end of it but I can be hopeful.

 

You have made it clear and if they continue with chasing you would report them for harassment. They may not want to risk a complaint to the SRA for harassment as the 'we were only following our clients instruction' doesn't wash as they being solicitors have a duty to act according to the law.

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...