Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕   Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.   As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.   It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.   Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.   In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.   I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?     As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.      
    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1472 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

Hello everyone, i've basically been taking chocolate from tesco at the self checkout over the past few months (paying for most) but taking a few on the side...I have an eating disorder which I am getting help for but this is just a manifestation of that :/

 

Anyway I was stopped by security today, and they found I had not paid for £20 worth of chocolate but had bought everything else.

The police were not involved, but Ive been banned from the shop and security took my club card details and said they would be sending me a fine in the next 4-6 weeks, which if i did not pay i would be taken to court with. I am happy to pay this fine I just really don't want this to turn into anything more!!!

 

I asked if I could pay there and then but they said no...i feel they will see from my clubcard details i have shopped there a lot and assume I have been doing this along time because of this factor and now I am terrified the police will come after me!

 

Can anyone please advise me on what is likely to happen!! will this all just go away after the fine....im soooo nervous!!!

many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it wont be a fie, only a court can hand down a fine. It will be a demand from a private company that has no interest in anything but will try and scare you into paying them noney for nothing-the store doesnt get this back.

The person dealing with this has made an assumption of previous guilt of the same offence, you know whether this is the case but they dont. It was not their place to do so either, they could have asked you if this was the first time you had misused the self check facility and then based their actions on your response but they didnt. This also means that the police wont be getting involved, it was dealt with by the store and they ave missed their chance to take the matter further should they now change their mind.

What to expect? A demand for £140 from a company called RLP, a misnomer as they dotn prevent anything , they just send bills to people whiose names have been passed to them regardless of any loss or lack of one and thus without any reason for you to pay them. They will claim that the money is to pay for security costs but this isnt true, they will say that it pays compensation for recovery of other losses caused by you and other people they have on their naughty list. This is again an imaginary claim, they have no authority to make such decisions on innocence or guilt and for the bulk of people whose names get passed on the goods are recovered in saleable condition so no loss actually caused by this event.

in short, they rely on your guilty feelings to get you to pay them to make this go away. It wont change anything whether you pay them or not so our advice is to learn your lesson from this, keep away from the store and dont waset your time and money with RLP, it wont make any difference to anything you are feeling and wont change the store's position

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your quick response!!! I explained to the security guard about my eating disorder and that it is only ever food i want.....it gets worse with stress and its been a horrible week (im a paramedic).

 

I had the money to pay and i could not explain why i didn't!

 

Now im terrified they will look at my club card and look at the cctv and maybe want the police to persue it!

 

The manager said i was not a normal case and he'd only give me a 3 month ban (i wont be returning) but can he change his mind and review the situation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a fine, you do not pay it and you do not need to worry about it. if the police were not involved that is the end of the matter, put any letter you receive from them asking for money straight in the bin.

It is easier to enter a rich man than for a camel to pass a needle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Police won't get involved for £20 of chocolate. Especially when the company have already dealt with you and washed their hands of the matter.

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

Might do. But very doubtful. they prob wanted the card so they could block it. After all, they banned you, so they would want to remove any rewards gained.

 

Like i said. Its over and done with 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
Might do. But very doubtful. they prob wanted the card so they could block it. After all, they banned you, so they would want to remove any rewards gained.

 

Like i said. Its over and done with now.

 

Thank you guys !!! Really appreciate the lack of judgement and support!I really hope you're all right!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there anyway I cam re direct the RLP to my other address of I email them?

 

Please don't contact them. This is new to you, but it isn't to us. RLP are not part of the law enforcement system, they can't do anything to you.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome from me.

 

You should be aware that RLP no longer act for Tesco (unless they have a dual contract). DWF have been acting for Tesco recently but the advice is still the same.

 

If you want them to send their begging letters to a different address, you will have to contact them. If you decide to do this please head any letter/email with:

 

"I acknowledge no sum to you nor to any company you claim to represent."

 

This tells them that you will not bend over for them.

 

After that, ignore them. Tesco can scan your clucard details as much as they like. It won't prove anything.

 

You won't be taken to court. Nobody has since 2012 when a retailer tried it on in court and lost-badly.

 

As you are already getting help, I feel you should mention this to them as you may need a bit more help than you are getting at the moment.

 

You must stop as well. You could end up in court on a criminal charge and that will damage your job prospects and it makes us look silly.

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

Thank you so much for making me feel better!!!.

...I'm an idiot for doing it in the first place and putting my career on the line but we all do silly things!!

 

I was just terrified of the police suddenly knocking on my door! I

 

 

l just deal with the DWF now hopefully!

Thank you for your advice!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police wont become involved. You can take a big breath of relief now. But you NEED to make sure you dont do it again. As well as a possible criminal record, you will be jeopardising your career.

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

Just follow advice already given DWF have no power to demand anything ignore them.

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 just wanted to say I also suffer from an eating disorder and have run into similar (well, much worse) trouble because of this, and I sympathise completely. You were cleary not acting rationally when you did this. I know how terrifying being caught is. Please try to be gentle with yourself and not worry, it will all be fine. & yes do make sure you get some extra support for your ED if you can. xx

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...