Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that's right-Parking Eye are usually very good at getting their PCNs compliant with the Act. So both being out of time means that PE cannot transfer the liability for payment from the driver to the keeper. So only the driver is liable to pay the PCN not the keeper. I understand from you that at least one of the keepers was not driving at the time which puts them in the clear providing PE are not told who was actually driving on that day. However even if with the other car the keeper and the driver were the same person the driver can still successfully argue that they are not liable to pay. The arguments are that there  appears to be no entrance sign advising that the car park is now private. That no signs were there advising that this was a new car park as it was at that time. That the signs are prohibitory so even if PE do have a contract with the landowner, the contract cannot extend to the motorist as there is no  offer other than no parking for those without a permit. You cannot form a contract with motorists trying to park if you are not allowing them to park there because they do not have a permit.  In those circumstance [parking without a permit ] you may be considered to be trespassing but only the landowner can sue for that not PE. And its not worth the landowner suing because the cost of suing would probably not outweigh the fine for trespassing.   PS  I sent you a private message-not about your case.    
    • Please accept my apologies for the delayed update, but i have been trawling through emails for supporting evidence, you see we are in the consultation phase and there will be three meetings during the process. So as i have said  my role is at risk due to the scoring and mine being low. As explained i never received my report as my line manager left during December and i was on leave. So i was not afforded any meeting, i received no feedback at all, so how am i meant to know any areas to improve or to attain a higher grade. So with this in mind i gathered my supporting evidence, i found the email from my then line manager and the objectives that he set out and we agreed.   I then supplied 20 emails that  showed that not only did i reach the targets, i smashed them, highlighting areas that i had saved the company a considerable amount of money, idented issues  implemented process and solutions with ongoing support. All emails are verified and prove that i should have received the highest possible grade going by their criteria. I also included the email from HR when i challenged  the score and they replied with " the outgoing manager supplied thorough feedback to the incoming interim manager who should have provided this (this was never received, and report i received was blank with just a score. Highlighted was the email from HR stating " a two is not a concerning grade"  well clearly it is as less than a month later it is what was used to decide i was at risk. I have supplied this information to the line manager and the external HR rep that was on the call as i have 48 hours to supply this. Had i had a proper and fair review like everyone else had then i would have been able to provide this evidence when he issued the score, he could not argue with the sheer volume of evidence that i had. This proves what was said to me when i took this position, " there was some politics in me getting the role, their line manager had promised the role to one of his guys, they cant really do anything but watch your back" He should not have promised this anyway as two interviews were required in the process *which i sat) so i earned the right to the role. This was because the three of them knew there was a lot that would be uncovered and they wanted it covering, i started to see this after two weeks, had i not said anything then it would have looked as though i was incompetent or stupid. I did try to work with them on this to remedy but sadly they went the other rout instead.    
    • He'll be asking Truss for advice and help next ... or maybe go straight to a lettuce He already asked Swella How do you survive all those breaches of ministerial code etc She is rumored to have replied - dunno - if the positions were reversed, I'd have sacked me in without a seconds thought
    • Dear Stu. I have been very annoyed that they put this fee on my account right now, as you said the court might rule that i have to pay it further on. This sounds like a dodgy practice. Below is what the account manager sent to me when i asked her why this was getting added to my account right now. Is this legal what they are doing i.e. pre-empting the judges decision it seems. 'Thank you for the email.  The court fees have been added to your account as you have not vacated the property. If the court decide that the landlord is not able to recoup the costs, we would remove the charge from your account.  At present, the court costs have not been deducted from the payment you made towards the rent.'
    • Yay!! Plan to submit tomorrow. Thanks for all the support. I'm so out of my comfort zone. Will keep thread updated and continue reading. Just want them gone!   
  • 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

Lidl cash back charged to card but given & how to get CCTV from them.


woking
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2642 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

Hi Guys,

 

Need your advice on this unusual problem.

Sorry story is a bit long. I’ll spilt it by bullet point to make it easier to read:

 

1. 23 Dec 2016 – went to the store made small purchase requested £50 cashback. Was deep in my thoughts. Felt a bit awkward at the end of interaction with cashier who started behaving strangely by completely ignoring me and started chatting with colleague. After packing few purchased items I was waiting patiently not realising what for. Felt as something did not finish - no eye contact from cashier, no thanks / goodbye. I’ve felt a bit strange and waited for much longer that socially acceptable in such situation and then left the store without exchanging a word with cashier.

 

2. Few day later realised I did not had my cash. As I was not out of the house since visiting store I could not have spent it or lost somewhere.

 

3. Waited for store to open again and went to speak with manager on 27 Dec 16 to ask them for my cashback and checking CCTV to confirm it was not given. Duty manager said he cannot view CCTV but checked till for that day and there was no extra cash in the till. He also found small receipt with my signature that confirms I’ve received cash. Signature seemed to be mine but I do not remember signing it nor receiving cash.

 

4. I’ve got my receipt with cashback on it. I am guessing I was asked to sign small slip confirming I was given cash and then was given my store receipt. That triggered me into thinking I got what I needed and made to forget about my cash by cashier starting to completely ignoring me.

 

5. I’ve spoken to customer services and same manger again who were pointing at each other saying I need to request CCTV footage and pay for it and that only store manager / area manager can view CCTV.

 

6. 6 Jan 16 spoke to customer services who then spoke to store manager who then checked till records again stating no extra cash was reported on that day.

 

7. Managed to speak to store manager in person on 6 Jan 16. Did not get much was just fobbed off making it sound it was my fault and I should have checked cash in store and they conducted their investigation. This person was quite elusive did not wanted to talk. Said nothing I can do. Both managers felt a bit arrogant almost as if they were saying good luck with that! If you know what I mean.

 

8. 6 Jan 16 stated electronic communication with customer services sending all above information via web form. Starting message with I am making formal request for CCTV footage under Data Protection Act 1998 confirming I am happy to pay for it. Providing all relevant details timing till number etc.

 

9. 18 Jan 17 sent them all above information in registered letter.

 

10. Did not get any response for around 10 calendar days and called them again to chase up for reply.

 

11. Received reply on evening of 20 Jan 17 (Friday) stating they passed for investigation to area manager. Provided instructions for requesting CCTV and how payment should be made. Advised that I need to contact police if I felt there was theft.

 

12. 20 Jan 17 I replied via e-mail and asked to place hold on the footage to ensure it is not overwritten as I’ve read somewhere that their retention period is 30 days.

 

13. 21 Jan 17 (Saturday) send request for footage as per their instructions.

 

14. 26 Jan 17 received letter stating request is outside of system storage capacity.

 

15. Chased them up for finial outcome of area manager investigation knowing what they will say.

 

16. 16 Feb 2016 Received response stating CCTV has now been overwritten they conducted till review and no extra cash was found. Nothing else they can do and I can contact the police.

My view on that is that they ignored my initial request under Data protection act sent to them on 6 Jan

 

 

17. Purposely delayed providing instruction for requesting footage and timed it so that I have 0% chances of making it successfully and that it reaches them before 30 days retention period to cover up for their employees.

 

I’ve seem to exhausted my option to get this resolved with the company and looking for advice on taking this further.

 

I feel up to taking them to small court claiming for postage, petrol cost for number of trips inconvenience and original cashback.

 

Just wanted to get your views on chance for success and some help with small court procedures if will be going that way.

 

Thanks for reading!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say that I think you're on a hiding to nothing. It's your word against theirs and to bring any kind of complaint – including a small claim, you would have to produce evidence.

 

The only thing I can suggest is to start looking around the Internet and see if anyone else has had similar experience – particularly in that store. Other than that, I think you may have to grit your teeth

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but this could be a simple mistake by the cashier or it could bean example of the many times used trick played by unscrupulous people.

 

 

The distraction part is the critical bit so I dont think it is a simple error.

 

TBH the discount supermarkets save money by not having the necessary staff to do all of the things you would expect

 

 

their head office wasnt going to tell you that they have found the recording and you are right etc,

 

 

too much like hard work and would ruin their reputation and profits as they would have to look at loads of other queries in depth once it became public knowledge that someone had been rooked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s exactly how I felt.

 

 

The fact they did not find extra cash in the till speaks for itself.

Managers felt confident I will not get anywhere and really long delay in providing information on how to get copy of the video seems to be their way to cover up.

 

I asked them for copy of video under Data protection act on 6 Jan but they only replied with instructions on 20 Jan when they knew I would not get anything I as it will be overwritten by the time they get my request.

 

 

Area / store managers also knew of the issue but did not investigate in reasonable time allowing video to be overwritten.

 

It could be simple fact that they did not want to spend money on getting this video to me as it would have cost them much more than £10

 

 

I would have paid them for getting it.

But at the same time they spent £15 on getting their refusal letter with my cheque back to me by posting it SD by 9.00am!!!

 

Good question is whether I have good chance of convincing the judge if I take them to small court…

 

I’ll post separate thread with instructions on how to get video from Lidl under Data protection act.

 

 

Hopefully it will help someone not to get caught in the same situation…

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can complain to the ICO about them destroying your data when they knew that they should be keeping it , they might get a letter telling them off a little bit but that is all.

 

 

You have nothing to do court with and no-one to sue.

As the money was obtained by fraud you cant sue the store because they arent responsible unless you can show that they knew about this from previous complaints and did nothing

 

 

We can surmise that the person responsible has done it before or was guided by someone else how to but that isnt proof of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find yourself in a situation where you need to get copy of CCTV video from Lidl be aware that you need to act quick. They have 30 days retention policy after which video will be over written. They also have 7-10 day response policy. If you contact them via on-line form they will take 2 full weeks to respond you! Lidl is not keen on providing footage to you as it not in their interests and will cost them significantly more than £10 they are allowed to charge you for it. They will ignore your requests for copy of CCTV video unless requested as described below:

 

Here are instructions on getting copy of the video:

Should you wish to request CCTV footage, please write to the following address, providing the following:

 

 

• £10 Cheque made. Payable to Lidl UK GmbH.

• Photographic ID.

• The store name concerned.

• Description and timings of the video required.

 

Data Protection Officer

Lidl UK

19 Worple Road

Wimbledon

London

SW19 4JS

 

Hope it will help someone :)

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was hoping I could sue Lidl for not taking my concern seriously and refusing to check CCTV video as well as delaying information on how to request copy of CCTV video with intent to cover up for themselves.

 

With lack of key evidence I guess there is not much I can do now.

I should have gone to the police.

They would probably have to provide them with the copy much quicker and it would not be lost.

 

Lesson learned. Hopefully this information will help someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that Lidl would not necessarily cooperate with police and refuse to provide CCTV footage as below Facebook user found out:

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/lidluk/posts/1052090894848728

 

But quick to go to police and provide CCTV when someone steals from their cashier :)

 

 

http://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/news/14184580.Police_issue_CCTV_following_supermarket_fraud/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...