Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and 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.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
    • you still got that spreadsheet I did for you?   dx  
  • Our picks

woking

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 894 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

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!

Share this post


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


Share this post


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.

Share this post


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…

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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/

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...