Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks. In that case when it comes to preparing my court bundle I will remover the Bradbury v UPS case. And I agree, @occysrazor 's case is the strongest asset I have in defence. Hopefully the necessary literature will be available by the time of my court date.  
    • Some of this seems to hinge on him not being properly instructed by POL or their legal reps. He was said to be an independent expert but doesn't seem to have known that he should reveal all evidence he was aware of and not just the bits that suited Fujitsu/him. I know he asked for immunity from prosecution, is it still the case that Wyn Williams doesn't want to do this? The last I saw there was still a perjury ivestigation.
    • So I like a bit of fun with the horses and have a few profitable tipsters, when i make a profit i re-invest and try more, nice little way to work on the side. This site looked promising however after joining a Telegram group I was not at all happy with the service as it was completely dead.. a week went past... I thought it was brokedn (expecting 14 tips by now)... 2 weeks went passed.. a tip came in about something happening in a few weeks... the month was nearly up (£49 couldnt be recouped by these bets) I complained via email asking for a refund as it was not as advertised, website says 1-2 tips a day, i expected that.  There's no way i could recoup £49 a month on 1 or two tips.  I didnt get a reply. I tried again,  no reply. Ive then had to up the email wording to request Im now really not happy. I get a reply and it appears they agree a refund (this doesn't get processed) Fed up i send a notice before action letter. I then get various emails of a very unprofessional manner and one towards the end that sounds a bit like a threat. I would encourage others to be very cautious about this website and if that was a threat (I know where you live, i have your postcode)  It becomes a police matter.  Im sure, it is just a recording of my personal data so I cannot be allowed in the telegram group again. Either way, is there anything ive missed? Emails below in order.   On 22/05/2024 11:31,  wrote: Hi I havent had a response to my last two emails, and Im not getting what's displayed on the site (1-2 bets a day) Please can you process a refund as its not what I was expecting   Thanks   --------- From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 22 May 2024 12:17 To:  Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi X, Are you still in the private telegram group? Regards, Ash -- On 22/05/2024 12:21, I wrote: Hi Its all still logged in yes as per the day it was set up   thanks ---- From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 22 May 2024 12:25 To:  Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi X That is fine. When did you send the previous emails? This is Marc speaking here I run the service. So on the 1-2 bets per day, some days there are no selections because there is no value or information. It is impossible to make profit long term betting every single day. Did you get on Macduff 33/1 for the Derby? Regards, Marc ----- From: X Sent: 22 May 2024 12:41 To: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi Marc, I sent a mail on the 16th initially then Monday this week to follow up.   Yes, Got a Derby tip through but nothing else in a week   Ive based this on needing £50 profit required to break even, so expecting 1-2 bets a day (sorry) , £2 average bet profit needed to make a small profit after the subscription fee, as a test then move up as confidence grows   I probably need a larger starting bank to benefit from this properly.   Thanks X ======================================== Then, no further correspondence received until almost a month later: ====================================== 17/06/2024 Good afternoon,   Further to my correspondence below I am notifying you of court proceedings.   If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. Court fees will be added to the final invoice adding £215 minimum to the refunded amount and this will affect your ability to get credit.   I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraph 13-16 which sets out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the Practice Direction. I look forward to your acknowledgement. Yours faithfully, X   ============== NOW i get a response! =============   Tuesday 18th/06 Evening X Firstly, I know the law (family member is a QC) so this legal jargon does not work with me. Secondly, you were already processed a pro rata refund on the 5th of June 2024. Sometimes this does not appear on the bank statement. The bank can find this with the Acquirer Reference Numbers (ARN) - 88888888888888888 Once the bank have confirmed this I would personally like an apology for the time you have wasted and the serious accusation. Regards, Marc =================================================== I was going to drop it at this point, throw it in my spam folder as a mistake in my judgement, lessons learned to do due diligence on such a company next time, however this then got my back up when a pestering follow up arrived: ==================================================   From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 20 June 2024 18:35 To:X Subject: Re: Notice Before action - Court proceedings   Hi X Still waiting on a response and an apology? Regards, Marc --------------------------- On 21/06/2024 09:11, X wrote:  I dont think you read the email correctly, so I will presume you misunderstood.   The only thing Im sorry about is using your service.    To recap:   You didn't respond to emails, of which I had to send multiple to get an ounce of attention You did not confirm any refund or ask to agree on pro-rata reduced refund You do not send out 1-2 tips a day as per your website (trade description act breach) And you seem to forget who is the customer here, you have been dismissive and non responsive and now asking for an apology??   My 14 day notice still stands, I am currently not satisfied with the response and a full refund is still outstanding.   This can be processed easily and without further waste of time. Please process this or send on your final response on this matter (letter of deadlock) so next steps can be taken.     ------------------------------------------------- Sun 23/06/2024 21:18 High importance You replied on Mon 24/06/2024 09:06 Evening X Thanks for another email. Payment has been refunded Acquirer Reference Number (ARN) 8888888888888888888 (altered for security) I am sending this again as you did not acknowledge you have received the refund. This was processed on the 5th of June 2024. Sometimes I have bad actors that join my service and try and defraud my business with similar tactics to what you are attempting. It's pretty embarrassing that you are attempting to defraud a business after you have already been refunded. Tells me a lot about your character. I advise you use this link - https://www.gamstop.co.uk/ Also, for future reference this is your postcode - xxx xxY ???  (altered for security) Regards, Ash -------------------------------------------- My final mail: --------------------------------   I do not agree with any of your statements, in order for fraud to occur something must be untrue. You have other unhappy customers, that's interesting to know.   I acknowledge a partial refund has been received for  £24.99  - so  £25 is still outstanding.  I do not agree to a pro rata refund for something I haven't received.   Thanks for the link, but it doesn't apply to me (unless that was an insult, if so, you're 'business' condones insults to customers?)     Thank you for acknowledging you also have my personal data on file. Under GDPR, I do not consent to you storing any of my personal data and this now must be deleted as well as anywhere it may have been shared.   Thank you  
    • He will be grilled thoroughly, however those above him as culpable.
    • Here is the start of the revised letter to IPC.  do not worry about repercussions from CPM they should have enough problems without  picking on you as well. particularly as they know the case against you is lost.   IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a  PCN on 8/3/24 which was sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar after receiving the Reminder on 16th April 2024. Despite being not the only motorist who has not received A Notice to keeper from CPM. that is not the reason for my complaint. The reason is that when I received the NTK as a result of the sar I noticed that it stated I had 28 days to pay their demand starting from the day after  the NTK was given.  As the NTK was deemed delivered on the 15th March 2024, the earliest the Reminder could have  been sent was the 13th April 2024 which was a Saturday. Yet not only was the Reminder sent a day early before the 28 day period had elapsed their Reminder averred that the 28 day period had elapsed. This is a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 S4 [4] 4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given. It is also a breach of your own Code of Practice and calls into question their ability to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. I believe it is a breach of my GDPR . I assume that my CPM Reminder is not the only one that has breached the Act so as you will have to contact CPM and presumably the ICO and the DVLA  I will not be expecting a reply from you for 10 days. However I do hope that you can expedite the matter to avoid me complaining to the ICO and the DVLA.                                        Yours Sincerely  
  • 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 
        • 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

"Private Land - Keep Out"


okokok
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2612 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'm looking for clarification on the law regarding Signs on a private fence.

 

I recently nailed a proprietary "Private Land Keep Out" sign to a private garden fence after neighbours were filmed trespassing.

 

The said neighbours quickly removed the sign and kept it, despite a letter asking for its return.

 

When the police eventually confronted the neighbour three days later she admitted taking the sign off the fence (which involved prising it off with an edged tool) and returned it.

 

The police have said no offence has been committed by her removing the sign "because she did not want to look at it"

 

What's more, they have even suggested that to put the sign back up on the fence (which is NOT a shared boundary but is wholly private) may constitute an aggressive act!!!

 

I cannot believe this is correct in law.

 

They have suggested to me that to put the sign back up would need a solicitor to pursue civil action, not that for her to have the sign taken down would need the same!

 

Before making a complaint about the police officers' handling of this matter, I would like clarification, if possible.

 

The whole thing sounds preposterous - that you can remove a sign you don't like from someone else's property and the property owner can potentially face prosecution for replacing it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are talking rubbish.

 

If it's on your land then I don't see any thing wrong with putting it back as long as the words used are not offensive.

 

In particular, you are putting up the sign because they have already been filled trespassing.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't have thought that this is the best way to go about it. How about some dialogue with your neighbour to find out why they needed to go onto your land.

 

Have you any ideas about it? What did they do when they came onto your land?

 

The removal of the sign is potentially an offence of criminal damage that that seems a fairly extreme procedure to take.

 

I'm afraid that the police don't prioritise this kind of thing and they prefer always to say this is a civil matter. It's rubbish.

 

On the other hand, proportional response is always best.

 

You don't need a solicitor to take action against them. If you wanted to sue them in trespass and that will be the way to go.

 

I would suggest that you open some face-to-face dialogue and then follow it up with the letter. If that doesn't deal with the problem then you might want to send them a letter telling them that you are disappointed and that you won't accept that this continues.

 

I'd suggest that you keep your letters informal rather than some strutting quasi legal missive which would normally be written by some pompous solicitor.

 

Keep it relaxed and informal until the point where you are obliged to go formal. At that point, do it with the court papers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply. Very much appreciated.

 

The problem with these people is they are continually pushing boundaries (literally) and trying to grab land which isn't theirs.

 

Believe me, friendly dialogue was our first response,

but what they have proven repeatedly is that they will say whatever sounds agreeable,

whilst lying outright to your face,

then do the complete opposite of whatever was agreed.

 

I'm all for proportional response,

and I know it can appear unreasonable or petty to make a big deal out of every small,

seemingly insignificant offence,

 

the problem with this is that all these small seemingly insignificant offences all start to add up over time until eventually,

almost imperceptibly,

they are claiming land as their own

and elderly residents are being driven from their homes (which is exactly what has happened here).

 

Whilst I understand that the police would have a hard time claiming in law that my putting up a sign was in any way 'aggressive' or 'confrontational',

if they are happy to allow the same sign to be removed each time then they are in effect encouraging this incremental encroachment.

 

The next step will be that the neighbours will be claiming the fence is a shared boundary...

then they'll remove it,

knowing that by that stage legal proceedings would be expensive and complicated...

and so it continues.

 

Paranoid?

Not at all...

this is exactly what has happened and continues to happen with adjacent boundaries.

 

Planning applications are applied for retrospectively in the knowledge that they are almost always allowed to remain and the Council have been lied to in order to get planning applications passed.

 

If the police are now refusing to act against criminal offences as well,

then it leaves you feeling there is little protection for the average householder against anyone wishing to ride roughshod over their legal rights.

 

Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of all this is that despite the neighbours refusing to return the sign even after a written request,

when the police eventually recovered it they claimed there had been 'no offence' because she had handed the sign over!

 

This is like the police going to the home of a suspected bike thief,

asking 'Did you take that bike',

the thief replying

'Yes... here, take it back' and the police saying there was therefore no theft!

 

My apologies if this sounds like a rant, but I'm incredibly frustrated about this and a little bit furious :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you've got them on film trespassing? as bank asked, what is the nature of their trespass?

if so, just sue them.

though, that might 'aggravate' things re being neighbourly. excuse the pun :)

no worries re the rant, rant away.

as has been said, the police dont give a hoot re these things.

what was the nature of the sign. one option cld be to try a more 'friendly' private appearing sign. if thats still removed. sue.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CIVIL MATTER: the favourite police punchline.

Stealing a sign, on public or private land is an offence and returning it after being caught doesn't cancel the offence committed.

As okokok pointed out, if that was the case, all bike and car thieves would never be arrested.

 

I don't think there's a "value threshold" in the theft act, so stealing a lolly pop or a car is still theft.

Put up a fence along the perimeter of your land.

Barbed wire works wonders, but you need a sign to warn the burglars.

Remember, you have to look after your burglars...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of all this is that despite the neighbours refusing to return the sign even after a written request, when the police eventually recovered it they claimed there had been 'no offence' because she had handed the sign over! This is like the police going to the home of a suspected bike thief, asking 'Did you take that bike', the thief replying 'Yes... here, take it back' and the police saying there was therefore no theft!

 

Stealing a sign, on public or private land is an offence and returning it after being caught doesn't cancel the offence committed.

As okokok pointed out, if that was the case, all bike and car thieves would never be arrested.

 

Yes and No.

Returning an item once caught doesn't mean it wasn't theft at the outset, but the intent at the time of taking does matter.

Not "intending to permanently deprive" at the outset means it was never theft in the first place, and this was precisely the case for vehicles, where the person taking the car said "ahh, but I was 'joyriding' and was going to give it back after!"

 

That would have effectively prevented a prosecution for theft, and was the rationale for creating the offence of "taking without consent" for motor vehicles ...... they couldn't get the offenders for theft, but can get them for TWOC, regardless of if they say "I never intended to permanently deprive".

 

So, "bike and car thieves" isn't exactly the best example ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true.

 

So walking out from Tesco with a tv, being caught in the car park and giving the tv back doesn't amount to theft if the taker says: "I was gonna watch EastEnders and give it back".

 

I understand the loopholes, but having denied taking the sign in the first place suggests that the neighbour wanted to keep it.

 

Of course the police will try all avenues to avoid doing paperwork and you can't blame them; for a clean cut simple offence the probably spend an entire day in the office filling useless forms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it doesn't work like that, it was a rhetorical statement.

My point is that the neighbour took the sign and they denied having taken it.

 

That gives an indication that they intended to keep it, satisfying the conditions of the theft act.

But the police don't want to do any paperwork, so they said to give it back and forget about it.

Only at this point the neighbour admitted having taken the sign.

 

I don't understand how this same scenario is different in law if you change the characters (op becomes Tesco, neighbour becomes a shopper and the sign becomes a tv).

 

It's the same concept and the neighbour should have been prosecuted (in an ideal world).

What the police did has just made the neighbour more confident that they can carry on with their harassment campaign without consequences and this can lead to more serious crimes as we hear on the news everyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO I'd put the sign back up regardless.

 

Where is this footage of them trespassing??

 

Have you spoken to your LA and local councillors regarding the neighbours behaviour?

 

Get some cheap signs, and each time they take them down, replace it, report them to the police each time they steal a sign.

 

Keep a log of their antics for evidence.

 

Are these private homes or rented property?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it doesn't work like that, it was a rhetorical statement.

 

I don't understand how this same scenario is different in law if you change the characters (op becomes Tesco, neighbour becomes a shopper and the sign becomes a tv).

.

maybe then its not so rhetorical if yr statement needs an answer 'in law' to help understand. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...