Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,   I just left bigmotor and return the vehicle. Staff from bigmotor wasn’t helpful they start from the beginning I need to have appointment. They mentioned there is no one today from after sell who can assist me today aswell. After few min  manager come to talk with me and collect all documents. All conversation has been recorded with full names for both people who was dealing with me in the store.   Thank you     
    • London1971 - he's sick. He & his partner would like to dispose of or utilise via a rental his uk assets and/or to have access to his own £s (including his pension) - to make his end of days more pleasant.  It seems that is now only going to be possible for his partner via probate if Barc won't unblock his account.   HB - sorry I didn't mean to appear rude. I just meant this post will probs end up having to be morphed over to barc threads ! I do appreciate your input
    • I am quite happy to give a breakdown of what happened yesterday in court, and most certainly if it helps anyone. As you can imagine it was quite nerve wracking, despite knowing I had done no wrong there is always a nervousness that things can go against you. As such, I will confess to not remembering legal terms used etc but will try my best. On arrival at court I was, once again, asked by the claimants representative if I wanted a chat in a consultation room. DWF / Adidas do not send their own solicitor , they use a local company of representatives who all seem well known to court staff and judges. This was the 3rd time I had been to the court and on each occasion it was a different representative. I believe the advice on here is to not get involved in these little chats but I felt comfortable with them. First two occasions they did try to talk me into coming to an agreement but this time he just ran through what would happen in court. Not relevant to anybody else's case but this guy was more interested in my Thai Tattoos as he was a Muay Thai fighter and planning a trip to Thailand to fight out there !! When the time came we were ushered into court and took our seats in front of a judge who was already seated. I have to say it was surprisingly relaxed despite my being nervous. The judge called the representative by name and advised that the rep knew him well, knew he had a "straight to the point" attitude towards civil cases and didn't accept pointless waffle. He then outlined the case and spoke to me advising that he was aware I had no legal background and if any of the legal terms he was required to use were not self explanatory to me just to ask a question. Adidas WS had been written by a Senior Manager of Risk Prevention based in Amsterdam and the judge asked if he was attending. He seemed a bit taken aback when advised he would not be. He questioned how it was deemed as "fair" that I could be cross examined but the Adidas employee could not. The adidas rep said that he had a list of questions he had been instructed to ask of me, but that he felt my replies would all be denial so agreed not to cross examine.  The judge, during his summary, came to the part where adidas said I had contacted them asking where my refund was, and they had paid me due to "customer appeasement". His exact words were "the defendant would have to have some brass neck to actually phone chasing a refund for items he knew he had not returned". He also commented that Adidas had claimed that the return went to an altered postcode but did not include an example of what their return label would have looked like at the time, which seemed and obvious bit of evidence to him.  He then handed over to the claimant to put forward their claim. The claim really consisted of their rep reading through their WS and highlighting things which "proved" my guilt. They had discovered on internet forums that people were altering the postcode and sending out empty envelopes in the place of the goods. This was known as FTID (False Tracking ID) and Instant Refund. Apparently I was refunded within 18 minutes of my parcel being scanned at the Post Office. He also suggested that the altered postcode was pretty damning. This took maybe 15 minutes for the full reading. The judge asked if I had any questions and advised that I didn't need to prove my innocence they had to prove my guilt.  I did make a couple of comments but really could have said nothing. I advised that when returning items to a post office, the first thing they ask you to do is put the parcel on the scales, which made a mockery of the empty envelope theory. They then scan the bar code or QR code, which would require in depth knowledge to be able to alter. I asked if adidas had been to this "altered" post code to recover the goods. The tracking provided by Royal Mail remarked "delivered no signature" I pointed out that adidas claim I was refund within 18 minutes but also say they refunded me following a call I had made chasing my refund, a total contradiction The judge then moved onto his decision. He started by saying that he had no doubt whatsoever that Adidas not received the returned goods. At this my stomach totally dropped.  He then said he had absolutely no doubt that I had returned the goods in good faith, and that the return system was obviously flawed for Adidas to have lost £10.4m. Adidas had provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and on that basis case dismissed. I walked out to the car park with the Adidas rep who advised me that there was absolutely no chance I was ever going to lose. If he had told Adidas what he thought of their case and evidence he wouldn't get any more work, they had no case whatsoever I am quite certain I will have missed some details of the day so quite happy to answer any questions that may jog my memory
  • 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

"Private Land - Keep Out"


okokok
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2609 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...