Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Tesco via DWF want money after alleged shoplifting, i suffering Hypo pass out.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2502 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

Hello all,

I`m new to this so please bare with me..

 

I recently had a Hypo ,

which is severe low blood sugar that Diabetics sometimes get. It can result in drunk like or irrational behaviour.. back to the story,

 

I was in Tesco doing my shop when this happened,

I walked out without paying..

I`m not a shoplifter but I did never the less walk out without paying..

 

When I came too I was in a room at the rear of the store being guarded by a security guard..

I asked why I was there as I had no memory of the prior 45 minutes..

 

I was informed I was a thief and they was waiting for the Police to arrive..

At some point someone had given me a mars bar so that was why I had come back from the brink.

 

The police said there would be NO charges and let me leave the store..

 

Today however I get a letter from a solicitors saying I owe Tesco £125 .

.. Civil recovery..

should I pay ?

do I have to pay ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You should not pay.

 

Who are the solicitors? Does this have anything to do with Retail Loss Prevention?

 

Had you been asked to sign any documents?

 

Also, what item was it which you apparently took?

 

Did Tesco's get it back and was it in good condition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the solicitrs are DWF.

it was just regular food shopping an it was all returned to the shelves and I did not sign anything...

I am still mortified as it is not something I would do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you can produce some kind of statement from a doctor that you have this condition.

 

I suggest that you write one letter to DWF and after that don't bother to write anything else.

 

Tell them that you will not be paying the money they asked for. There is no recovery issue as Tesco's did not lose anything. Furthermore you have an established medical condition and there was no element of dishonesty involved in the incident in which you were involved.

 

Tell them that you consider that they are bounty hunters and that if they want to take the issue further than they should issue proceedings in the County Court. Tell them that you are happy to waive the pre-action protocol that they should proceed immediately if they so wish and that you will defend vigourously.

 

Tell them not to trouble you again unless they are sending the court papers.

 

Send the letter off recorded delivery. Send it tomorrow. Use pretty well all the works I have suggested – including "bounty hunter".

 

Get on with your life – you probably won't hear from again.

 

If you do, then come back here and let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these the people?

https://www.dwf.law/

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG,

 

DWF took over from RLP in these civil claims recently. Tesco didn't swap because DWF are any better than RLP. They are both bottom feeding money grabbers who target the people who have little knowledge about civil recovery and many will pay them to get rid of the problem. Seasoned shoplifters already know to ignore the threats as they will go nowhere near a court.

 

Somebody at the store must have realised that you were suffering a hypo hence the chocolate so the security staff should have realised what was going on. Instead they put there blinkers on and assume you were a thief. Due to that, I would also be complaining to Tesco over their lack of sympathy. If I am correct, Tesco subcontract the store security to a separate firm and as such, may not know too much about this incident. Make them aware that you hold them as responsible as their agents for the lack of common sense.

 

As for DWF, I agree with Bankfodder here. One letter only but also add that should they continue to hound you after you have told them the circumstances of the incident, you will report them for harassment. Just because DWF are solicitors means nothing. They are treading a very fine line by taking instruction from a client that they know (or should know) that has no legal standing.

 

I assume you have a regular prescription for diabetic medication. Do you have a copy of the prescription? If so, send a copy of that to DWF (after removing other data) to show that you are diabetic. DWF then have a duty of care and treat you accordingly.

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

About Tesco realising what was going on because they gave you chocolate.

 

I would differ from the above advice only in that I would not send any medical certificates or any other evidence to DWF. I would not want to do anything that might be construed as legitimising their position. I also wouldn't want to do anything that might invite some kind of condescending reply "… In the circumstances and as a gesture of goodwill, we will let the matter drop on this occasion…".

 

I would simply send the very aggressive letter which I've indicated above so that they have a shot across their bows.

 

DWF – just like RLP – are merely bounty hunters and you should not give them the time of day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Thank you to you all for your advice.. I actually slept lastnight..

I am going to take the weekend to type up the letter and use the phrases you reccomended and I have already sent an E mail to tesco about the incident.

I have to admit I was going to pay just to make this go away but now I am most certainly not.

Again, Thank You.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you.

 

Don't forget that if they come back to you with some letter, don't get rattled – even if it sounds very threatening.

 

Make your point and then let it go. If they want to issue court papers then let them go ahead.

 

It will be Tesco's reputation which they will be trashing. Imagine Tesco getting involved in suing somebody who has had a diabetic incident even though no goods were damaged and no losses were sustained.

 

That would be nice for Tesco.

 

We'll make sure that the press finds out about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send this Tweet if you want - and retweet ours.

 

@Tesco happy to trash reputation as DWF Law-want £££ for alleged shoplifting,I suffered Hypo pass out.Come on Tesco. http://cag.tw/22qe

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...