Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why is this in the overseas forum? as you or steadypay not in the UK?   dx  
    • I recently applied for a Sure Start Maternnity Grant and received a decision from the DWP today, declining my eligibility; under the basis that there is another child (under 16) in my family/ household. My situation is this,  I am co-habitating with my partner/ father of my new/ first baby.  Within the last 10 months, my partner's daughter from previous relationship (age 13) had to be removed from her mothers care, owing to domestic violence issues.  The family Courts are still dealing with the situation as her mother is contesting her daughter residing with us, as she wants her to return to her home/ care - so obviously there is Social Sevices involved etc. Anyway, prior to this situation arising, my partners daughter, had always resided with her mother and my partner, had regular acess etc. I have cited the Sure Start Maternity Grant Act/ Policy and the more recently published 'Restricting payment of the SSMG to first child only' -  I have to say, both have left me further confused as if you read the 'restricting payment policy/ in one paragraph, it states that in a situation where a woman has her first child and another child under 16, residing in same household/ family and is from the partners 'previous relationship' this would be considered a 'first child' and will be eligible for payment of grant. If however, the reverse applies (ie: it is the 'father/ partner' first child, then payment would not be made.   This seems pretty straightforward, but then the policy starts to contradict itself and goes on to define, the only exception for payment to more than one child, is in the case of the child living in same household, is not from partner.  Or if you are adopting a child under 1 year old/ special guardianship etc, then you are eligible. It does not offer the scenario of any childd in household under 16, from partner previous relationship being acceptable?   Can anybody please clarify this point please???  I want to challenge the decision/ request a Mandatory Reconsideration - but wanted to include my reasoning/ the point of law they have not applied correctly?   Any help advice / greatly appreciated.   thank you 
    • you don't respond LInk DCA ...the biggest fleecers there ever were know full well that: Barclaycard rarely even have enforceable CCa's for even debts from the last 10yrs, let alone one from the 1990's.!! not a chance!!   ignore until/unless you ever get a letter of claim. and read my red bits below if you aren't on a tablet or mobile.   dx
    • Looks like the 2014 TCE was ignored, or disregarded then as unless the scenario hinted at by UB is followed as in point the camera at the TV now show the serial number on the back and it is listed, there is no way that CGA could be compliant.  Don't think it could be in reality unless EA sees the goods in situ and lists them correctly. Might be big stink if there was a forced entry removal after a Virtual CGA.
    • asking for Trump pardons now aren't they
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 838 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,

 

On the 12th of september I had just had a mis-carriage and been discharged from hospital.

I also had a flight that evening at 9pm to a family wedding in spain.

 

I rushed to primark to gather last minute things; whilst grabbing clothes i was struggling to hold all my shopping and couldn't see any shopping bags near me so i places a PJ set and a bra into my actual handbag.

 

Through the stress and rush I went to the cashier and paid for everything in my hand which was (£40+) and did not pay for the two items in my handbag - which is a huge oversight on my half (but i was very stressed and under a time deadline.)

 

I was approached by security staff who told me i had not paid for items in my bag which i instantly gasped at and offered to pay.

However, at this point I can not recall if I had technically left the store as I do feel as if the security had approached me just by the exit.

 

I was very cooperative as I was trying to catch my flight

- however one of the security officers was making me feel very uncomfortable telling me how pretty i look and asking me loads of personal questions (which i refused to reply to as I did not see the relevance to the issue at hand.)

 

He then began getting rather rude with me and I asked to see the cctv footage to see if i had actually left the store without paying.

They refused to show me the cctv and threatened with police.

Which on a normal day I would fight but I had a flight to catch and just wanted the day to be over.

 

I have now received the infamous letter from RLP asking for £150.00!!

Just wanted to know what steps I could take forward?

Do I send an appeal?

I actually am moving to NYC and dont want debt collectors coming to my family home whilst away.

 

Thank you!

Edited by victoriasantos
Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore totally

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

Seconded - completely ignore. If police were not called at the time then there is no chance of anything further happening. RLP will write a series of letters threatening possible (civil, not criminal) court action and when they are not getting any further they will get a debt-collector-for-hire to write another scary letter. NOTE - a debt collector WILL NOT call at your house, all you will receive is a trail of letters before the debt collector hands the case back to RLP who will then 'recommend' that their client considers court action. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN - Primark will have filed the case once you left the store and no further action will be taken

 

There is no point appealing - all that will do is signal to RLP that they have a live one and that it is worth following up in the hope of getting some sort of payment. Similarly the CCTV - pointless in getting hold of it as you don't need it

 

There is absolutely nothing more that will happen over this bar the letters. Don't fall for their pseudo legal language or threats of eternal damnation should you not contribute to their Christmas fund!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't argue with advice above but IMO there is no 'accidental shoplifting' as you had gone through the pay pont before stopped. If you had left the store, the Police could have been called and you charged with theft.

As it is, Primark could ban you from entering this or all Primark stores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

 

 

Wow, you are privileged. Four site team members giving advice.

 

 

I slightly disagree with Mariner51. I believe that taking goods without paying does happen in certain circumstances. A miscarriage is (in my opinion) as good a reason to explain your actions however it does beg the question; if you put the goods into your handbag, where was your purse at the time?

 

 

Aside from that question, you have been given the advice to ignore RLP. This is the best option. Going to the US will not be a problem either as you haven't been convicted of a crime so when you fill in the visa waiver form you can state that you have no convictions (Just don't tick the box' terrorist' as one unlucky lady did)

 

 

Put this out of your mind, recover from the miscarriage and get on with your life.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...