Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, 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 credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

LauraZ

TK MAXX attempted sale sticker swap.

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, 

I need your help

 

before you all come down on me for what I did I am beating myself up over it and my anxiety is through the roof.

 

I was in TK Maxx the other day and I swapped a 7 euro sticker with a 19 euro sticker on a pair of Jean's.

Stupid I know when I had the cash-I dont know why I did it.

 

I went to the till and the lady scanned it and it came up that the 7euro belonged to the makeup section. I had taken the sticker from there.

 

She definitely copped what I was doing but didn't let on asked if I wanted the item for 19euro and I said yes, paid the actual amount for item and walked out.

 

She held on to the sticker and I saw her walk away to obviously go investigate.

 

I'm just wondering now if anything can be done about it now? I paid by card.

 

I'm also a college student near by and I am so worried they will contact my college with my picture from the CCTV.

 

Are they allowed to this?

 

Thank you in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea don't do it again...

 

they wont bother with CCTV etc.

takes up too much staff time to scan 100's of hours of camera footage

simple to confirm you tried the age old dodge you probably learned from a fellow college attendee

and they got paid anyway.

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dx100uk I dont understand what you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched them in changing rooms and then put the make up back. Can they not just put in time stamp in cctv and it will come up then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many members here know about CCTV operations in detail, maybe someone will comment. But as dx100uk says, it's unlikely they will search for this isolated incident.

 

This is the problem with shoplifting cases, that you end up speculating for weeks over what might happen when we're all second-guessing what someone else may or may not do. I hope you can treat this as a learning curve and remember how you feel at the moment if you're ever tempted to do this again.

 

HB

 

 


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your replies. Are they legally allowed to contact my uni? I had a backpack on so they could clearly tell I was a student. It will ruin my life if I'm kicked out of college for this. Lesson learnt🤢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather importantly in your case you didn't actually steal anything because at the checkout they told you it had the wrong price on it, told you correct price, and bought it for the correct price. Nor did they accuse you of having switched the stickers. So no offence of shoplifting committed even though it was a stupid thing to attempt to do.

 

You refer to the price being in Euros so which country did this happen in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence of shoplifting was committed, but (if in the UK), the offence of fraud by false representation was (as it doesn’t have to succeed : the attempt that exposes another to risk of loss suffices for the offence to be made out).

 

However, I agree with Will, it is unlikely this will be pursued (If it was a one off!), as action would have been taken at the time.

 

If it were part of a continued course of attempts, then they might be bothered to go back to check CCTV / card receipts, but unlikely for a one-off.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this comes into the world of contract law rather than theft even though your intention was to gain an advantage by deception.

It is about offer and acceptance. You took the item to the till, they scanned it, realised there was an error and offered you the goods at the original price. you accepted that and paid. end of as far as that transaction goes.

They may well think that something smelt but as you didnt make a fuss about the correct price they arent going to start a fight over a non event but beware of trying it on again, the bar code will say exaxtly what the item is, how much and how many they have in stock and yes, if they can be bothered to they will have a look at the CCTV if there is a pattern of such events and something may well be done.

Also consider this, the store may suspect that the shop assistant is in partnership with you and they might get sacked for something that has nothing to do with them.

so learn from this and make things easy for everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother : there was the contract (civil law). That doesn’t prevent the (immediately prior) criminal offence though : fraud by false representation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/pdfs/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

 

2 Fraud by false representation
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.


A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
A representation may be express or implied.
For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).


The CPS guidance notes

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

clarify that no actual gain or loss is required (this being where fraud by false representation has a significant difference to e.g. shoplifting) : the dishonest intent of the false representation at the time it is made is the key, not if the false representation succeeds or not.


 

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...