Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the timeline in the poc carefully. the a/c was defaulted 30th april the A/C was not sold till 21st june, some 2mts later   I would suggest the £499 was refund of interest or charges or WHY from the OC, hence the different wording to the phantom £1 payment some further 6mts later they claim by you.   the MBNA SAR will most probably clarify the 1st part and should be arriving well in time for your bundle exchange   at that time 2012 -14 were you ever aware of what questioning a debt was all about ?? or were involved in any other debt whereby you used a CCA request etc or were in any kind of debt management etc etc.. we don't have old thread history to guess your background.        
    • get on to Lidl head office and the local press and lay it on with a trowel. Ask the council if there are any conditions in the planning consent that palce limits on parking times- many have a minimum of 2 or 3 hiours free parking and that cannot be changed arbitarily by either Lidl or the parking co. If there are conditions make a big fuss and tell Lidl that you will be going after the closure of their store if they dont tell Athena to wind their neck in   See the case of Tandridge and Caterham branch of Morrisons which was a Somerfield. In short 3 hours free parking  as a minimum, Morrisons chaged it by hiring parking cowboys who limited it to 1 hr when they took over the store and the council told them they would close the store for breach of planning consent if they didnt tell the parking co to do one. Parking co realised they would never make money like that so skulked off.
    • The POFA allows the parking co to create a KEERPER liability if certain conditions are net. POPLA have got the timings wrong as the parking co is allowed 12 days plus 2 days for service so they mut send out the NTK in time (28th) regardless of whether it drops on your doorstep within the 14 days. So they failed to create a keeper liability- this doesnt men that there wasnt a contract with the driver but they cant assume that the keeper and driver are one and the same but this has never stopped a parking co from persuing the person named by the DVLA even if the procsessing of your personal data is unlawful cos they ahve screwed up on their dates. tyhye just lie to the courts and hope.   The BPA will do nothing other than side with the person who pays their wages for the above reasons. they will waffle about assumed driver still a contract so someone ahs to pay and it will be you unless you name someone esle etc. All cobblers but they cant burst the bubble.   Better off saving ink and fighting the parking co if they want to start something but let them waste their time and money in the meanwhile. If the car aprk is local to you get some pictures of the entrance, the signs in there and piccies of any signsthat are different to the signage at the entrance. tell us about the event, the place, time what it is they said you did wrong etc
    • this is for the court claim one should be on your other thread please      
    • no, as numerous threads here regarding AP already shows, AP stays for anything upto 12yrs and kills the score and the account thus remains on file. a default notice should have been issued after the 3rd payment which did not meet the org payment terms of the signed agreement.   the ico is even down on record stating the same about this AP marker, it should not keep an account showing on credit files nor effect one's score whereby otherwise it would now have been removed or the score improved after 6yrs
  • 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

Forget about it, nothing is going to happen. And don't do it again.

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...