Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am going to try and explaine in full details from start to present and see if you have any advice for me on what i can do.   on 15/1/2021 16:25pm i was traveling along hazlebarrow Road wich is on my estate at around 30mph, its a tight road with cars parked along the left hand side, as i proceeded through, a van ( which was parked on my left hand side, facing towards me) pulled out from the side of the road, he stopped the van wich resulted in the van being at an angled stationary position on the road. I breaked immediately but the ice and snow skidded my tyers, i skidded into the drivers side of his van, my car bounced off his van and sent my vehicle head first into the back of a parked car ( wich was originally parked at the back of the van before he set off from the side of the road. I will refer to the van driver as MR S. ( im going to attatch a street view picture and diagram which will be more helpful in understanding how the accident accured ect) .    The owner of the parked car, which i will refer to as Mr T came out of his house. Myself, mr S and mr T exchanged details and took photos, then i left the scene as my first concern, understandably was to contact my midwife and the hospital. I live just round the corner from the scene of the accident so i slowly drove my car to my property.   I contacted Go skippy the next day 16/1/21 and informed them of the accident and gave them all the details ect.   by the following monday 18/1/21 i had a call from AX who said they was dealing with my claim as go skippy will not deal with it as i am third party insured. Over the next few days, i complied with their requests ( gave them a written statment of what happened, sent them pictures of the damage to my vehicle and MR S van ect).   Then on the 19/1/21 AX contacted me again and asked if i need a curtesy vehicle, my first response was ' how much will that cost me?' Of which she replied ' nothing because your insurance covers the cost'. I agreed to the curtesy vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to me on the 20/1/21.    Over the coming weeks, AX and i had regular contact about my claim and updated me in regards to my own vehicle. At one point she said it could be deemed a 50/50 liability.   An engineer had collected my car, deemed in a total loss as the damage was more than 66% of its total value and written my car off . i had a call from a lady from AX and she said they have valued the car and i will be payed out £2200 . i asked when and she said ' we will send you a cheque out for £358 in the post, and the remaining balance will be payed out by Admirel but this may take a few weeks more' .    I didnt hear nothing for around 2 weeks so i contacted AX again for an update, she told me that admirel are refusing liability and there now in dispute. Every time i contacted them they said the same thing ' admirel are refusing liability'.   i asked them why admirel consider them not liable and she read from the notes ' MR S said he was driving along the road, the corsa ( my vehicle) was at high speed coming towards me , i beeped my horn and tried moving out of the way but i couldnt because of the ice and the snow and the corsa hit my van' ( complete lie!!)   The lady at AX said the problem is that the damage to both our vehicles is consistant with both our stories and due to there being no witnesses, no cctv or dash cam footage- no one can prove who is at fault.   I then questioned why i had been told i was being paid out £2200 and she said 'well we have to advice you the estimated value' of which i replied 'no, there was no 'advice' - i was told it was a done deal i was getting paid £2200 and she told me i had a cheque arriving in the post!!!.    The lady then told me she had requested a ' none prejudice payment' from admirel and waiting for a response.     Shortly after this phone call, AX contacted me again and asked if i had the funds to repair my own vehicle or buy another one, ( im.assuming admirel refused to pay the  none prejudice payment).   I told them No i do not as i have a baby due and even if i did have the funds, why on earth would i fork out to repair my own vehicle when i wasnt at fault ?! . she said ok im going to pass this to managment and see what we can do .     I contacted AX again and asked for an update and expressed how unhappy i was with their service as i felt like they hadnt fought my corner, bowed down to admirel and then had the cheek to ask me to repair my own vehicle . Again she said ' its still in dispute, admirel are not budging i have to pass this on to management.   She then asked me for 3 months bank statements to 'prove' i dont have the funds to repair my vehicle myself. I thought this was ridiculous and stated that even if i had the funds, why would i repair my own vehicle when im.not at fault!?   Obviously this has been on going since middle of january, pretty fed up. My brother come to this forum last night to seek advice And had a couple of replies that i may be liable to pay for the hire car costs.   I contacted AX first thing this morning regarding this. I made it clear that they can collect the vehicle to stop the daily charges as i do not want to be in thousands of pounds worth of debt when i am a lone parent with a new born baby. the lady told me ' we will try every avenue to recover the cost from Admirel for the hire car charges, if this means taking them to court, even if this is unsuccessful, considering you comply with your hire vehicle contract and you work with us with your claim ( which you have been doing) you will not be liable for this debt and if worst comes to worst and admirel will not pay, we will just wipe the debt off' .   i made her repeat several times that i will not be liable for this debt and she said i have told you my name, and these calls are recordered and i am telling you that this debt will not be on you to pay . She then said that if i was to give AX the hire car back now, then it would jepordise everything. And she said ' we gave you that hire vehicle because we beleive your not at fault so you can keep using it as we know you need transport'   I then questioned the need for bank statements again and she told me the reason they need bank statements is so if it goes to court - AX can justify why i needed the hire car for so long ( because i dont have the funds to repair my vehicle or buy another one) and also so they can prove they have tried every root possible.      After the phonecall it got me thinking about how she said ' aslong as you comply with your hire car contract your not liable for any charges for the hire car' .   Will they find any fault with the contract just to try and lumber me with the debt? As it seems pretty fishy how they would just ' wipe off' thousands of pounds if admirel refuse to pay.    And also, she said if i gave the hire car back it would jepodise the case . so when the lady rang me the other week asking if i had funds to repair or buy myself a new vehicle , if i had said yes, ill buy a car tomorrow and come collect the curtesy one. Then what? Wouldnt that ' jepodise' the case?      As you can imagaine, my heads spinning. Stressed and dont know what to do. I dont even care about a pay out , i just want to give the hire car back and be completely done with AX . but now im scared if i give the car back i will be lumbered with thousand of pounds worth of debt from the hire car charges.    What can/should i do?    Thank you Gemma
    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Employee loyalty card abuse ***Settled at Mediation***


Recommended Posts

Self-evidently this is bad news.

 

I'd almost posted a few times that the SIL should deal with this himself, with these "on behalf of" threads it's difficult to get the full info. and the person being sued isn't understanding how to defend their own case.

 

It's particularly bad that he offered to repay not only "the few pints and a plate of chips" but the whole £352 and indeed all the Unicorn Food Tax to boot in response to a threat to involve a DCA which has no power whatsoever.

 

However, don't chuck in the towel just yet!  As you can imagine, Site Team members have their own fields and levels of experience, there are people on the site with decades of experience in litigation and there may still be a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thanks for your input folks,   Yes, my SIL isn't blameless and to be fair he's always said this. However he swears he hasn't gotten no where near what they are demanding and although it's ir

i'm not sure how to go about it TBH let andy advise..

What's done is done, and he did get a partial reduction. However, to me there were two main errors.    Firstly, he wouldn't deal with his own case. The work you put in was phonomenal, you'll

 1 & 3 need to go IMHO as it's admitting he knows what the claim is about.

nothing in the poc states its toward it being a reward card misuse, 

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

please hold on the CPR it might not even be needed..

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

Acknowledge service of the claim and state your intention to defend all of the claim ...that's all you need to do for now.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.morereward.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/

 

2.6         Which laws apply to the contract and where you may bring legal proceedings. These Terms are governed by English law and you can bring legal proceedings in respect of the products in the English courts, subject to our right to bring legal proceedings against you for breach of these Terms in your country of residence if any other country.

 

12.7         Alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution is a process where an independent body considers the facts of a dispute and seeks to resolve it, without you having to go to court. If you are not happy with how we have handled any complaint, you may want to contact an alternative dispute resolution provider we use. In addition, please note that disputes may be submitted for online resolution to the European Commission Online Dispute Resolution platform, see clause 8.2.

 

https://www.stonegatepubs.com/terms-conditions/

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to Employee loyalty card abuse

A bit of background information would be helpful....when you get chance.

 

DId the above involve your SIL employment being terminated ? Or did he leave of his own accord ?

 

What dates was he employed from and to ?

 

Was the company aware that he and I suppose others had a More Card ?

 

Was your SIL aware of other members of staff doing the same ? 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to my SIL a short while ago Andy and he had the following to say.....

 

5 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Did the above involve your SIL employment being terminated ? Or did he leave of his own accord ?

 

No, he had left their employment by this time, in fact he left January of this year.

 

4 hours ago, Andyorch said:

What dates was he employed from and to ?

 

August 2013 up until January 2020

 

4 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Was the company aware that he and I suppose others had a More Card ?

 

Yes, in fact he had a staff MORE card.

 

4 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Was your SIL aware of other members of staff doing the same ? 

 

He laughed and said "Hell Yes" This even extended to the pubs deputy manageress whom he described as the worst offender and knew that my SIL was doing it as well as other staff members.

 

There is a story here....

 

He told me that after he had left, the company fraud guys came in to do an audit with her unofficially being the main target. He has an idea that she may well have been caught with her hand in the till and so she sang like a canary to save her own arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as i said quite a std practice across the pub franchise industry that has been going on for decades.

i cant say why but i know this was a very good money earner for managers from the mid 1980's onwards which is why they all went over to serving food in that decade all of a sudden!

 

the only poss issue i can see here is once it's on the table what it's all about, as suspected it was a staff issued card by them, their T&C might specifically state this is against your use of it. 

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

Thanks...

 

Quote

He told me that after he had left, (Jan 2020)the company fraud guys came in to do an audit with her unofficially being the main target.

 

In their letter of 16th March..they refer to incidents that were identified on 22nd  Dec 2019....can you confirm the start date that this practice of swiping cards by your SIL started.?

 

Also the staff More Card...does your son have access to the T&Cs if it varies from the normal consumer version and did he ever get any form of statement from them?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all, sorry for the delayed response but my SIL works odd shift patterns so didn't manage to speak to him till last night.

 

In response to Andy's questions.................

 

He cant remember when this all began.

 

The T's & C's for Staff cards are apparently the same as for the public cards, and no, he never received statements for the card. He did mention though that along side the illicit swipes he used his card a lot for personal purchases on nights out so a lot of the amount they are trying to reclaim could well be legitimately earned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really ......why .?  But if he can't even remember a small detail such as I've asked like when did he / others start this practice of swiping their own cards then it does not really give me much to work with in any proposed mitigation defence.

 

Its simple to draft a defence which puts them to strict proof to quantify their losses and prove the amount claimed.

 

At worse he loses with a much reduced figure...at best he wins because they are unable to prove......but the small details are important and most of all his honesty demonstrated if a mitigated defence is used.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was paying a Solictor by the hour I'm sure he would be more engaging....we offer this service free of charge in our own free time.

 

He needs to engage and fast.

 

Defence due Monday 21st Dec by 4.00pm

 

.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

 

Right, just spoke to my SIL at length.....................

 

In response to Andy's question regarding T's & C's, that answer remains the same. The staff MORE cards and general public's cards both had the same T's & C's.

 

As for when he started the unofficial swiping practice, his best guesstimate is around September 2015.

 

Another development during our conversation, I asked him if he ever asked customers for their permission to swipe his card to claim their unclaimed points. He said he never actually asked but some regulars would forget their cards sometimes and tell him to take the points.

 

Also, Stonegate would sometimes have promotions like half price food and drinks etc.

However to claim the offer you had to have a MORE card.

 

Again, if regulars had forgotten their MORE card he would use his for them to get the offers.

I know this doesn't help his cause but in case its relevant I thought I'd offer it up.

 

I have impressed upon him the urgency of this now so if any more info is required just ask and I will get it.

 

Cheers :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon all,

 

Ive had a stab at a defense for my SIL. Its made up of sections from other threads but not being able to find any similar cases of CAG ive had to kind of wing it. Please have a look and let me have your thoughts if you can. Tell me whats wrong or needs leaving out or editing.

 

1.      The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.

 

2.      Paragraph 1 is noted. Whilst employed by the claimant I have held a MORE card to which the claimant refers. |The defendant is however unaware of any of the alleged incidents to which the claimant refers nor has the defendant been given access to any evidence to support the particulars of its claim.

 

3.      Paragraph 1 also claims that payment was taken and withheld for personal gain. This is denied and the defendant is unaware of any incidents to which the claimant refers to.

 

4.      Paragraph 2 is noted. The defendant denies ever engaging in the practice of selling goods on behalf of the claimant and retaining monies for personal gain. Should the claimant believe this to be the case and the claimant has evidence to support their claim then this would surely be a criminal matter and not a civil matter. For this reason the defendant contests all of the particulars of this claim on the grounds of it being vague and speculative.

 

            5. Paragraph claims that the claimant suffered a loss from the defendants actions of £526.95 including the costs of investigating the defendant. As the claimant has only made an accusation                   without providing proof or evidence to the defendant, the defendant therefore denies owing any monies to the Claimant. As the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of  wrongdoing by the defendant. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

             (a) show how and when the Defendant has taken payment for goods on their behalf whilst retaining monies for personal gain by way of proof.

             (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

 

5.      As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

6.      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.

Many thanks, Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 13:07, ChrisS1968 said:

Particulars of Claim

 

1.      Whilst the defendant was employed by the claimant the defendant sold goods belonging to the claimant receiving full price and purporting to account therefor but only accounting for part thereof and retaining the balance for his own benefit.

 

2.      The defendant has thereby (1) stolen, and/or (b) failed to account and/or (c) committed a deceit and/or (d) been unjustly enriched by the amount retained.

 

3.      The claimant suffered a loss from the defendants actions of £526.95 including the cost of investigation.

 

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 22/12/2019 to 18/11/2020 on £526.95 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.23.

 

On 25/11/2020 at 01:41, dx100uk said:

ok lets try and focus things here

 

forget their previous letters - they mean nothing.

 

the CPR request can only refer to documents or implied documents mentioned in their POC.

so word the CPR Intelligently!

 

first you've also got to understand this is a very very speculative claim....

they are flying a very heavy kite here in extremely light winds and hanging a very big weight on it - (it is worthy to return to posts 7&8 above)

 

IF they did have any case they would goto a magistrates court as it would be a theft charge. not a county court for a sum of money

 

they haven't and the POC is absolutely laughable...

 

 

carefully note they don't know WHAT they are going to court for else they wouldn't be putting and/or between the various allegations.

 

they are expecting the defendant to wet themselves and cough up or go crying on the phone to them and it never gets to court, or mummy and daddy bailing the family name out and coughing up ...oh the shame oh the local papers...you've destroyed us...BS!!

 

first 1 stolen...no it's not theft else you'd be facing a charge of theft in a magistrates court and the potential/resultant imprisonment or fined.  they should not even be including that word and i'm sure it will be dealt with in your WS by the experts when the time comes..

 

b) no he didn't fail to account as if he did they would not know about it!!

 

c) committed deceit - what deceit??  about what ...they don't specify... but what that is in moneywise (all they can claim in a county court) actually IS in value and how it contributes to the claimed figure is very debatable without PROOF of every penny it adds.

 

d) unjust enrichment - again this is another word for theft..if he stole something then it would be a criminal magistrates charge of employee theft and he would have been arrested by the police and duly charged with such.   its NOT.

 

so, what does one ask for in a CPR..again as i say, taking the words in the POC exactly and ignoring everything previous...

 

i'm at a loss, because asking for CCTV, till transaction data, More Card statements etc etc etc admits he know what they are going on about...and the poc does not say bar...

 

 

what goods did the defendant sell belonging to the claimant that they only partially paid for ???

it was a rewards scheme, they got the full price of the transaction everytime just the defendant claimed points against them

he did not retain any balance for his own benefit ....see it doesn't even HINT it was a reward scheme.

 

be very very careful what you ask for as it can result in  admittance you know what hey hell they are going on about to a judge later in the case saying..well you asked for xyz so must know what you did wrong.

 

needs very careful thought..

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

2.      Paragraph 1 is noted. Whilst employed by the claimant I have held a MORE card to which the claimant refers. |The defendant is however unaware of any of the alleged incidents to which the claimant refers nor has the defendant been given access to any evidence to support the particulars of its claim.

 

please do not file at least your point 2!!

 

read the above very carefully!!

 

dx

 

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

A case this complex is out of my comfort zone, though I can well understand dx's points about only countering what is mentioned in their Particulars of Claim.

 

How about also being more emphatic about them not explaining how much of their claim is for "the cost of investigation" and how they calculated this sum?  After all we know that they are expecting your SIL to pay the Fraud Manager's salary!

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all,

 

Can we cast an eye over this re-hashed defense please?

 

 

 

1.      The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.

 

2.      Paragraph 2 is noted. The claimant has made a broad accusation towards the defendant and cannot seem to decide what exactly they claim the defendant has done. The claimant should be expected to clarify the following.

 

(A) The use of the word stolen would infer that this is a criminal matter and not that of a civil matter. Also, the term unjustly enriched. Again, another term to imply an act of theft has taken place. Should the claimant have evidence to support such a claim then why was it never reported?

 

(B)  The claimant claims that the defendant failed to account. Had this been the case then the claimant needs to clarify how this came even to light?

 

 

(C)  The claimant claims that the defendant committed an act of deceit. The claimant would need to provide specifics to support such an allegation as without them it is again vague and speculative.

 

 

3.      Paragraph 2 is noted. The defendant denies ever engaging in the practice of selling goods on behalf of the claimant and retaining monies for personal gain. Should the claimant believe this to be the case and the claimant has evidence to support their claim then this would surely be a criminal matter and not a civil matter. For this reason, the defendant contests all of the particulars of this claim on the grounds of it being vague and speculative.

 

4.   Paragraph 3 claims that the claimant suffered a loss due to the defendant’s actions of £526.95 including the cost of investigation. As the claimant has only made an accusation without providing proof or evidence to the defendant, the defendant therefore denies owing any monies to the Claimant. As the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant, the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) show how and when the Defendant has taken payment for goods on their behalf whilst retaining monies for personal gain by way of proof.

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for by means of a breakdown of losses and costs.

 

 

 

4.      As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

6.      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.

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Edited by ChrisS1968
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course......not ignoring you just got a lot at the moment dealing with other users .....I should be able to finalise your defence by Thurs at the latest. Please do not submit the above proposed defence.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to Employee loyalty card abuse ***Settled at Mediation***

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...