Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm afraid that this website is mainly bad news about companies so it's very refreshing and very decent for someone to come along and to give praise where praise is due. How about a link to their website?
    • Having a little additional think about this, I think that your interests are best protected in the following way: You inform the seller that you are obtaining the quotes which I have referred to above. Having received the quotes, you then inform them that you are proposing to have the work carried out at XXX garage and that you will expect that the seller will reimburse you for the costs and associated expenses. You can tell them though that you understand that they may want to control the work being done to the car and so you are willing to allow them to do it but as the fault has manifested itself at this point and that it is clear that the problem is their responsibility, if they wish to carry the work out themselves then they will have to organise the collection vehicle and the delivery of it to you once the work is completed. Of course this will be very expensive for them and they will either fail to respond or they will refuse. Whatever their reaction, you would then go on to say that as they have failed to respond/declined the invitation to carry out the repairs themselves, that you are now going to your preferred garage – one of the two quotations which you have supplied – and you will have the vehicle repaired there. You are giving them an opportunity to comment. I think that if you use this approach, then you will be able to demonstrate very clearly that they had a choice and therefore they will be unable to disassociate themselves from the repairs which are eventually carried out at your chosen repairer. Even though this exchange of correspondence may mean that it will take a week or so longer to have your repairs carried out, I think you should do this in order to protect yourself in the best way possible
    • Please name the dealer   I would start off by sending them a letter of rejection seeing as you are within the 30 days. This doesn't mean that you have to reject it but it reserves your position. Secondly, on the basis of what you say, I don't think that you need necessary to find the cheapest place. You should be looking at the best quality that you can find. I think the best thing to do would be to get to competing quotations for the work you propose to have carried out – and not necessarily at the cheapest place, but a couple of proper reputable garages – authorised for that kind of vehicle. Inform the dealer as to what you are doing and providing with copies of the estimates for the work before you put it in hand. Give them five days to object or to make other comments. Make it clear to them that once the work is carried out that you will be looking to them to reimburse you. Of course you are opening a can of worms here because if you get some further problems – more serious – you may find that the dealer is starting to say that because you have carried out your own work so your own repairer on the car, they cannot now say that any defects were inherent in the purchase – and that they may have been introduced by 1/3 party repairer. I'm afraid that you have certainly fallen into a trap of buying a car a long distance away from where you live. We find that people often tend to do that because they think the car they have found is the only one in the world for them. They forget to factor in the difficulties that they will be if there are defects – particularly if the car stopped altogether – the cost of transportation to the dealer, the cost of having to travel up and down the country to collect the car – and of course these difficulties could emerge several times through the initial years of your ownership of the vehicle if you are relying on your statutory rights and expect the dealer to meet those obligations. Furthermore, if you have to bring a court action against them you are now dealing with multijurisdictional claims – suing out of Scotland against the defendant in England and that adds to the complications. It's too late for you to do anything about this – unless you actually decide to reject the vehicle – but at the very least, other people who come across this thread may get some benefit from these comments. I think it's important for you to get the best quality repair you can and to make sure that the dealer is aware of what you are doing so that if later on they try to deny responsibility for further defects, that you will be able to show that they were fully appraised of what you are doing and they will have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of their statutory obligations. I'm afraid that purchasing a car from one dealer and then having it repaired by another service provider, brings into the same kinds of difficulties that somebody who purchases a central heating boiler from one supplier and then has it installed by a different supplier find themselves in. When things go wrong, the seller blames the installer. The installer blames the seller – and you, the customer, are piggy in the middle. Not a good place to be. I notice that you are doing things on the telephone. Big Fail! Read our customer services guide. In your situation you should be extremely careful to make sure that you have got a record of everything and a full paper trail
    • What information do DVLA need for a provisional licence ?   Think the ID issue needs to be looked at a bit more. Surely you have birth certificate, school information, Doctors records. School and Doctors should provide a letter to help with ID.                
    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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...