Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the pix on the NTK that show his car going in/out look at the drain covers .   now look at the picture in the PDF. same car park.     purley way carpark.pdf
    • https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I do think he is right about the car park.   This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.                           
    • That WS is appalling.   I got lost with all the "I", "he", there is only one person being sued.   You, personally, have been great at supporting your dad's mate, but as the mate is presumably retired I don't understand why he/she hasn't used the time to look up WSs that were successful on the forum.    
    • worthy to note on google earth that is the purley way carpark in their NTK pictures and if thats his car , the defence and that WS is not going to work.   he is looking at the WRONG carpark, in his statement, the caravan one with the bailff notice is not purley way !!
    • Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was.   He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores.  Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park.   I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following.    "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans"     Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant.   I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence.   Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them.   As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago.   I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply.   As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW.    On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park.   He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down.   Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park.   I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • 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
      • 33 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Forgot to scan 2 (non-food) items during self checkout at Tesco


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 192 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

One of the items had a tag on it and it beeped on the way out

they checked back and realised I’d forgotten to scan it in self checkout.

they checked everything.

 

In summary, I scanned about 30 food items but forgot about 2 non-food items which I’d kept in the other side of trolley in case any of the food items spill on it and had my large grocery back on top and totally forgot about it and was in a rush to finish due to how busy the store was and covid concerns.

 

I have had chronic dizziness, low blood pressure and weight loss in the last year (and two fainting episodes), which are on my medical records which affects my concentration too. 
 

Now they’re saying they're gonna look back on everything I’ve ever purchased to see if this has ever happened before and they took my details. 
 

I’d never do it intentionally and why would I ever try and take something with a security tag on it as

1) it would beep

2) how would I wear something with that type of tag on it that is probably impossible to remove without the machine. 
 

I immediately paid for the two items I forgot and said I was more than happy to pay a fine as it was just a mistake from lack of focus, dizziness and a rush to finish but definitely not intentional. 
 

What can happen?  

I’m really worried as I’ve never done anything even remotely criminal before.

They mentioned a possible ban or further action etc 
 

The doors have never beeped before so I’d think it hasn’t happened before but who knows.

Most times I’ve been in there I’ve spent £50 to £60 each time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who are 'they'

you mean the security staff? said these things?

it is NOT a FINE

'they' can't FINE you anything.

nor can anyone!

 

and i suspect, as it was said to frighten you, they WON'T look back at anything.

 

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

Yes I mean the security staff. He told the manager as well and the store manager didn’t have a strong opinion and seemed fairly on the fence and said to him ‘up to you’ and it was the security guy who wanted to push it further to a full investigation at HQ 

 

What you say is reassuring. Do you know this for sure regarding Tesco in particular? 
 

I immediately paid for the 2 items and was even willing to accept paying a fine as despite it being totally unintentional, it was still a potential loss to them. But they mention possibility of police, permanent ban on entering the ship etc 

Link to post
Share on other sites

rubbish.. ignore w hat the silly security guard said

it's hot air to frighten you

and has NO standing in law

 

forget about it

get on with getting your health sorted.

 

if you do ever get silly letters from a scam company called RLP.

put them in the bin

 

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

Thank you for the help.

 

Is your logic based on real experiences?

I’m just worried about the possibility of criminal record etc.

They were saying because the value of the two items I forgot to scan was around £35 (but the rest of the shopping also came to around that much).

 

I will definitely be more mindful in future when using self checkout (I’m always scrabbling through my grocery back for my wallet etc which completely covers anything that might have been underneath the large ‘keep’ shopping bag 

 

Also if they ban me from all Tesco forever, does it mean I really cannot ever go to a Tesco?

I’ve seen so many articles online of people forgetting to scan even chewing gum and getting banned and one article where a man took a pic of the empty toilet roll shelves in a Tesco and was seen and banned just for that 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is zero chance of a criminal record

i've moved your thread to the retail loss forum.

 

there are 100's of like threads here to read 

 

if you were not given a banning letter 

then they are not after banning you.

 

just to however, correct something you mention above.

 

a store needs no reason to ban anyone, it's their store same as it's your home and you can choose.

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 a lot.

 

Security guy said he cannot do anything in store but is referring my case to Tesco HQ office and I will hear from them soon so I’ve not yet gotten a letter but might do 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said..security guy is talking crap.

the banning letter is issued at the time of the incident.

 

there wasn't one.

end off

 

 

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 so much again for your advice.

 

I just wonder if maybe Tesco has changed their rules as he was adamant that a ban letter can only come from head office. & that previous footage can easily be traced back using my card details. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no way tesco would EVER waste staff time and wages looking through old CCTV footage.

 

sadly as with debt collectors (DCA's) chasing old debts...these people think they are magical and all powerful..

the truth is...

just like a DCA ...they have ZERO legal powers nor any legal authority to state anything 

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

Ah Ok thank u

14 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

there is no way tesco would EVER waste staff time and wages looking through old CCTV footage.

 

sadly as with debt collectors (DCA's) chasing old debts...these people think they are magical and all powerful..

the truth is...

just like a DCA ...they have ZERO legal powers nor any legal authority to state anything 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...