Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In short you never communicate with a Debt Collector, they have no power here at all. The snotty letter is only used to respond to a properly worded Letter Before Claim. The only time you would be recommended to contact the PPC is to send the snotty letter. You do nothing but keep the tripe they send you unless you receive a letter before claim.
    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

DWF/Sainsbury's redress letter to minor for shoplifting without parent knowledge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1016 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

My 14 year old son shoplifted sweets from Sainsbury's to the value of £8.25 and was caught, questioned in a back room, banned and then sent on his way.

All without any parent contact or an independent adult there when he was questioned.

Never been in trouble before.

Police not contacted.

 

A week later, a letter was sent addressed to my 14-year old son from DWF Law LLP (see attachment - names deleted), acting on behalf of Sainsbury's, demanding £158.25 - £150 for security costs and £8.25 for value of goods stolen (which were returned undamaged at the time of being caught). Still we were not informed - no communication at all with us, the parents.

 

Suffice to say we will not be paying this as I believe DWF Law LLP have made unlawful threats to a minor and acted with complete disregard to the welfare of a minor.

 

From my understanding of threads here, they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

I have contacted the Legal Ombudsman to raise my deep concern at this cynical and unlawful behaviour, which seems to be quite widespread (Citizen's Advice Bureau raised Boots doing the same thing).

 

I wonder what my son may have done if he had opened that letter alone and we remained none the wiser? Another real concern is that this practice is very likely being dealt out to vulnerable children. It's truly shocking.

 

The threads say to ignore any letters/communication from DWF, which I am happy to do.

However, while acknowledging my son's behaviour was completely unacceptable, I want to challenge Sainsbury's as I am horrified that all this can happen without the knowledge or communication with parents.

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Aren't they legally obliged to contact parents?

 

DWF letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

A crime in my eyes, but even if my son is classed as criminally responsible, he is still legally a minor and so surely shouldn't be sent a demand for money or questioned in a back room of Sainsbury's without parents being informed?

I'm stumped.

How can we respond/react/try to put things right as parents if we aren't informed? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to DWF/Sainsbury's redress letter to minor for shoplifting without parent knowledge

Thank you so much to all the responses.

We, as parents, are deeply concerned that Sainsbury's and DWF have acted in such a shocking manner.

I keep going back to the thought of what more vulnerable adults and children might do faced with such circumstances.

Anyone who is a parent will know that they would want to be informed.

The experience of being caught and banned has had a terrifying effect on my son, so we are reassured this behaviour won't be repeated.

But to send him such an unlawful letter demanding money they have no legal basis to demand - that is really, really wrong.

I am going to shout this from the roof tops as much as I can to call out Sainsbury's and DWF.

Parents should know about this and not be scared into paying money to these sharks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Homer67, yes - believe me I am doing what I can to raise this issue and get answers. 

 

What I find quite depressing is that the CAB 'Uncivil Recovery' investigation/evidence briefing did not seem to make a difference when it comes to law making as, 11 years on, this practice is still widespread - targeting low value shoplifters to scare them into paying large amounts in civil recovery when it's not right or legally binding. Fattening the pockets of cowboy law firms and major retailers through fear and ignorance.

 

I guess politicians don't want to spend time on what the general public may view as protecting rights of shoplifters - not vote-worthy material. I'm sure my story would provoke a lot of scornful, ignorant comments focusing on how awful my son is to shoplift and how we must be terrible parents, while completely overlooking the outrageous, illegal, immoral and dangerous behaviours of these major retailers and their side kick law firms. 

 

I am doing what I can to raise this issue and get answers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, unclebulgaria67. That does make sense and I totally get the points you've made and why this has support - clearly police haven't the resources and shouldn't have to be involved in low value shoplifting and yet it must be very frustrating for retailers.

 

My focus is obviously on the situation in which my son found himself in, how he was dealt with and the total lack of appreciation for safeguarding/welfare rights. I find extremely worrying (also on behalf of vulnerable children and adults) that they feel it was ok to treat a vulnerable child like this with no parental contact or appropriate adult there protecting him.

 

And then the letter sent to my child by DWF was outrageous in every respect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dx100uk, I didn't realise it was legal to send a 14 year old, without parent knowledge, a demand for arbitrary amounts of money for no costs incurred, or for Sainsbury's to take a vulnerable child who doesn't know his legal rights, into an isolated room away from the public to question him without an appropriate adult or informing anyone else (tantamount to kidnap in my opinion).

 

I really appreciate all the helpful comments given by members of the site team, but don't quite get some of the points you have made or why you are making them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sainsbury's have responded saying that DWP shouldn't have written to our son and they apologised, but gave the excuse that our son's date of birth wasn't put on the incident form by the store security.

They said DWP will not pursue the matter further and that the person dealing with my complaint will take up my concerns with the store security internally.

They said that they don't have to follow same rules as police (by having an appropriate adult there) but that if I would like them to report this to the police then to let them know (which I read as a rather unpleasant threat).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...