N Ireland Judge Rules Asylum Seekers...
News1 min ago
Dwf - Civil Recovery
Hi - as I left Tesco last week I was approached by a security guard. I had put a bottle of tonic in my shopping without scanning it. I was shocked and embarrassed and taken to managers office. They advised me that I hadn't made and attempt to scan it and went on to advise that there would be a ban and also that they are part of a Civil Recovery Scheme. It's all quite a blur but I genuinely didn't mean to take the tonic and only picked up 2 bottles as it was on a '2 for .......' offer. I had about £20 worth of shopping. They mentioned that to be allowed back to store I could write to the actual manager. The next day I wrote off my letter to the manager ( I know Tesco can live without me but they are very handy for me) saying I wasn't making excuses and can't deny I was leaving with an unpaid item but gave some reasons for my absent mindedness. I haven't had a response yet but I have now had a letter from DWF Solicitors acting on their behalf and looking for £125. I am seeing lots of things telling people not to pay these costs - I really can't afford that but I'm not a dishonest person and just unsure what to do. Can anyone please advise?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jj20. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am very pleased they have latterly seen sense
or perhaps read A retailer v mrs B
I would - but you are not mouthy like me . point out along with the DWF letter and perhaps a little print out of Mrs B
that they say you owe money when a case in court shows you dont. And as a legal company, they are not allowed to say (as lawyers) someone owes money when they (know they) don't , with a view to securing payment of money. It is against the law.
yes I have tried this in court ( small claim ct) Smith and Lyall ( now not practising - I wonder why (*)) claimed a right to enter my property with a view to securing a contract to allow them to enter my property. Both the judge and M+L had lools of panic when I said that was not allowed - M+L were claiming a right they knew they didnt have
(*)
https:/
explains why Milne and Lyall were dissolved in 2001
or perhaps read A retailer v mrs B
I would - but you are not mouthy like me . point out along with the DWF letter and perhaps a little print out of Mrs B
that they say you owe money when a case in court shows you dont. And as a legal company, they are not allowed to say (as lawyers) someone owes money when they (know they) don't , with a view to securing payment of money. It is against the law.
yes I have tried this in court ( small claim ct) Smith and Lyall ( now not practising - I wonder why (*)) claimed a right to enter my property with a view to securing a contract to allow them to enter my property. Both the judge and M+L had lools of panic when I said that was not allowed - M+L were claiming a right they knew they didnt have
(*)
https:/
explains why Milne and Lyall were dissolved in 2001
Thankfully it seems your matter is being resolved in a sensible fashion. However:
//Just to confirm the letter that DWF was broken down as :
Value of goods stolen 0.00
Value of goods damages 0.00
Less value of goods recovered £
Value of cash stolen 0.00
Security Costs £125.00 //
Which is exactly as I suspected. I imagine that every DWF letter contains that same £125 for "Security Costs". Of that, I imagine DWF get almost all of it. Their (and Tesco's) approach needs to be challenged, especially in a case like yours where you have approached the store directly and promptly in an effort to settle the matter. There was no need for DWF to be involved at all. £125 represents about ten hours work (at least) with a bit left over for administrative costs. There is no way either the store or DWF spent that amount of time on this matter and I believe a court would certainly reduce and possibly strike out entirely their claim because of their "blanket" approach, which they are not entitled to adopt.
//Just to confirm the letter that DWF was broken down as :
Value of goods stolen 0.00
Value of goods damages 0.00
Less value of goods recovered £
Value of cash stolen 0.00
Security Costs £125.00 //
Which is exactly as I suspected. I imagine that every DWF letter contains that same £125 for "Security Costs". Of that, I imagine DWF get almost all of it. Their (and Tesco's) approach needs to be challenged, especially in a case like yours where you have approached the store directly and promptly in an effort to settle the matter. There was no need for DWF to be involved at all. £125 represents about ten hours work (at least) with a bit left over for administrative costs. There is no way either the store or DWF spent that amount of time on this matter and I believe a court would certainly reduce and possibly strike out entirely their claim because of their "blanket" approach, which they are not entitled to adopt.
Yes Judge that’s exactly the breakdown. Your responses have been so informative. I have just sent off a letter to the Tesco manager saying that while I felt a sense of relief after receiving his letter I’m still concerned with regards to the enclosed DWF letter. I will pop on here with any response to keep you all informed
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.