Thanks, but the extra 2 weeks' billing issue was eventually resolved, as they obviously realised the case was unarguable.

What I'm now wondering is whether I gave in too easily over being locked in for a year, as I now suspoect this might have been deliberate.

I moved into a new build flat in 2009. The supply defaulted to Eon on gas and electricity.

I checked the available deals and wanted to switch to another company as Eon were not the cheapest. However I could not do this directly as the other company could not switch me until Eon had arranged the account.

I tried to get in touch with Eon but they ignored all correspondence for almost exactly a year. I tried to telephone but they denied all knowledge of supplying me.

Then after about 54 weeks a bill turns up.

I complained that they could not bill me for over a year, and after calling me a liar and accusing me of not contacting them, they eventually agreed to knock off the extra two weeks.

I have been paying off the amount owed regularly at an agreed rate, but even so they are still sending heavy handed debt collection letters, which I am ignoring.

There is only now just over £50 owing and UDS (Eon) are threatening court action, even though I am still paying. They are complete muppets.

It has just occured to me that they might have deliberately locked me in for the year to keep the business by underhand means, and then got the account together and issued the bill after (very conveniently) a year as that is the most they could back-bill for.

I am now considering withholding the final £50 to cover the amount I could have saved (at least) by switching earlier. But I am worried whethe it is too late as I have been paying up until now, and whether that would stand up in court?

You're joking aren't you? Interfoto v Stilleto, J Spurling v Bradshaw: where is the red hand?

If Eon is happy to do business by tricking people like that, then surely anyone reading this would be absolutely mad to do business with you. And the OP isn't going to pay anyway (and probably canlt be obliged to) so it's a lose-lose.

Remember the bailiff is merely the agent of the council; there is no debt to the bailiffs. If the amount on the warrant has been paid, as I understand it they can only allocate payment towards the charges first for council tax (as there is a statutory exception allowing this). For PCNs this ability does not exist.

If you've paid and not cashed their cheque I can't see how they can lawfully enforce it. There is no statutory power to refund payment just to allow bailiff enforcement to proceed.

They have not assigned the debt to Martstons. If they had there would be no power of distress, and Marstons would have to sue in the county court. This is a case of Marstons acting as the court's agent, who do have the power of distress: but not if they've been paid, and they cannot levy for the fees alone.

A statutory declaration is a possibility, but I think there is a 21 day time limit from first becoming aware of the conviction.

CPUT regs regulation 2:

“consumer” means any individual who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes which are outside his business.

RLP is clearly a commercial practice.

In relation to the costs that can be claimed, that just seems to be inconsistent with the case law, especially as to causation.

The credit bit is more or less right, but that isn't what they're doing. They're telling people the debt is due as a debt, not negotiating, and even passing it off as a fine in some instances.

People running lawful businesses don't have popups on their websites insisting that the business is lawful!

I doubt he would be personally liable for any serious offence, as he would not have the relevant intent. But the store is likely to be guilty of an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, unless they could show that 'fine' was used in its very loose sense, as in a library fine. But my opinion in the context was that it was implied to be at least somewhat official.

Several people on the Radio 5 show made the same suggestion; Jackie utterly flummoxed.

there is an implied consent in most stores for the public to touch feel and remove goods from the shelves, a person placing goods in a trolley , basket or (as is now the case with recycling) their own bag- is not necessarily acting dishonestly

.

I believe this is pretty much what I said. Obviously someone who touches an item without any dishomesty, or intention to permenantly deprive is not guilty of anyting.

If someone does touch an item with those intentions, then they are guilty of theft immediately. The problem is purely a question of proof, as (unless theychoose to confess) they could claim they were intending to pay.

Do not chase up the refund, or cash any cheque if they get one to you.

There is no power to refund payments; once you have paid there is no right to levy distress.

Do not let the bailiff in under any circumstances. (The chances that they will force entry are miniscule, but if they did you would have legal remedies available.)

If you are summoned to court for non-payment you can show that the fine has been paid.

They would probably insist that RLP views and statements were not their own and so could not be presented.

Which would be very useful to have on record.

Idea:– Next time an RLP-associated store commits any 'wrongful act' against you, invoice them for £50-£80 fixed costs for your time in dealing with the matter.

Wrongful acts include:

• Wrong or misleading pricing
  
• Selling a faulty item (further costs per hour if it is not repaired or replaced within a reasonable time)
  
• Underchanging
  
• Misdescribing an item
  

Now, it could be protested that these are not intentional acts, but RLP claim on their own website that inadvertance is no defence, which to a tort or breach of contract, it indeed isn't!

So the question is could a retailer come up with any defence to such a claim, which hasn't already been denied by their own agent?

Incorrect.

Indeed, in principle a person commits theft the moment he touches an item, if at that moment he has a dishonest intention to permenantly deprive the owner of it.

But in practice, it's a question of proof, as anyone who was stopped inside the store would usually be able to claim they intended to pay.

Perhaps the OP could clarify whether a judgment has been obtained, or merely a claim issued?

Apologies as I may not have phrased it correctly. Initially there will be suspicions of fraud until they realise that you are not too blame however you will still be liable for 50% of the council tax whether or not the lease is in your name or not.

Only if the OP is a joint tenant. If she is a sub-tenant of the claimant then she won't be liable.

Jackie Lambert again stated that the amounts were set as a deterrent. She doesn't seem to understand you can't use a civil action to penalise someone.Surely this means it's over for them? They can never go to court after this.

Boots say that civil recovery is necessary to deter shoplifting.

 

...Retail Loss Prevention say their action provides an effective deterrent to shoplifting.

Bit of a telling admission, if they did say that. I thought the amount was to cover their 'reasonable staff costs'.

The lines are not compliant so you have grounds to appeal on that point, in addition to the poor visibility of the signs and text.

Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Reguations

Regulation 5

Misleading actions

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

The defence is "fair comment"

Indeed, but Parkign Eye have yet to identify words that are even defamatory.

There is nothing actionable in that post that I can see. You could ask them to clarify which words they believe are defamatory and bring the reponse (or lack of one) to the attention of your host.

Do you pay for the site? If so check your contract to see the exact wording of what power they have to remove posts and in what circumstances.

I agree with your wider point, but I don;t see how contracts come into it, nor am I familiar with the rule that minors are only liable in tort if their parents are present. What is the basis for this? Or the claim in post #2 that RLP cannot contact the minor directly?

Jon, where are these laws about different rules for minors coming from? You've made several claims I'm unfamiliar with. Minors are generally liable for damages in tort; it's a question of being worth suing.

That above quote from my earlier post was about a case where no debt actually existed. The reomval costs point is the same though; they can only charge reasonable expenses to cover the cost of actually removing goods.

In this case as rent was owed, if they actually levied distress (but did not remove the goods) they can make a charge of 12.5% on the first £100, 4% on the next £400, and 2.5% on the next £1500.

For rent, they cannot charge merely for attending to levy though.

Sue the company and whoever hired them. If you win and they don't pay, go back to the police as this then proves dishonesty — especially if they sell the car, as this is a fresh appropriation of it for the purposes of theft.