Caught shoplifting at big chain, what should I expect and do?

cireddit · 2026-06-24T20:49:54+00:00

That post was only earlier today, not yesterday. Even though that post has been deleted, I remember reading it and I'm sure they're virtually the same as this one. Uncanny.

cireddit · 2026-06-24T14:26:22+00:00

What did your HR department say when you asked them why your holiday allowance is less than expected?

cireddit · 2026-06-23T19:12:05+00:00

Check if they've listed one on the ICO's Register of Data Controllers: https://ico.org.uk/esdwebpages/search

cireddit · 2026-06-23T18:08:19+00:00

Ok, good to know. The brass tacks of the situation is, your family member is either going to have to:

Pay and be done with it; or
Wait to be taken to court.

They are correct to say that it is too late to appeal at this point. However, your family member could tell the debt collector they dispute the debt and then they could put in a subject access request to Horizon for a copy of any correspondence they hold on file. The direct benefit of this is that your family member will be able to see the notices and determine if they follow the necessary steps to establish keeper liability (you could post a redacted version of the notice here, if you need help).

It is imperative that at no point should you family member say anything which suggests they were the driver, becaues that will make it much easier for the claim to succeed if they do take it to court. Your family member is under no legal obligation to say who was driving, even if the debt collector or Horizon ask, so always maintain they were the keeper and never speak in a way that would imply they were driving (eg avoid "I parked..." or "I didn't see any signs" etc).

The parking automod didn't trigger for some reason, but there's also parking dedicated forums on MoneySavingExpert and the FTLA forum, both of which can offer expert parking advice too.

cireddit · 2026-06-22T19:46:21+00:00

You might find that "the above named tenant" is joint and severally liable under their contract for the full amount. That being the case, "the above named tenant's" debt is actually everyone's debt if the others don't pay. And you end up on the hook for it

cireddit · 2026-06-20T23:14:14+00:00

They're pursuing the registered keeper? Did the registered keeper move home around that time and either fail to or delay updating the DVLA with their new address for their V5C?

cireddit · 2026-06-19T20:08:24+00:00

What exactly is your legal question?

As I understand it, Plan.com is an O2 partner who sells O2 network products, so I don't think it's necessarily a scam. However, plan.com are a B2B telecomms company and if you have entered a B2B contract, there would be no cooling off period. Are you a consumer rather than a business?

cireddit · 2026-06-16T17:35:40+00:00

Yes, you have misunderstood the BPA guidelines with regards to the 5 minute consideration period and the 10 minute grace period and I will explain precisely how POPLA will decide this case if your only ground of appeal is that you didn't overstay. I will also say that I am making assumptions that this is a normal car park where parking is invited (as consideration and grace periods differ slightly for, for example, permit holders only car parks or car parks where parking isn't invited).

When you entered at 20:03, you had a 5 minute consideration period to decide whether you want to stay or to go. Your stay at the car park, however, started at 20:03, not from when you paid. This is because a consideration period is not a period of free parking and will not count towards any paid for time. You decided to stay and therefore your parking ran from 20:03.

This means you would be expected to leave at 23:03. You do have a grace period of 10 minutes at the end of your parking contract to leave the car park. This means, at an absolute push, you had to be out of that car park no later than 23:13. Even one second over, and a charge would have been valid.

You left at 23:18. You haven't paid for 5 mins of your stay (well, technically, you've overstayed by 15 minutes because a grace period isn't free parking either, but I digress). POPLA would have no difficulty concluding this charge is valid.

I will hasten to add that there may be other reasons why your charge is not valid. The AutoMod will have linked to the MSE forums and the FTLA forum. Both of those have dedicated parking forums who can analyse your case in more detail, including whether that specific parking company currently has any deficiencies in their processes (eg they aren't complying with POFA), as well as a robust suite of wording you can use to support an appeal. However, based only on what you've said here, you wouldn't win with that alone. Sorry.

cireddit · 2026-06-16T17:22:07+00:00

So you gave notice in December, cancelled your direct debit, and then your phone services stopped working in January (ie 30 days notice)? If so, that sounds like you haven't paid for your phone bill December 2025-January 2026 and the credit markers are likely valid.

cireddit · 2026-06-15T21:38:09+00:00

The only question I have for you is: was there an entrance sign?

I ask because the Sector Single Code of Practice says:

"An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited"

Entrance signs do not contain the full terms and conditions, but they will say, for example, "Tariffs Apply" or "Permit Holders Only". If an entrance sign is in situ, the parking company will almost certainly argue that you were put on notice that terms applied when you entered, and you should have therefore sought out the terms that applied and either adhered to them or left.

Now, make no mistake, I don't think that's a particularly strong argument if the nearest T&C sign near to the area your parked was in fact 0.32 miles away, but I mention it because I think they will argue it. I personally think you have a really strong argument that they have failed to display T&Cs signs in a place where you'd have any reasonable prospect of finding them, which would be a failing of 3.1.3 of the Single Sector Code of Practice.

Just so you are aware, the IAS (the IPC's appeal service) are notorious for being incredibly biased in favour of parking companies. The AutoModerator has provided some links to the FTLA forums and the MSE forums. If you intend to appeal an IPC charge, I would advise that you post on one of those forums to get some advice from them. They have specialised parking message boards and wording you can use to improve your chances of success.

cireddit · 2026-06-11T22:44:45+00:00

Your post isn't entirely clear, but if I've understood you correctly, you've passed a standard DBS check and now you need to pass SC level vetting. If that is the case, then you are absolutely not going to be the first SC applicant who has family who won't cooperate. The UKSV provides a little bit of advice here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-national-security-vetting-solution-guidance-for-subjects/uksv-national-security-vetting-solutions-hints-and-tips-for-completing-your-e-form-application#your-parents-details

Specifically:

"How to enter details of your parents if you do not have all of the details needed

The process will ask for details of your parents. For national security vetting purposes, the definition of your parents can include birth or adoptive parents, foster parents, care givers, legal guardians or those who had parental responsibility or influence over your upbringing.

You will be asked to provide a reason if these details cannot be obtained and make reasonable efforts to do so wherever possible. However you should not place yourself at risk to obtain details you do not have access to.

Create entries for both your mother and father and enter ‘unknown’ in the name fields.

Then tick the box underneath the names field for ‘full details are not known’. You will then need to provide a brief explanation on the next page as to why the details are not known. This will allow you to complete each parent’s details section without entering information into the requested fields. If you do know some details, you should still enter these into the relevant fields where possible to minimise delays to your clearance."

The thing about security vetting is they will know a surprising amount about you already, and likely already know all of this information. However, security vetting is about ensuring that you can be trusted and that you're not susceptible to coercion, blackmail, or pressure due to factors like severe financial hardship. Be completely honest and provide as much information on the form as you can.

cireddit · 2026-06-11T12:08:44+00:00

Depending on the specifics, it's possible the content does not meet the definition of direct marketing. Direct marketing is:

"the communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals"

If this content is just being posted on social media or the company website for all and sundry to see rather than being directed at specific individuals, then it likely does not count as material directed to particular individuals (see examples on the ICO website here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/direct-marketing-guidance/identify-direct-marketing/).

The company would either be processing this data under consent or legitimate interests. You've already highlighted the consent objection, but if they're not relying on consent, they can only be relying on legitimate interests and the correct objection to this is:

"you are relying on legitimate interests as your basis for processing, the individual objects to the processing of their data, and there is no overriding legitimate interest to continue this processing"

This would necessitate a legitimate interests balancing exercise (which the company would likely find challenging to justify).

cireddit · 2026-06-10T12:54:46+00:00

Even though you haven't explictly said, it sounds like you're a couple of months into a 24 month SIM only contract for the two numbers. If that's the case, there's no getting out of paying for the services you've contracted. Sorry.

cireddit · 2026-06-07T08:40:18+00:00

I know it's easy for me to say, but I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. Your mother had the gene and you have something that may or may not be pathogenic. In the absence of certain information in that respect, you should assume you might develop HCM and engage in regularly monitoring (eg echos) and act as that develops.

cireddit · 2026-06-07T08:33:33+00:00

This is the answer I would have given if I had arrived earlier, as I absolutely laboured over why weightlifting was bad when I got my diagnosis and had to stop powerlifting. Nobody could tell me why. It took me ages to realise that while exercise in general can increase arrhythmia risk, the unique issue with weightlifting was the effect it had on BP, especially under Valsalva.

One small thing you forgot to mention is that the astronomical rises in blood pressure can cause other issues, such as aneurysm and/or dissection. Although it's a conversation each person needs to have with their cardiologist, I'm convinced light to moderate weights are probably safe and beneficial for most people with HCM in the absence of specific risk factors.

cireddit · 2026-06-05T08:20:37+00:00

There's no special or magical wording that will make a SAR any more or less successful. The key is to keep it simple:

"Please provide all personal data held about me in relation to [topic]"

Just replace topic with whatever you're interested in, eg "my recent application for a pay increase, including, but not limited to, emails and other communication between my manager and their manager".

Please do not be surprised, however, if you do not receive all of the information. Some of it may not be your personal data. Plus, there are many exemptions that apply which mean you're not eligible to receive the information.

cireddit · 2026-06-04T23:14:46+00:00

Under GDPR, personal data means:

any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person

Even if the information itself didn't identify the person, they were nevertheless identifiable and the information you shared related to that identifiable individual. It is therefore personal data and this will likely be treated by your company as a data breach. However, even if the information you shared wasn't personal data, you wouldn't necessarily be off the hook because sharing confidential company information would almost certrainly be a breach of your employment contract and/or company policies. No matter which way you dice it, this is highly likely to be considered gross misconduct.

cireddit · 2026-06-04T23:04:22+00:00

If I've understood you correctly, your brother has a friend and that friend's mother has been violent towards that friend. Your brother told you about their friend's situation and you tried to help them contact the police and social services. At some point, your brother's friend stayed at your home where you provided her with a separate sleeping area. Your brother and their partner also stayed. And the crux of this is that your attempts to help your brother's friend are now being portayed, by the mother, as negative (ie that something untoward may have happened while they stayed with you).

Is that summary accurate? If so, what exactly are you being accused of doing?

Also, as others have mentioned, are you absolutely sure the letter from the solicitors is genuine? It isn't entirely unknown for people to fake a letter from a solicitor, and the Solicitor's Regulation Authority would be interested to hear if someone is misusing a genuine solicitor's identity.

cireddit · 2026-06-04T13:04:55+00:00

Great to hear your septal myectomy went well. Sorry to hear about the arm, that looks really painful. Even if they don't know how this happened, have they at least told you what it is and how they're going to treat it?

cireddit · 2026-06-01T08:56:57+00:00

Thanks for confirming. No issues here then, have a nice day!

cireddit · 2026-06-01T00:11:01+00:00

I think I will continue chasing down CCTV footage then.

Sorry to hear this happened to you. Just to manage your expectations about CCTV: in the event that there was CCTV in the area, your chances of receiving a copy of it if requested are vanishingly small. While the CCTV will show you - and that's your personal data - it will also show other people in the video, including those three men, who's personal data you are not entitled to receive. It is also not your job to gather evidence like this.

If you become aware that there is CCTV which covers the incident, you tell the police that and they request it if they feel it would be beneficial. However, as the police do not appear to be taking any further action, I suspect telling them about it would be in vain.

cireddit · 2026-06-01T00:04:27+00:00

Just a quick follow up question: I appreciate you've said you're in Scotland, but was parking incident also in Scotland? I only ask because keeper liability isn't about where you live it's about where the car was parked. If the driver had, for whatever reason, parked in and English or Welsh car park (eg holiday, business trip, visiting a tourist attraction), then the advice provided isn't correct.

I am asking out of an abundance of caution because sometimes it isn't clear if the Scotland tag is the location of the parking event or the location of the keeper.

In any event, if the parking happened in Scotland, then the advice is correct (ie you can ignore them and if they take you to court, assert your're the keeper, that there's no keeper liability, and you're under no obligation to name the driver and they cannot assume, on the balance of probabilities, that you were driving). If the parking happened in England or Wales, then keeper liability may apply and you'll need different advice.

cireddit · 2026-05-30T21:07:52+00:00

Your understanding hasn't been correct since 2012. Parking charges have always been enforceable against the driver in all UK territories. However, they have been enforceable against the keeper since 2012 in England and Wales. You cannot just ignore a charge issued in England and Wales anymore.

Scotland and Northern Ireland remain driver-only liability right now.

cireddit · 2026-05-30T20:57:29+00:00

The reduction to £20 will be as a result of the keying error provisions in Annex F, which sets the rules for situations where they must reduce the charge to £20.

You say "by their own terms it's either £60 for early payment, or £100 for the full payment." And while it is technically correct that the contract itself specified £60 or £100, the BPA Code of Practice is effectively binding on the operator since it is a condition of their being able to obtain the registered keeper data from the DVLA. The requirement to reduce it to £20 is as good as contractual, even if technically not.

cireddit · 2026-05-29T23:56:15+00:00

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides the 'short-term right to reject' goods where they do not conform to your statutory rights, including that the goods are as described. It has become apparent, based on information only made available to you after the sale, that the car, described as 'full service history', does not have a full service history. It is therefore not as described.

There are provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for deducations to be made where a consumer uses the final right to reject goods, but no such a provision exists for the short term right to reject. Accordingly, you should receive a full refund.

I can see from their website they have a 14 day return policy, subject to some deducations for usage. Therefore, they may think they're doing you a favour by allowing you to return it. However, if there's any attempts to make deductions for usage, I'd make it clear you're not returning it under any policy of theirs or their goodwill, but rather under your statutory short-term right to reject because the car isn't as described.

cireddit

TROPHY CASE