Credit Card Write Off

never-in-doubt

PROLIANT wrote: »

Look NID, you may have great knowledge in the field of security however the fact of the mater is I was there, I was involved I worked for the company as a manager and it really happened, the minimum legal requirement for CCTV to be used as admissible evidence in court is that you must have a sign within clear view of the entrance to the work place that CCTV is in use, you do not have to tell staff that covert CCTV is in use at all. A simple, clear indication in the right location covers the company legally - I have administered evidence in a court of law under these circumstances therefore it was legal and within the requirements of the law otherwise it would have been thrown out instead the little toe-rag was sentenced.

Youre right about cctv - thats the same as what I posted lol........ I agree 100%! I was just pointing out the law to those that may not have known..... i.e. it is legal to use covert cctv but for the public, signs must be displayed.

The stock deficit does not pass down to the stock, what industry were you in? I am speaking general retail such as clothing, stationary, newsagents etc.... these guys are all fighting for the same slice of pie and lets just elaborate on this - all companies that have a store should have insurance and part of the insurance is stock liability which pays an amount per annum for total losses due to theft. The difference, policy costs and excesses are paid for from corporation tax deductable at source.

I am an ex company director and am fully conversant with business and the associated laws and you are simply not understanding how losses are accountable. That is why I am asking what your industry was, for instance if it was I.T Hardware related then the prices could be increased as it is a niche market and they may not have the same insurance in place as the major high street stores.

chattychappy

Yep. If the bookies have a bad day at the races, can they recoup their deficit from the next meeting?

No.. they have to set their odds according to the situation they find on the new day.

Now it is true that if the same horse turns up again that might affect the odds they set for that horse at the new meeting - it has "form". But that's as far as it goes.

Likewise with the OP's friend. If the OP's friend successfully avoids debt because of enforceability issues, then that could well impact his/her APR for future debt. But it's not going to impact our APRs - because what the OP's friend has done doesn't affect the likelihood of you or me doing the same thing. That risk is present - but its level is uncorrelated with the OP's friend's actions..

daily_2

Of course it does, maybe not today, but tomorrow, or the day after, or the year after.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The difference, policy costs and excesses are paid for from corporation tax deductable at source.

Corporation tax is paid on profits, theft means higher insurance/smaller sales & profits/higher costs. However it is absorbed or accounted for, the honest customer pays for it.

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No Proliant, he is actually spot-on (ChattyChappy - well pointed out :T).
I don't want to get into an argument but that isn't true and it seems you're trying to wind us up with the same silly remarks so lets agree here and now to quit before it starts and stick to the facts.

Regards to the P&L - this is usually covered within the actual mark-up and although shop thefts affect the store (obviously) it does not affect the pricing structure and is usually covered against tax write off for loss of revenue to theft.

They can't increase the prices, think logically for a minute - all shops charge the same for lets say Mars Bars - so if I keep going to my local newsagent and nick 10 a day do you for one minute think the price of Mars will go up in that store and be outpriced against all the competition?

Regards to covert CCTV (what I specialise in as it happens) - here is the law, in simple terms which was easily accessible on the web: CCTV is governed by the DPA and an employer has the right to covertly film staff so long as they have gained permission to do so and so long as it is for the purposes of fraud or theft. The Data Protection Act 1988 and subordinate legislation establishes how employers can process employee pictures and / or video footage.

The main points are:

The monitoring must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve the business purpose e.g. if an employer believes an employee is stealing money from a till, they should only have CCTV coverage around that area.

An employer must not use personal data collected through CCTV monitoring for purposes other than the prevention or detection of criminal activity.

CCTV footage should be securely locked away. Employers have responsibilities regarding the collection and use of CCTV footage which includes the common law duty of confidence.

An impact assessment must be carried out. If CCTV is used, all staff affected must be told and be made aware of the nature and extent of monitoring (unless of course it would defeat the objective of prevention or detection of crime).

The employer should ensure that there is a clear record of the impact assessment of the CCTV.

Regards to the comments surrounding unenforceability, you really have to quit on this front cos you really have no idea what you are talking about. Of course unenforceability does not impact the APR and even if it did, you just apply for a card with another lender don't you! Its not rocket science....

Amongst other things your assertion that all shops charge the same for a Mars bar is complete and utter rubbish. There are wide variations from one retailer to another. If you have got such a basic fact 100% wrong I for one, have difficulty believing anything else you say.
Sorry

chattychappy

daily wrote: »

Of course it does

Quality reasoning coming in now...!

chattychappy

ILW wrote: »

Amongst other things your assertion that all shops charge the same for a Mars bar is complete and utter rubbish.

He didn't say that. It was a supposition to develop a point. Hence the "let's say".

ILW wrote: »

If you have got such a basic fact 100% wrong I for one, have difficulty believing anything else you say.

Well he didn't. So I agree, you are in difficulty!

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

Amongst other things your assertion that all shops charge the same for a Mars bar is complete and utter rubbish. There are wide variations from one retailer to another. If you have got such a basic fact 100% wrong I for one, have difficulty believing anything else you say.
Sorry

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Brian1966

never-in-doubt wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I've just paid £3.95 for a Mars Bar at a shell garage.
Given that I used my Natwest credit card does section 75 apply as it had started to melt and can I claim compensation as my local shop sells them for 40p...
N-i-d help...this has to unenforceable...I dont care if your APR increases or the banks charge for having a current account....
Pretty unlikely though, even if I did fill my car up with petrol earlier and drive away without paying. 99.9p per litre...robbing bar stewards... ah well it will be £1.25 tomorrow down to me :rotfl:

chattychappy

Brian1966 wrote: »

does section 75 apply as it had started to melt and can I claim compensation as my local shop sells them for 40p.

You've stated that section 75 applies. But it cost less than £100.

If you have got such a basic fact 100% wrong, I for one have difficulty believing anything else you say.

Brian1966

chattychappy wrote: »

You've stated that section 75 applies. But it cost less than £100.

If you have got such a basic fact 100% wrong, I for one have difficulty believing anything else you say.

I thought you might :rotfl::rotfl:
Do you work for a bank by any chance :rotfl: No...good glad to hear it.
Ok...just bought 12 bottles of coke, 2 litre ones mind for £100 and all from the same garage that overcharged me on a Mars Bar then 2 minutes later I stole £65 worth of fuel from.
Question is...will my Vanquis apr INCREASE next month :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: