We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Hit by wheelchair on escalator - culprit did a runner
Comments
-
Once you get a description of the uniform this may narrow it down.
Don't necessarily rely on the supermarket to have your interests at heart.
Any claims they have retained the cctv, you need to get that in writing for it to be meaningful in any way.
One presumes their cctv is digital ..
One hopes they are not accidentally wiping it.
Is this sainsbury?0 -
Common sense?...There's nothing common about sense!0
-
browneyedbazzi wrote: »
Where's the false representation in this story?0 -
FiremanDave wrote: »Where's the false representation in this story?
It was part of the side discussion about if people provide false details. Giving false details in order to avoid being pursued for losses/damages suffered by another party due to your negligence would be a false representation.
I don't think s3 (failing to disclose etc) would apply because there's no legal obligation (that I'm aware of) to provide the information in the OP's situation.Common sense?...There's nothing common about sense!0 -
browneyedbazzi wrote: »It was part of the side discussion about if people provide false details. Giving false details in order to avoid being pursued for losses/damages suffered by another party due to your negligence would be a false representation.
I don't think s3 (failing to disclose etc) would apply because there's no legal obligation (that I'm aware of) to provide the information in the OP's situation.
Your link isn't relevent to any of that.0 -
FiremanDave wrote: »Your link isn't relevent to any of that.
It is - although perhaps it's not that clear unless you read it in conjunction with s1 of the Fraud Act?Common sense?...There's nothing common about sense!0 -
browneyedbazzi wrote: »It is - although perhaps it's not that clear unless you read it in conjunction with s1 of the Fraud Act?
Fraud act covers the gain or loss of money or property. Why do you consider injuring someone as fraud?0 -
FiremanDave, you need to read what you are quoting.FiremanDave wrote: »Fraud act covers the gain or loss of money or property. Why do you consider injuring someone as fraud?
You quoted Browneyedbazzi's post:browneyedbazzi wrote: »Giving false details in order to avoid being pursued for losses/damages suffered by another party due to your negligence would be a false representation.
Welcome to the forum, by the way.... but it is understandable for you to make the odd mistake when postiing at the rate of fifty posts a day.
0 -
FiremanDave, you need to read what you are quoting.
You quoted Browneyedbazzi's post:
Welcome to the forum, by the way.... but it is understandable for you to make the odd mistake when postiing at the rate of fifty posts a day.
Where is the gain by the "carer" or loss by the mother in law for the fraud act to apply?0 -
Am I the only one who finds the concept of someone in a wheelchair "doing a runner" amusing?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards