DWF letters threatening old address

[Harrison195]

Dear LegalBeagles community,

My partner and I are hoping to get some advice regarding a civil recovery claim after an alleged shoplifting incident at a Sainsbury's in October 2024. Our bags were searched and the items were returned, and we received a nationwide ban from Sainsbury's and Argos. Information from our IDs were taken, and we noticed one of the security staff stealthily taking a picture of us. No police involvement or further action was communicated at the time.

Early in December, we received letters from DWF claiming £300 (£150 for Sainsbury's, £150 for Argos; separate reference numbers) in security costs. These letters were sent to old addresses on our IDs, so it is likely that similar letters were sent to my old address, bringing the total cost to £600.

We researched extensively online, consulted CAB, and spoke to a lawyer briefly for advice. Our decision at the time, based on all we've learned, was to ignore the letters. Unfortunately, these letters were sent to my partner's old address where their relatives currently reside. Interestingly, the letters were not addressed to my partner's first and last name, but rather a jumbled combination of their last and middle name. We suspect this might be a tactic to implicate as many people in the household as possible.

Nevertheless, the relatives (who share the same last name) took it upon themselves to open the letters out of paranoia, and are intimidated enough at the prospect of a CCJ to want to directly involve themselves, either by calling DWF and/or paying off the £600 on our behalf.

Because of this complication, we felt we had no choice but to reach out to DWF via email in order to rectify the address and, per the lawyer's advice, request a breakdown of the security costs. The contents of the email is as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam,

We appreciate your attention to the matter regarding security cost claims for the incident at Sainsbury's on October 2024. After careful consideration and legal consultation, we respectfully contest these charges on the following grounds:

• Legal Basis:
  • We refer to the case of A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K (2012), which established that retailers cannot claim fixed "security costs" without proving actual financial losses directly caused by an incident. Furthermore, we draw your attention to Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. (1915), which requires that:
    • Actual and quantifiable loss must be proven;
    • The responsibility for the loss must be clearly established;
    • Damages sought must only restore the claimant to their original position, not result in profit.
• Staff Time Claims:
  • We kindly request a detailed breakdown of the £150 security costs (reference #) for Sainsbury's, including:
    • Specific evidence of actual time spent by staff directly dealing with this incident.
    • Proof that staff were significantly diverted from their usual activities.
    • Evidence of significant disruption to Sainsbury's business operations.
• Argos Claim:
  • We respectfully contest the £150 claim for Argos (reference #) as we did not visit the Argos outlet during the incident.
  • We would appreciate any evidence supporting this portion of your claim.
• Administration and Security Costs:
  • We request justification for the fixed security costs, as these appear to be pre-determined sums.
  • We believe that general security measures and administrative processes are part of normal operating costs and may not be attributable to this specific incident, as per HHJ Harris's ruling in A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K.
• Address Update:
  • We were unable to respond to your letter promptly as it was sent to defunct addresses. Please update your records with our current mailing address: (address).
  • Please confirm if additional letters were sent to another address: (address).

We are committed to resolving this matter fairly and are open to dialogue. We would greatly appreciate your response addressing these points, including all requested evidence, within 14 days if possible. If we do not receive a satisfactory explanation or evidence within this timeframe, we will consider this matter closed.

Yours faithfully,

This email was ignored, and we subsequently received two more rounds of letters. We then sent a follow-up email:

Good Afternoon,

Reference cases: # and #

I would like to draw your attention to the below email, and kindly note the date it was sent also.

It is apparent to me that despite my contact, you are continuing to send correspondence to a previous address and not our own. You are also falsely claiming you have not heard from us, as our last email was sent the same day the letter was passed on to us from the current occupants of the (old) address.

The address given previously is no longer correct. Please forward all correspondence to my home address: (address). Any contact you may be sending to our previous addresses is not being received. The time frames you may be giving are invalid as you have chosen to ignore our contact and continued to send to an incorrect address.

Cease all future communications with the two incorrect addresses, the other is listed below.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Our questions are:

1. Have we implicated ourselves by contacting DWF the way we did? Are there any obvious or glaring issues with our email content that could be used against us?
2. How can we update our addresses if DWF continues to ignore our emails? At this point, we're considering calling them from a public phone.
3. Assuming the worst-case scenario (we get taken to court and lose), how would a potential CCJ impact my partner's relatives at their old address?
4. How would a CCJ affect our relatives' credit scores, given that CCJs are linked to addresses?

We wanted to attach the letters here but we do not have site permission to do so at the moment. We appreciate any advice we can get on this situation.

P.S. Are we aware of any incidents after the 2012 one where people have been taken to court? We've looked but haven't found any.

[des8]

So if I was in your position, I would tell my relatives that they should not have opened the post not addressed to them as it is a criminal offence under the Postal Services Act 2000.
Also they must not pay on your behalf any sums demanded. You do not authorise this and if they do it will be at their own cost.
Advise them that any further letters received by them incorrectly should be placed in a post box marked "unknown at this address. Return to sender"

I would then cease to interact with DWF, except perhaps to tell them (if they continue to chase) that you are aware of the "Oxford Case" and will vigorously defend any action their principals might bring (altho' you have already referred to that case).

AFAIK none of the major stores have tried court action since the Oxford Case, so there is no reason why they should try now!

Re CCJs
First there has to be a court claim, (which can be defended).
You would need to lose and not pay the judgment award within 30 days before a CCJ is registered
If DWF filed the claim using your old address so a default judgment was granted, they could be in trouble for abusing the court process, so unlikely

Details of the "Oxford Case" can be found via this thread https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...gment-09-05-12

Those follow up letters you refer to are probably featured here: https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...rs-rlp-and-dwf

[PallasAthena]

[*]Assuming the worst-case scenario (we get taken to court and lose), how would a potential CCJ impact my partner's relatives at their old address?[*]How would a CCJ affect our relatives' credit scores, given that CCJs are linked to addresses?

CCJs are not linked to an address. Only the person the judgement was issued against is affected by the CCJ.

Credit scores are also not linked to an address or anyone else living there (unless they are "financially associated" with you - I assume not in this case).

https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/...-address.html#

So your partner's relatives won't be affected by this even in your 'worst case' scenario.

[echat11]

What DWF sent are 'speculative invoices'. There is no 'breakdown' of actual costs, only what they 'perceive'.as costs.

Take 'security costs', those costs are built into their 'business model', 'staff costs', they are contracted to secure stock, be vigilant etc. There is 'no loss', the stock was 'returned'.

If you are 'struggling', there are food banks, contact your, Councillors, MP, other helpful agencies etc.