This thread is for details of letters written to/ responses from stores.

We know that members have written in complaint to their own issues we need to collate this information-its easier to keep track on this if its posted here.

Hi Martin,

I thought it might be helpful if those threads that have reached a conclusion such as mine and the lady with child at boots, if in the title you could add, Conclusion reached or something as it would give anyone coming to this site threads that they could identify have had a result.

I thought it might encourage people to persist.

Or a sticky listing those that have reached a conclusion perhaps?

Cheers

tried to PM u but you're full again

Julius, if you see one of those threads and it has been missed, you can click the report button (under avatars/nicks) and ask for the title to get changed accordingly. ;-)

BW as I understand it the matter of this thread has not yet been concluded by the OP. I understand there's more to come ie RLP/Boots & Data processing

I said "if", JC, just a quick how-to for them wot haven't been haunting these boards as long as you and I. ;-)

OK BW By the way did you get my comment asking victims to contact you &/or Martin to be provided with templates. The reason I'm not placing them on the open forum just yet is so they can be modified to include any new evidence which becomes available in the near future not least confirmation of the CCL matter

Nope, haven't seen them. Have added you to my contacts, btw so you can PM me now.

Done BW

Just wanted to let you know that I received a response from Boots Legal Dept. They mantain that RLP are not able to write to parents instead of the child concerned for Data Protection reasons as that would be a breach of confidentialty to the child. (Then why did Boots ask for my details when she was stopped?) They have however, agreed with RLP that the letter they send to teenagers will "... include an encouragement to the teenager to inform their parent or guardian of what has happened and to seek their assistance in resolving the matter." (I really can't see how this would help with a teenager who is already scared witless by their parents inital reaction to the whole matter!)

They also state that RLP are not required to hold a Consumer Credit License as they are not acting as debt collectors.

They clam that the items my daughter stole had been opened and were not in a re-saleable conditon. My daughter vehemently denies this, but it seems it is now our word against theirs and I don't see we have a leg to stand on.

I have also had a response from The Childrens Commssioner, they say they cannot intervene in any individual matter (not what I was asking for, only ponting out the threat to retain data that could affect my daughters future credit rating) and suggest contact the Childrens Legal Centre, Unibversty of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester ESSEX CO4 3SQ.

Disappointingly, no response as yet from Nottingham Trading Standards.

It seems to me that this whole business is happening because the law allows for it, even if this is not the way it was intended. Some bright spark has seen this 'gap in the market' and is now making a very lucrative profit having set up RLP. The Stores involved probably aren't making much money out of it themselves, but it saves them the trouble of involving the Police and all they have to do is pass the teenagers details to RLP. No doubt they would also argue the deterrent value. The only way I can see a stop to RLP is if the stores can be convinced as to how damaging this is to the families involved. I sincerely hope that it does not take a teenagers suicide to do that.

The affect this whole business has had on us, as a family has been awful. To the parents of the girl who tested the hair mousse, I hope you take this all the way. At the end of the day my daughter did wrong, your daughter did nothing intentional. I can well understand your reluctance to get the press involved, but you have a good case and RLP and the companies they represent rely on the fact that those concerned will be to ashamed to follow this route. I wish you the very best of luck.

Once again we see the DPA being used as an excuse for bad behaviour. They are talking rollocks there is nothing in the DPA which permits them to send threatening letters to under 18s...............As with ALL threatened or concurrent litigation they must communicate directly with the guardian/parent NOT the minor ................ Suggest you write back pointing this out & the fact that they have does, you have been advised, constitute harrasment of a minor

I would certainly contact the Legal Centre about their intention to place her on their 'dishonesty' data base

I wrote a real snot-a-gram to the Chief Executive of Boots - three weeks later received a letter saying that they are investigating.......

Just wanted to let you know that I received a response from Boots Legal Dept. They mantain that RLP are not able to write to parents instead of the child concerned for Data Protection reasons as that would be a breach of confidentialty to the child. (Then why did Boots ask for my details when she was stopped?) They have however, agreed with RLP that the letter they send to teenagers will "... include an encouragement to the teenager to inform their parent or guardian of what has happened and to seek their assistance in resolving the matter." (I really can't see how this would help with a teenager who is already scared witless by their parents inital reaction to the whole matter!)

 

They also state that RLP are not required to hold a Consumer Credit License as they are not acting as debt collectors.

 

They clam that the items my daughter stole had been opened and were not in a re-saleable conditon. My daughter vehemently denies this, but it seems it is now our word against theirs and I don't see we have a leg to stand on.

 

I have also had a response from The Childrens Commssioner, they say they cannot intervene in any individual matter (not what I was asking for, only ponting out the threat to retain data that could affect my daughters future credit rating) and suggest contact the Childrens Legal Centre, Unibversty of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester ESSEX CO4 3SQ.

 

Disappointingly, no response as yet from Nottingham Trading Standards.

 

It seems to me that this whole business is happening because the law allows for it, even if this is not the way it was intended. Some bright spark has seen this 'gap in the market' and is now making a very lucrative profit having set up RLP. The Stores involved probably aren't making much money out of it themselves, but it saves them the trouble of involving the Police and all they have to do is pass the teenagers details to RLP. No doubt they would also argue the deterrent value. The only way I can see a stop to RLP is if the stores can be convinced as to how damaging this is to the families involved. I sincerely hope that it does not take a teenagers suicide to do that.

 

The affect this whole business has had on us, as a family has been awful. To the parents of the girl who tested the hair mousse, I hope you take this all the way. At the end of the day my daughter did wrong, your daughter did nothing intentional. I can well understand your reluctance to get the press involved, but you have a good case and RLP and the companies they represent rely on the fact that those concerned will be to ashamed to follow this route. I wish you the very best of luck.

The lukewarm response from the Childrens Commissioner is very disappointing.

It is this kind of response that disheartens people.

This is the problem people will be coming up against,someone reads a letter and just thinks "shoplifter,we can't get involved."

It is patronizing,and I would write again pointing this out.Tell them she has admitted a criminal act,and as a parent you have dealt with that,but that is an entirely seperate issue,and would they please address your other points.

I have heard it said by Managers,there is no point in calling the Police for alleged theft these days,as all they get is a fine and not even a criminal record.Perhaps this is part of the problem why stores are choosing RLP over calling the Police.

You could visit the store and ask to inspect the "opened " goods,noting exactly what goods their are(ideally with your daughter present if possible) (I suspect they won't have them and they will have been returned to the shopfloor for resale).There should be a paper trail ,a written record by Security,of where the goods are stored,and how they were later "disposed of". Alternativly a photo.If the goods have been "written off",( a book is usually kept by managers on the shopfloor for this purpose)a signature will need to have been obtained for accounting purposes.Those goods are then in theory,destroyed.

Write back to Children's Commissioner telling him your very disappointed with his response particularly as he appears to be sanctioning the blackening of a child's name by a firm who's sole MO is to make money. That subject to his next reply you will making a formal compliant to both your MP & the MoJ

PSNI are not working WITH RLP, RLP simply joined in a discussion once.

These threads need to be progressed in main forum.

Will move them there.

Hi there, my first post so be gentle with me. My wife was "apprehended" when leaving the local Tesco's . I won't go into detail but the Police were called and she was issued with a FPN of £80. A week later we received the letter from RLP demanding £137.50, due to "a wrongful act being committed.

I was not too sure about this letter so I decided to do a bit of investigation and ended up here on this forum. After reading several threads about RLP I decided to write to them. I opened my letter by stating that a FPN was not an admition of guilt and, whilst I admit there would of been some administrative costs involved, the fact that no goods were opened or damaged in any way, I felt £137.50 was excessive and I sent a cheque for £70 and asked them to accept this as full and final settlement of this matter.

I have today, exactly one week later, received a reply from RLP, with a lot of legal quotations and reasons why their costs were set so high, ACCEPTING my payment of £70 and the matter is now concluded.

May I take this opportunity to thank everyone that posts on here and just advise anyone in the same position as I was to write, being courteous and fair,and hopefully your case will be dealt with the same.

Hi there, my first post so be gentle with me. My wife was "apprehended" when leaving the local Tesco's . I won't go into detail but the Police were called and she was issued with a FPN of £80. A week later we received the letter from RLP demanding £137.50, due to "a wrongful act being committed.

I was not too sure about this letter so I decided to do a bit of investigation and ended up here on this forum. After reading several threads about RLP I decided to write to them. I opened my letter by stating that a FPN was not an admition of guilt and, whilst I admit there would of been some administrative costs involved, the fact that no goods were opened or damaged in any way, I felt £137.50 was excessive and I sent a cheque for £70 and asked them to accept this as full and final settlement of this matter.

I have today, exactly one week later, received a reply from RLP, with a lot of legal quotations and reasons why their costs were set so high, ACCEPTING my payment of £70 and the matter is now concluded.

 

May I take this opportunity to thank everyone that posts on here and just advise anyone in the same position as I was to write, being courteous and fair,and hopefully your case will be dealt with the same.

Hi Its good to have the pressure go

However clearly you haven't done enough research as if you had you'd know that any payment to RLP WILL be construed by them & their clients as a sign of guilt. This they believe will permit them to place you wife's details on their data base, which was formerly known, as a record of dishonest persons, "some of whom may not have been convicted of an offence" thereby blighting amongst others things any future job prospects, obtaining credit a mortgage or even insurance

Thanks for your reply Jonchris. I understood that whether I paid or not the details would be put on their data base. It is a shame there is not enough advice about this on these forums, perhaps you could make it clearer for us! It is also a pain when you try and research and most of what you read is forum members having a go at each other rather than addressing the issue at hand.What do you suggest, if anything, I do now or should I just leave this matter alone now?

Thanks for your reply Jonchris. I understood that whether I paid or not the details would be put on their data base. It is a shame there is not enough advice about this on these forums, perhaps you could make it clearer for us! It is also a pain when you try and research and most of what you read is forum members having a go at each other rather than addressing the issue at hand.What do you suggest, if anything, I do now or should I just leave this matter alone now?

Eventhough you have paid you can still reverse the situation but you would have to be prepared to take the fight to them

i fear that the acceptance of the FPT will be seen as an admission of guilt- i retired from the police before these FPT were introduced but i would be surprised if it were not the case that they cannot be issued UNLESS the person admits the offence. ##

if they deny the offence the police officer would then have to report her for the offence and caution her under PACE

alternatively- if i am wrong- then there would be a time period in which the alleged offender could dispute the FPT and ask for a hearing before magistrates- again if she did not dispute- but paid the FPT then this would be taken as an admission of guilt and then the only questions would relate to the amount being claimed ( IMO)