If she mentions a closed user group having access to information then surely the subject should do a subject access request

THEN challenge the data as being inaccurate under DPA

THEN Have th ICO investigate her as a data processor for failure to comply.

Here is the actual letter..

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxx

Our Client: TK Maxx

Incident: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We refer to our previous correspondence and not that you have not yet responded. Ignoring this matter will not make it go away, and is not in your interest, as it could result in additional liability if the matter proceeds to court, by way of the additional court fees, legal costs and interest witch would be sought at the rate of 8% per annum.

You have failed to comply with the practice Direction relating to Pre action Conduct and the Civil Procedure rules 1998, which encourage negotiation and settlement claims , without the requirement to issue court proceedings. Regrettably , we must therefore advise our client it is now in a position to issue proceedings against you and for the full value of the claim if it chooses. You are again urged to seek some independent legal advice.

We take this opportunity of confirming the position regarding your data. AS previously advised, our client has passed us your information, the information regarding the incident and any supporting evidence, in order to pursue a civil claim. There is Sufficient evidence to establish liability. We rely upon ours clients description and accurate account of the incident , as you have not provided any information to the contrary. It is therfore important that if there are any facts which you have not yet made us aware of, you must contact us to advise without any further delay, in order to ensure that an accurate record is retained.

The Information we hold may now be passed on to the police or other crime initiatives in the interest preventing and detecting crime and may be available to members of a closed user group for employment screening . Please Note, employment screening may only be conducted with your prior consent.

If you do not dispute the claim, and there are no other circumstances relevant to the incident, you need to settle the claim. You may do so by contacting our Collections Department witch can take payment by credit or debit card on 0844 245 1145, Other paymeny options are detailed on the back of letter including the facility to pay your damages by way of instalments or agreeing a deferred time period.

We look forward to hearing from you within 14days from the date of this letter, in order to avoid any further action being taken against you, or incurring additional cost.

Yours Sincerley

RLP

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

If you do not dispute the claim, and there are no other circumstances relevant to the incident, you need to settle the claim.

Surely you have already disputed that you have any liability..

And..it is not a claim.. it is a begging letter, end of.

and may be available to members of a closed user group for employment screening .

they cannot do this

dx

Someone really needs to put their foot down and take private legal action against this company. It seems to be the only way to get this silly woman to stop.

forward a copy of the letter to the ICO with your complaint form, available to download from their web pages. The ICO normally require you to complain to the company first but as they are admitting processing data unlawfully and unfairly without your consent there is no need for you to fail to agree with them.

forward a copy of the letter to the ICO with your complaint form, available to download from their web pages. The ICO normally require you to complain to the company first but as they are admitting processing data unlawfully and unfairly without your consent there is no need for you to fail to agree with them.

I fully endorse what you advise, ericsbrother. RLP's "database of wrongdoing" has echoes of the illegal databases maintained by the shadowy Economic League and, latterly, the Consulting Association, which resulted in the operation being closed down and those who operated it being successfully prosecuted. Those firms who subscribed to the Consulting Association are dealing with compensation claims from those who lives they wrecked and prosecution of those firms has not been ruled out.

Here is the actual letter..

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Our Client: TK Maxx

Incident: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

We refer to our previous correspondence and not that you have not yet responded. Ignoring this matter will not make it go away, and is not in your interest, as it could result in additional liability if the matter proceeds to court, by way of the additional court fees, legal costs and interest witch would be sought at the rate of 8% per annum.Try removing the 'y' from "your" and it all becomes clear.

 

 

You have failed to comply with the practice Direction relating to Pre action Conduct and the Civil Procedure rules 1998,

which encourage negotiation and settlement claims , without the requirement to issue court proceedings. Regrettably , we must therefore advise our client it is now in a position to issue proceedings against you and for the full value of the claim if it chooses. You are again urged to seek some independent legal advice.It is RLP who need to seek independent legal advice, preferably from a legal professional who tells them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

 

 

We take this opportunity of confirming the position regarding your data. AS previously advised, our client has passed us your information, the information regarding the incident and any supporting evidence, in order to pursue a civil claim. In their dreams.

There is Sufficient evidence to establish liability. Then bring it on.

We rely upon ours clients description and accurate account of the incident , as you have not provided any information to the contrary. It is therfore important that if there are any facts which you have not yet made us aware of, you must contact us to advise without any further delay, in order to ensure that an accurate record is retained.Blatant fishing expedition.

 

The Information we hold may now be passed on to the police or other crime initiatives in the interest preventing and detecting crime and may be available to members of a closed user group for employment screening . Please Note, employment screening may only be conducted with your prior consent.In other words, "The Data Protection Act doesn't apply to us". Really?

 

 

If you do not dispute the claim, and there are no other circumstances relevant to the incident, you need to settle the claim. ...otherwise we cannot go on holiday to the Bahamas this year.You may do so by contacting our Collections Department witch can take payment by credit or debit card on 0844 245 1145, Other paymeny options are detailed on the back of letter including the facility to pay your damages by way of instalments or agreeing a deferred time period.

 

We look forward to hearing from you within 14days from the date of this letter, in order to avoid any further action being taken against you, or us incurring additional cost.

 

Yours Sincerley

 

RLP

 

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

Some light-hearted relief, but with a serious meaning. I would never be surprised to see someone turn round and slap a Part 8 injunction on RLP and one or more of their retail clients. Such injunctions have a sting in the tail in that they carry criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

Why do RLP always advice you on there letters to seek legal advice. They must realise any good Solicitors will pick all these faults up?

same as why they use the words

claimant, client, defence, pre-action, civil procedure, liability, witch?, incident, police, evidence...

tryig to make themselves appear legit

rather than just a mass fleecing exercise to line their pocket for writing a few letters

scare tactics.

dx

I've never read such ridiculous pusedo legal documentation in my life. What is this woman and her company on? Absolutely unbelievable that it can be considered legal to misinterpret the law and their position to attempt to make a financial gain.

I love how they mention the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (Civil Procedure Rules) when it has absolutely no relevance to her or her company in any incidents like this. Her company can't litigate in any capacity at any juncture as they are not entitled to the rights and title of any alleged debt and are acting merely as a powerless third party.

Part 4 of the Practice Direction Direction on Pre-Action Conduct states that the court can make sanctions on parties who don't comply with the directions in regards to pre litigation conduct, but in any case, the claim she makes has absolutely no legal basis and therefore the alleged debtor has absolutely nothing to negotiate or settle, as they owe no money and are not indebted to her company.

The only party that could make a claim would be TK Max, which would have to demonstrate that;

- A financial loss has occurred.

- Some form of damage occurred due to the alleged incident.

- The product(s) recovered were no longer in a sellable condition.

The above in your case can not be met as the goods were returned undamaged and in a sellable condition, security staff where actively engaged in their job which is to catch alleged shoplifters, so how she can claim that they were diverted from their normal duties is moronic.

Everytime I read correspondence from this company I am shocked at how brazen they are to make such vexatious claims that you are somehow indebted to them, including irrelevant legal wording, and threats of a database (which the information commissioner needs to be informed about and would breach your rights under the data protection act 1998).

If they had a legitimate claim, like anybody, they wouldn't send you a thousand letters requesting payment, they'd simply issue proceedings against you, but they won't because any claim issued would be struck out on the basis that it has no chance of success, or they would be humiliated in court like before.

Personally I'd document her correspondence from the first letter and consider some form of litigation against this ridiculous company.

What would probably send Ms Lambert and her retail clients running home to change their underpants is a Part 8 injunction. These can be obtained ex parte (without notice) in certain circumstances, but are usually obtained on 24 hours notice. A District Judge or Deputy District Judge can grant a Part 8 injunction, but the final hearing is heard by a Circuit Judge.