Gerald. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. this initial letter is nothing to do with any court action so any breach of civil procedure rules are not there. DWF don't come across my radar very often but the tactics they use are exactly the same as RLP. They state a lot but say nothing so in my very humble opinion, the only reason to contact them is to get the change of address sorted. I wouldn't bother getting into any spat over CPR rules as this can be dealt with IF court papers are issued. There is no point doing anything else as it confuses the issue.

The simple fact is DWF can not take action without the express intent from Sainsbury's. If DWF have got hold of a phone number then they will use it to harass but if the call is recorded and unlawful activity is detected, the boot goes on the other foot as there are express laws about harassment and DWF would not like it if one of their staff made unlawful claims and this was released in court, the SRA may then become interested.

Gerald. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. this initial letter is nothing to do with any court action so any breach of civil procedure rules are not there. DWF don't come across my radar very often but the tactics they use are exactly the same as RLP. They state a lot but say nothing so in my very humble opinion, the only reason to contact them is to get the change of address sorted. I wouldn't bother getting into any spat over CPR rules as this can be dealt with IF court papers are issued. There is no point doing anything else as it confuses the issue.

 

The simple fact is DWF can not take action without the express intent from Sainsbury's. If DWF have got hold of a phone number then they will use it to harass but if the call is recorded and unlawful activity is detected, the boot goes on the other foot as there are express laws about harassment and DWF would not like it if one of their staff made unlawful claims and this was released in court, the SRA may then become interested.

I understand what your saying foxy, but i see it differently, this approach is to try and put a stop to the bombardment before it gathers momentum,especially if someone is of nervous disposition regarding these matters.

It's an unlawful request for money with a threat of further action if you don't pay in 7 days, by simply putting it to them that if you believe this debt is due then you should comply with civil procedure or jog on, the ball is then in their court. I don't see how you will be getting into a spate, because it will do one of two things, they will carry on regardless or give up a bit sooner because they believe you maybe a bit clued up on the law, i don't see the downside by letting them know. that you know the whole thing is a ruse.

The ignore advise is what i would tell people if they can handle the threats be it by letter or phone, i can, you can but some can't handle the stress of that, so even if it's a 50/50 chance of stopping it dead in it's tracks as early as possible it has to be worth ago. nothing to lose, also you don't want to be getting in to the whole world recording of phone call etc etc to build an harassment case, then your really going off piste, of course they could just pay up and by tomorrow it's all over.

it would make I worse.

and would simply make them focus on trying to debunk what written

resulting in even more letters.

IGNORE THEM

It won't because if it fails you don't need to get into that issue with them, you just carry on as if you had ignored them in the first instance, that's why i believe you have no downside by playing that card.

However we will have to agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, ignore completely, or send a letter giving a different address. What is certain is there is no actionable loss, so they can't do court anyway.

It won't because if it fails you don't need to get into that issue with them, you just carry on as if you had ignored them in the first instance, that's why i believe you have no downside by playing that card.

 

However we will have to agree to disagree.

Read the hundreds of other threads here about dwf and rlp

Read the hundreds of other threads here about dwf and rlp

I have read most if not all threads on here and other boards and i have not come across one post that has said ' i challenged them to comply with civil procedure if they had reason to believe a debt is due' and i ended up in a worse mess than if i just ignored them in the beginning , if you can point me in the direction of one then please do.

It's been said many times on here that just ignore them, they won't follow through with the threats, there has been no court case since 2012, so what would they do differently if you challenged them on civil procedure? nothing if they took no notice of you, they would carry on regardless, you don't have to get into any letter tennis on the issue, just revert to option of ignoring them, if it works and it saves you a bit of harassment great if it don't you have not lost anything.

I don't agree with the one size fit's all advice of IGNORE, because as i have said some people can not deal with the threats, the worry of having them phone you, and yes CRS still use withheld numbers despite them not legally allowed to, a chance of stopping them early in the activity has to be a no brainer with no downside if it fails.

Waste of time only gives them a warm feeling of grandeur

When they have no legal powers whatsoever

Waste of time only gives them a warm feeling of grandeur

When they have no legal powers whatsoever

I think i now understand why there is a reluctance to encourage people to use the civil procedure route on here

But i firmly believe shoplifting is an offence that should be dealt with by the police and through the courts if they want to recover any loses , not by some 5cummy debt collection agency speculative invoicing.

they are not a dca they are not ever registered with the fca for such activity

they are not a dca they are not ever registered with the fca for such activity

Yep fair enough, i should of phrased it as 'Claims company'

But i firmly believe shoplifting is an offence that should be dealt with by the police and through the courts if they want to recover any loses , not by some 5cummy Claims company speculative invoicing

that's better know your enemy first not assume what they might be.

that's why we say ignore them.

dx

They're not a claims.company either. It's a shady outfit preying on misinformation and the vulnerable.

they are not a dca they are not ever registered with the fca for such activity

The don't need to be.

DWF aren't a DCA so don't need any kind of registration with the FCA, nor are they a "shady outfit". DWF are a mostly well respected, multi national law firm.

That being said, they still can't do diddly squat to the OP.

crs are though https://paycrs.co.uk/

At what point does it become harassment to keep pestering you with threats of court action etc etc if you don't pay,

is it not illegal to make false claims?

especially against a 16 year old,

where even if they did want to make a court claim they couldn't.

You are correct in saying DWF are a 'mostly' respected outfit. This is the one area that lets them down. They have to be very careful on what they say as if they make claims that they shouldn't, the SRA may become interested.

Why any respectable firm accepts this form of, well, blackmail shouldn't happen.

to continue to correspond would appear to give them some sort of credibility that they dont have

I would still advise ignoring them and make your peace with your mother over the episode.

As for who has been caused a loss over this, the answer is ME.

I own shares in most of the big supermarkets and all of the costs,

including the security costs come out of profits with would otherwise be my dividend

so if you feel like paying anyone then I will forward my details

and you can pay me if it makes you feel better.

crs are though https://paycrs.co.uk/

 

At what point does it become harassment to keep pestering you with threats of court action etc etc if you don't pay,

is it not illegal to make false claims?

especially against a 16 year old,

where even if they did want to make a court claim they couldn't.

they aren't threatening court

you have to read their letters very carefully with a degree of English literature...

their replies don't actually say will anything.

only what generally could happen in the case of an unpaid 'debt'

they might well be a DCA

but they don't know or more politely don't CARE

they spoofed the client out of £15 to send 3 scary letters.

go read the private parking debacles on the same ...

sadly, as with this 'CPR' rules bit..

you indicate again that you don't understand the complete picture..

you state 'illegal'

its not illegal as this is not a criminal 'matter'

it could or might well be 'unlawful' as its a civil matter

but there again, there is no civil matter for them to even consider

hence their stupid use of 'court words' in the DWP or RLP letters.

spoof from day one.

Never indulge in letter tennis with DWF. As to illegality or unlawfulness of their actions, da dutti babylon aren't bothered, there are motorists they are more interested in penalising.

Thank you yes i understand, the letters you get from http://www.ukcrs.com/ are more explicit though, empty threats maybe but certainly more explicit, they bang on about torts and mention avoiding court action if you pay up, and finish off by saying if you don't settle they will advise their client to commence court proceedings against you to recover losses, if that is not a threat of court action i don't know what is.

yes i have taken on board what you have said, i understand now why you apply the just ignore rule, but tell me this please, it must at some point become unlawful if you constantly harass a 16yr old with letters and phone calls making false claims you owe them money and will commence court proceedings if you don't pay, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years? they could essentially go on forever if they wanted to.

If you study a few cases reported in the media, where people have won in court against companies harassment, it is normally evidence of sustained unwarranted communications over a long period. I seem to remember one case where it was two or more years. But Judges have commented that people did not have to engage in a game of letter tennis. It is where numerous phone calls have also been received as well as letters, which seems to make the difference. So in order to win a court action, you would need evidence of a long period of letters and phone calls being received.

This is a game being played, where they assess effectiveness in communications gaining a return. If you respond, then they have you hooked and hope to persuade you that to enjoy a quiet life it would be better if you paid up. If you did not respond, letters would have stopped earlier.

Thanks for the info, hope the OP reads all this and is reassured

There is one occasion that would be useful to write to DWF.

In October 2014 the amended CPUT regulations came into force and civil recovery was mentioned. Misleading actions can now lead to court claims against a trader. DWF are stating that the £150 for security costs IS misleading. They would have to break this figure down into its respective parts. Who decided to set the level at £150? I bet it wasn't Sainsburys'

Basing this assumption on the 2012 case, the most they could claim for is the security staffs hourly rate so, lets assume the guard is on £10 per hour and there were two guards dealing with the event and they took 30 minutes to deal with the shoplifter. This would equate to a total of £10. Form filling by another staff member. These are usually templated to assist the staff in filling them out so perhaps another hour?? That's another tenner. Admin fee for stationary and perhaps a stamp to pass this on to DWF. Let's be generous here and give them a fiver.

Taking that all into account, I figure that to be £25 in total. No other member of shop staff (not associated with security) were involved so no costs can be claimed. The judge may be sympathetic and allow a small amount to the upkeep of the CCTV system but that cost is an unknown so if DWF took court action they would have to get a full breakdown of the individual cost to the store. Not easy!

As this would be a small claim, solicitors costs (apart from the £50 ) cannot be reclaimed so to take court action, DWF would have to supply a solicitor who is likely to charge around £150 per hour plus disbursements PLUS if they need the guards to be there, that will cost the store. So even if they actually won the case, the most they are likely to get from the shoplifter is £35 plus court fee plus solicitor fee. Around £110. This means that DWF via Sainsburys' will have made a loss on the case.

This is the reason they don't take action. They have jumped on the US bandwagon without thinking about betterment which is not allowed in the UK

Any action that can be classed as misleading can also be harassing and DWF need to be very careful in their letters. They should know the law and act appropriately on it, not make things up.

Sorry for the mini rant

Exactly SF Quantum cannot exceed their losses.