Sorry I know there are so many of these floating around! I've read through a lot of them but am still not sure what to do in my specific situation.

A week ago I was caught taking around £3 of food items from Boots.

I was stopped by security and went willingly back in the store with them.

The items were recovered undamaged.

I was co-operative and willingly let them look through my bags to show there was nothing else.

They had originally called the police but cancelled it when they realized the items were of low value.

I was in there about ten minutes,

they issued me with a ban then let me go.

I have since received a letter from RLP saying they are entitled to claim costs blah blah blah and if I wish to defend myself I should respond within 21 days.

My Mum thinks I should respond as I am type one diabetic and pregnant and have been suffering from severe hypoglycaemia.

This obviously affects my physical and mental wellbeing

- when sugars are constantly low the brain is deprived of oxygen.

I also suffer from extreme anxiety which is even worse atm as I lost my last pregnancy.

(I know this doesn't make it right what I did)

However I know replying would be admitting liability.

But I guess they know I'm liable, they'll have it on CCTV.

My dilemma is do I reply with my defence or should I ignore it?

Would they actually have much of a case against me and are they likely to take it to court over such a small amount?

Also...if they pass my details onto a debt collector could that affect me getting a mortgage?

Also wanted to add..

.I know the usual advice is to ignore.

But I read another thread in which is a person with mental disabilities explained his circumstances to RLP and they did not take any further action.

Would it possibly be in my better interests to do this?

you ignore RLP totally.

they cannot do court

debt collectors are NOT BAILIFFS

it can never harm your credit file

Ok I will definitely ignore RLP. Should I also completely ignore the dca or should I reply saying the allleged debt does not exist? Also will the dca harass me for life?

ignore everything it goes away once they realise you are not gullable

Hi and welcome to CAG,

I have two trains of thought. The main one is to follow the advice from DX and ignore everything that comes in the post. RLP can do bu**er all to you and any low life debt collector can do even less. there have been no court cases since 2012 when a retailer lost badly and since then, no other cases have been brought.

The other train of thought is to write to RLP and tell them that the act was a result of high/low blood sugar. RLP state that they may take all mitigating circumstances into account although they are not 'bound' to do so.

I put both up as the final decision is yours. Personally, they can do nothing so why entertain them in the first place. Once you understand the terminology of the letters, you will realise that they are nothing but threat-o-grams

Thanks for your reply Silverfox.

I know realistically they can't do anything except recommend Boots sue me and that it isn't very likely.

However if I could maybe make them leave me alone that would be a great weight off my shoulders.

Do you think there's actually much chance they would take my circumstances into account and leave me alone or are they more likely to

a) cause me further stress by demanding proof of said conditions or

b) Continue harassing me anyway

RLP will ask for proof. I know they have cancelled their demands on very rare occasions but it's all part of the game they play.

So I guess I'm better off ignoring them.

On the off chance Boots did take me to court (over £3 worth of stuff though, I know it's not likely)

I guess I can explain my physical and mental health conditions to an actual judge rather than a company of bullies who have no right billing me or demanding personal information.

A question about RLP in general..

.do they operate on a no win no fee basis?

Because it seems to me a lot of people don't pay up so if the stores were paying them regularly they'd actually be losing money.

I don't even understand why the stores use these companies.

I agree shoplifting is wrong but this is not the way it should be dealt with

- if Boots wanted to take legal action against me they could have called the police but they actively cancelled the call.

RLP have no place in the justice system; it annoys me so much.

Look,

Boots cant take you to court because they have lost nothing,

RLP cant take you to court because they have no interest in ANYTHING.

You clearly haven't read anything about RLP,

they are not lawyers,

they dont do security,

they arent associated with the police or government

and all they do is tell lies.

It is a company that sells a false promise to stores by claiming that by sending out demands for money when none is owed they are making shoplifters mend their ways and thus bring about a change of attitude.

They claim they have the support of ACPO and govt etc.

All of this is untrue,

proper shoplifters laugh at all of this and the police as well because they will carry on as before to feed their drug habit.

All that RLP does is make money by selling their service and then a bit more if people feel guilty enough to pay their unwarranted demands.

As there is no real debt

someone who has received one of these letters should consider suing whoever passed on their personal details to RLP in the first place and RLP for processing that data unlawfully.

Ideally this would be someone who was mistakenly accused so there i no doubt in the judges mind that a "clean pair of hands" is being shown.

Did they collected address when you was on security back room ?

Did you handed over photo ID with Address proof of yours?

why?

Usually they cant find the address in case you haven't provided ID with Addressand written address. I just wanted to know how they find the address for value of 3 pond value from boots

Doesn't matter tomos, RLP have no power/

The OP gave an address which is why a letter arrived. If no address was given, RLP can do very little. They could use a tracing agent BUT they would want paying for their services and RLP cannot guarantee they will get a payment so they won't bother. In this case, address details were given.

RLP also claim they keep a database of 'alleged shoplifters'. They offer the service to potential employers who may wish to check the status of a potential employee. They can only be given this information with the permission of the person named. I mention this as it is my view that they should not be offering this service to anyone as they database only contains 'alleged shoplifters' not people convicted of the offence of shoplifting.

This year, a new data protection system comes into being and RLP's claim that they keep the database for the purposes of detecting and prevention of crime. I cannot see how this so called database will have anything to do with the prevention and detection as it does not contain any conviction data. It is also my opinion that the storing of data of minors (under 18s) is fundamentally wrong but as this sector is unregulated, it would take a court case to determine whether RLP have this right to store data.

Thomos

yes I gave them my address.

I actually thought I might dodge an RLP letter because when i checked the ban letter they issued me the security guard had spelled my address completely wrong and I'm not sure but I think in my panic and shock I may have given them the postcode for my previous address (postcode wasn't written on he letter, just my street name) which I moved from a couple months ago. So I don't know if they googled it.

I think that some staff members of RLP have the mental capacity to use Google. Any erroneous address can be easily be rectified. Doesn't matter if you got the post code wrong as the Royal Mail website has a post code finder.

If you have the time, this thread is a very good read and read the judgement as it shows what can and cannot be claimed by a retailer.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer-**-reveiwed-September-2015-**&p=3898857&viewfull=1#post3898857

When a company sets up purposely to extract monies from un-knowing people and then make a profit from that business, any reasonable person (or even a judge) would see it as unjustifiable enrichment for the simple reason.

A £150 claim from a suspected shoplifter which they split with a retailer MUST be enrichment as otherwise, the civile recovery company would be out of business. Simples!!