Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Epistolis

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. LOL, I got one of those today. These people are comedians, do they not understand that a "debt" of this nature can only be decided by the courts, not on the say-so of RLP? (Yes, of course they do!) There is no "debt". Legally, it doesn't exist. It's an inspired idea for a [problem], invent a debt, make it look official and persuade people that they have to pay it (voluntarily of course!) by bullying, blackmail and intimidation. Unfortunately for them, Opos/DERS have no teeth, RLP have no teeth. It would require Boots themselves to take you to court to establish a legal debt and they
  2. Yes, thank you. Off on holiday myself for a while, I shall be back!
  3. That's what I thought. As far as I can see I have it in writing that Boots have not suffered a loss therefore I'm sure RLP must realise that they make quite enough money from intimidating people (who pay) with threats that a court ruling against them could only upset the gravy train. When could it ever be worth suing for £137.50 when that is the risk? Not only that but surely it would cost more than £137.50 in time and effort to go to court? On the other hand if they built up a portfolio of people successfully sued it would make excellent propaganda for tightening the screws, a sort
  4. Yes, I see what you mean. But what is to be done? I am at a loss.
  5. Yes, you are absolutely right, it was a reprimand not a caution. As a layman I failed to make the distinction. I hadn't thought of that! More details, I thought I'd add a breakdown of the claim: 1. Value of un-recovered (or unfit for resale) goods/monies/services: £0.00 2. Staff/Management time investigating and/or dealing with incident: £82.50 3. Administration costs resulting from your wrongful actions: £24.75 4. Apportioned security & surveillance costs: £30.25 Total £137.50, £110.00 if paid within 21 days.
  6. Thank you for your response, I hope you are right. In any case I would rather have a day in court than support these people in their foul trade. At least my son now has an inkling of how minor events can have major implications and although I suspect he doesn't quite grasp the enormity of it five hours in a cell won't have done any harm!
  7. I agree with much of what you say but I can't see a solution, the database isn't going to go away whatever happens, pay and be damned or don't pay and be damned. Paying isn't an option because it would be an admission of guilt where there is no guilt. I am not overly concerned about the database but perhaps I should be? Would he not be off it by the time he was 23? After three years at uni and a couple of gap years he'll be there (with a big government debt!).
  8. Yes, bright in some ways but not in others. He didn't leave the vicinity of the shop, he wanted to sit down to eat so sat on the shop's steps, didn't walk off, still had the £1.50 in his hand. It was stupid by any adult's standards but this boy isn't streetwise in any way whatsoever. I asked him why he didn't leg it, his answer; he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. I would have advised him not to accept a caution, I don't think it would have got as far as court and I'm certain if it had the case would have been dismissed. He's a decent lad with no vice in him whatsoever, anyone ca
  9. My son, 17 years old, sixth form student, never been in any kind of trouble (not so much as a detention), comes from a good family, lives in a nice area. Though rather naïve for his age he thinks he knows it all; teenager syndrome. Went shopping in Leeds a few months ago with a friend. Starving, as only teenagers can be, they called into Boots to buy a sandwich. The queue was long and the hunger was deep so they hatched a plan: Eat the sandwich first and pay for it afterwards, after all that’s what people do in Restaurants …. and Tesco. (Tesco!). So they proceeded to go and sit on the steps ou
  • Create New...