Jump to content

itsworthatry

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About itsworthatry

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. So in summary it appears that the CPUT is powerless against RLP as there is no point trying to apply them and take them to court? It appears that though the Oxford case ruled that their modus operandi of claiming fixed amounts is not actually legitimate they can continue to send misleading correspondence to people and no action will be taken?
  2. Thanks for that link to the Oxford Case judgement. I wonder who the anonymous retailer was. In that transcript it states the retailer has 2500 stores. That sounds like the large retailer who has been in the news recently for falling sales etc. I wonder if whoever is was are still using RLP? I still think this CPUT needs to be tested against these types of operators. There is nothing worse than a corporate bully preying on vulnerable people, or in fact anyone. The Oxford case just general civil liability law, for which RLP and the retailer lost because of the flawed basis for the claim. Nowhere have they been reprimanded for the approach they take in misleading people with their lies.
  3. As RLP are the agents for the retailer, if a case came to court under CPUT, then in order to defend themselves RLP would be forced to reveal this relationship otherwise as they send the letters it would be their individual liability? That would be interesting. It is not like they are a legal firm so can't claim any privacy under that, could they keep this relationship private as how else could the court decide whether the letters and amounts claimed are misleading. Interesting thought if someone decided to take this crew to court how they would defend their actions under CPUT.
  4. Just out of interest, does anyone know how RLP deal with the retailers. Do they pay them a fixed sum for each 'guilty' person referred or do they pay a percentage of the ill gotten gains. It is key to understand if the retailers are also guilty of contravention of the CPUT or if it is just RLP?
  5. I think that is exactly why RLP could be in a very sticky situation. As I understand it they claim to be working on behalf of their "clients" making claims on behalf of their "clients" have no hand in what they actually get up to, and what they say in their correspondence. I think a claim against CPUT would be hard to defend, and in court their "clients" would have no desire to back up the claims they make and they would not be able to prove what they claim, therefore are making misleading claims. As has always been said in these discussions RLP have no legal basis to make a claim only their client, but do RLP have they formal authority from these so called clients to be representing then, and are in fact not a firm of solicitors so can not work in that way. Look at how Parking Eyes are struggling to defend their actions, which I would suggest have a more solid legal basis for claiming money from consumers. I think RLPs greatest saviour is they people they are pursuing are usually embarrassed of they accusations made against them, when they don't need to because in the cases where no conviction has been made the moment RLP name and shame shall we say, they could be off to see the beak themselves....
  6. Well that is a real shame that it looks like this crew RLP can carry on with their brand of piracy without anyway of being stopped despite the law strengthening with the CPUT. I think some of these high street retailers should be ashamed of themselves for employing these tactics. I am not condoning people for doing wrong against a business (I include people who park inconsiderately in private car parks) but it is the way these businesses go about the recovery or these fictional "losses". Reasonable losses yes but inflated claims are just contemptible. It would be interesting for someone to test the CPUT against RLP. If nothing else it would distract them from their usual "business".
  7. So if someone has written to RLP (lets say opening negotiations) in response to some of their letters and then realise that RLP are falling foul of the CPUT as the content of the letters are misleading then they could take up a claim against RLP (or report them to someone in authority)? I bet RLP are changing the tone of their letters. I notice some say the later letters "threaten" to engage a DCA to put the frighteners on people. As there is no debt (as defined by law as no CC judgement is in place) this could be seen as a misleading statement and people could be forced to make a transactional transaction based on that fear. I bet RLP are worrying since 1st October......
  8. So it would be even better if someone paid up the demanded money then claimed back a sum. Interesting, less than £300 would mean £25 cost to claim and potentially cost to RLP defending claim if they chose to. Any legal views out there?
  9. But it is RLP who are setting the "losses" not their "client" so they are responsible for the unfair practice, inflated claims (and of course the aggressive practice). If it is business who are setting the amount RLP are claiming that is a different matter and you could pursue their clients. I am sure their clients would be thrilled that RLP are passing the buck back to them.
  10. Have been reading a few threads on this RLP crew having been looking at the enhanced CPUT regs on another matter. Has anyone considered paying up like a good consumer then sending a nice letter with all sorts of legal stuff claiming some arbitrary damages sum pulled out the air back to RLP. It could be entertaining, and then take them to court when they fail to pay up.
×
×
  • Create New...