TK MAX and RLP -PRICE SWITCH WOOLY JACKET

[gyzmo]

not so anymore after 9/11 7/7.

do some reading.

same powers as you and me.

 

personally i think it is disgusting that some members are 'defending' the actions of a thief!

 

unsubscribing

 

dx

 

And me. I would have thought that the usual post from a mod saying "we do not support criminal / dishonest behaviour" would have appeared before now. Especially when the act is admitted to.

[Bookworm]

No longer a mod, as you know, but I can say it anyway: No, the site doesn't condone/support criminal/dishonest behaviour. But I would argue this applies to the (allegedly) dishonest behaviour on both sides. Like I said higher up, 2 wrongs don't do a right.

 

What if RLP's policy instead of imposing a big fine (oh, sorry, recovering their "costs" ) was stoning the alleged culprit? Would that be acceptable? Of course not.

 

We are talking of a private company imposing a civil penalty on a presumption of guilt, all of which stinks to high heaven.

[MARTIN3030]

I have been privately assisting 2 people with this over the last few weeks.They are not members of CAG.

I hope to post the results soon.

In the meantime I can only say that they have been challenged to provide the evidence,in the form of a breakdown of the costs associated with the £250 fee.

Disappointingly so far in each of the cases,they have failed to do so,despite a number of requests.

They are very quick to point out pre action protocols,and yet do not appear to be as quick to comply with the same protocols when asked for information in advance of intended litigation...that is a requirement in enabling both sides to have equal footing,in allowing a defendant those things they may use as part of any defence.

 

Now where did we read about similar scenarios in the not too distant past ?

[Bookworm]

[emsgeorge]

OK, so you admit you are guilty. The issue is raised by the practices of RLP.

 

So why dont you write to the store concerned (or their head office) and ask them for a breakdown of costs incurred by them during your time in their custody.

 

That way at least you dont risk them taking you to court, nor do you 'line the coffers' of rlp. the store will make an approximation of what they actually lost in time and effort with dealing with you, and any other costs they actually incurred as a result of your wrongdoing.

[Conniff]

The post on here or/and RLP have got something wrong.

 

Civil Recover is the recovery of the 'proceeds of crime' and no crime has taken place. They should have waited until the goods passed through the till, and until such time as it had passed through the till, no crime was commited so no 'civil recovery' can take place.

 

Intention is not relevent here. Civil recovery is not about the recover of 'intended' proceeds of crime, but the 'proceeds' of crime, and until the crime has taken place, there are no proceeds.

 

RLP themselves say:

 

There is a mistaken belief that just because a company recovers its property following a theft it has suffered no loss.

 

Switching tags is not theft, that may be what is intended, but it is not theft, the switching of tags is not theft until it passes through the till and the act is complete.

 

Rlp also show the **** they are with typical DCA type of misleading statements.

 

If you fail to pay the compensation sought, our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings to recover all of their financial losses, together with costs and interest. If a Court Judgment/Decree is obtained, this is likely to adversely affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. Bankruptcy proceedings may also be instigated.

 

You can't start bankruptcy for less than £750.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Conniff

[flyingdoc]

and no crime has taken place.

sorry conff I disagree - the act of switching tags - with the INTENT of gaining monetary advantage is in itself a crime.

 

the switching of tags is not theft until it passes through the till and the act is complete.

 

also incorrect as to the letter of the law.

 

but as you say we are now not talking about crime but the civil proceedings that follow the RLP and in this they are typically acting true to form.

 

They intimidate and threaten - not quite demanding money with meneces but damn close

 

Indeed since they are threateaning something that is not a legal remedy they can employ this may even be seen as such.

[gyzmo]

Oh - I am appaently still subscribed, but well said Flying Doc on the crime element.

 

As to the civil side and the actions of RLP, I am someone who holds them in contempt. However, their actions are as a result of a deliberate and acknowledged guilty act. As Mr Burns might say, "Smithers - release the hounds!" I do however believe that such hounds should behave in a decent manner.

 

The OP should act within the law and expect RLP to do so as well. Their actions however, if unjustified, do not negate the original act, and should be treated as a separate action accordingly.