Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4397 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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!






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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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" :rolleyes:) 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.



Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Opinions are offered in good faith based upon personal experience and research. Before making any irreversible decisions the opinion of a qualified, registered and insured legal professional should be sought.


If my advice or information has assisted you in any way - please click my scales.




Nat West Charges £1056 WON

RBS Charges £3600 WON

RBS Unenforceable Loan £18500 Pending

RBS PPI on loan above Pending

MBNA Credit Card CCA & SAR Sent

Co-op Credit Card CCA Sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...