RLP - subcontractor cleaner.£180.00**Contact Ceased**

[Evertheoptimist]

I have similar problem with this company with an eroneouse and dismissed claim of shoplifting

They are claiming £150 without any justification

Could you possibly keep everyone informed of your progress even if you are not succesful as I am sure it would help a lot of people in the same situation

Many thanks also to everyone on the thread that is helping

[MARTIN3030]

Evertheoptimist-there are a number of ongoing threads concerning RLP in this forum.

[Evertheoptimist]

Hello martin

 

Yes i have read the "Similar Threads" at the bottom of the page

and I presume thats the ones you mention

 

Thanks

[juliusceasor]

The following are two letters I received today. Unfortunately I am unlikely to be able to answer any questions on this as I am away for the next 5 days. If I get internet access I will try, but it looks like good news particularly for all the posts re Boots and their Children as Boots will surely want to distance themselves from RLP now.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Complaint Against: Retail Loss Prevention Limited

Licence No: Unlicenced

 

The OFT has received a complaint about the above mentioned Traders. See the attached correspondence which gives further details about this.

 

Traders who are engaged in the consumer credit or hire, including debt collection and debt management do need a consumer credit licence. However, according to our records, this trader does not hold a consumer credit licence.

 

Since this trader appears to be based in your local authority’s area you may wish to investigate whether this trader has been engaging in unlicensed trading.

 

I hope that you find this information is useful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

======================

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Complaint Against: Retail Loss Prevention Limited

Licence No: Unlicenced

 

Thank you for your letter received on 23 February 2009.

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if a business wishes to be involved in activities relating to consumer credit or hire, including debt collection and debt management, they must have a consumer credit licence. The Office of Fair Trading (the OFT) has duty to enforce the Act, along with local authority Trading Standards Services (TSS).

 

Upon checking the information provided in your letter, it appears that this trader does not hold a consumer credit licence. I have therefore forwarded your complaint to the TSS where the trader is based for it to consider investigating the matter of unlicensed trading in their area. The TSS is:

 

Nottingham City Council

[Bookworm]

Oh dear, that doesn't look good for them.

[Bookworm]

Snazzy website... lacking a license number, contact address, reg company numbers etc... So much for being "fully conversant with the law", huh?

 

Maybe someone should inform all their "satisifed clients" about the way they are currently operating...

[JonCris]

quote[The largest data base of dishonest people]unquote Says who........them bloody disgrace.........playing judge, jury AND executioner

 

May I suggest that ANYONE who has dealings with this company SAR them & if ANYTHING but anything comes back which is in anyway defamatory they sue the butts off them............ cos like all such idiots even if they lose they will continue to record & process their false data about you thereby blighting your life for ever

 

We really need to put this lot out of business before they do more harm to the innocent. We need a dedicated thread so that all victims can join together.......How about it mods??

Edited March 3, 2009 by JonCris

[Bookworm]

You spotted that too, huh...

[ScarletPimpernel]

Snazzy website... lacking a license number, contact address, reg company numbers etc... So much for being "fully conversant with the law", huh?

 

Maybe someone should inform all their "satisifed clients" about the way they are currently operating...

 

I've been busy:

 

- reported RLP to the OFT over the lack of a consumer credit licence (which is a criminal offence.

 

- written to ACPO (and received an acknowledgement) about the claim that RLP were involved in drafting guidelines on civil recovery; when I spoke to ACPO on the phone they were unaware of RLP or the existence of any formal guidelines. See the odd 'Staffs Police letter' on RLP's website.

 

- spoken to the British Retail Consortium, may of whose members use RLP, about their apparent involvement in the ACPOS guidelines shown on the website (again, an odd document devoid of a date, reference or signatures). The BRC are unaware of any such guidelines.

 

- asked RLP's legal department for a copy of the ACPO guidelines they refer to. The individual I spoke to wasn't sure if there were any, or if there were, where they would be.

 

- reported RLP's breaches of the Companies Act 2006 to Companies House. Anyone wishing to report a company failing to show its registered office address, registration number and place of registration should write to:

 

Technical Offences

Companies House

Crown Way

Cardiff

CF14 3UZ

[Evertheoptimist]

Am i correct in the following?

 

This company would use the small claims system (if indeed they actually do take action)

 

Under small claims you cannot claim expenses other than court costs

 

They presumably include their costs when they submit a claim

[JonCris]

Great SP but I think we still need to get these buggers AND their clients into a court Cos I suspect our regulators will simply give them a slap on the wrist & let them apply for a licence & whatever else they need retrospectively

[Bookworm]

Am i correct in the following?

 

This company would use the small claims system (if indeed they actually do take action)

 

Under small claims you cannot claim expenses other than court costs

 

They presumably include their costs when they submit a claim

Well, not quite.

 

The -dubious, IMO- argument they use is that the defendant, by his allegedly dishonest actions, has forced the company to employ RLP and therefore has had to incur additional costs it wouldn't have if this world was made of only honest people. Therefore, they apportion a part of those costs to the person they are pursuing.

 

The problem for them is that they can not disclose how much one person's breach has actually caused. Should a serial shoplifter of designer gear and someone who accidentally walks off with a bottle of water be apportioned the same amount in CCTV use, monitoring, security guard etc? What if a dishonest employee is tracked for 6 months for his dodgy dealing compared to someone who on impulse rips off one of 2 tags on reduced goods so they pay the cheaper price? RLP won't (and I suspect can't) account how much each breach is costing individually, and whilst a certain leeway can and must be allowed in estimating those costs, it seems their methodology relies more on the draw-a-number-out-of-the-hat than a painstaking accounting system.

 

And what of people who get stopped or investigated, but have actually done nothing wrong? We have more than one example on this forum of people who were unjustly accused and yet were still sent bills...

 

Either way, I suspect that RLP's practices may be about to get more exposure than they ever wanted.

[JonCris]

Can anyone get a list of their clients who we can then threaten to boycott if they continue to use them

[noomill060]

There was a list of there clients, proudly displayed on their website

[Bookworm]

Can anyone get a list of their clients who we can then threaten to boycott if they continue to use them

There you go, JC. Not just a pretty face, me.

[JonCris]

Great BW

 

I'm more than happy to prepare a letter/email which can be distributed to each of their clients by CAG if poss. Telling them, without being libellous, of our disgust that they use this unlicensed company & that if they continue we will organise a country-wide boycott of their establishments unless they cease forthwith.

 

It will also include a caution that should they continue & it's found that adverse or false damaging data has been recorded &/or processed by this company, their agents, they will be held equally liable for the defamation caused

Edited March 3, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

Forget to mention ...............with a copy to the press:D

[noomill060]

even better

[JonCris]

MODS can we please put all victims into a single thread so we can mount a concerted effort to get these bums

[Bookworm]

I think a single thread would be confusing JC, but I had suggested a RLP sub-forum a couple of weeks ago, I'll try to bump this up. ;-)

[JonCris]

I agree BW I was thinking of a sub forum but one dedicated to mounting a campaign. Also will need the sites consent to use the CAG name & possibly the Logo

 

Will of course seek prior approval of CAG before any corre etc is used

[Bookworm]

Well, I have e-mailed da bosses, hopefully that will get things moving over the next few days. ;-)

[midnightminky]

hi guys! i am in the middle of something with rlp at the moment/just wanted to thank all you lot for all the hard work you are doing exposing these nasty b*****ds! kep up the good work!

[Bookworm]

New sub-forum sorted. Thanks to BF, and let's remember to keep it clean, people! (or at least non-libellous! )

[noomill060]

Politeness at all times.

 

Iron fist in velvet glove, (or as the 19th century Indian Maharajas refered to British diplomacy, justice and colonial policy)-

 

"The sugar knife" - gentlemanly, but lethal.