TKMaxx civil recovery notice

[Billybumpkins]

oh dear a "T***L" rearing above the counter top

 

they are doing it for profit and [causing problems] people via a legal loophole , because the public does not know the law,

 

RLP are no better than the person swapping the labels praying on people and [causing problems] money out of them

 

 

Hi Kiptower,

What is a T***L exactly and why are you using this term against me?

[raydetinu]

Billybump, they are not sueing at this stage sending an invoice/bill! if they do take it to court the judge can only agree the amount claimed not add any extra , if he finds the case prooved, which is far from certain.

[labrat]

billybumpkins, i note that every one of the posts youve made simply protests that retail loss is doing nothing wrong.

 

please take the time to justify future statments rather that just stating items

[Zamzara]

Don't be thinking that a company such as RLP are doing this for a laugh, I have seen them take some people to court and force them to sell their home to settle an outstanding bill from a crime. I would settle for a measily £150 against a day in court and appearing in the local rag.

 

Care to share some evidence of this? I have it on rather good authority that they haven't taken anyone to court since 1993, and that was a career thief.

[mightymouse_69]

This is not a private fine. It is a victim...the store, sueing a criminal for their losses. OK, i agree the store did have all the goods back, however, the suit is to cover losses of time for personnel or security staff to process this wrong doing.

 

The criminal, and let us be in no doubt, a crime was commited, was lucky that the police were not involved and should pay the costs as requested. Should this matter be taken to court, the amount ordered by a judge, could very easily be more than this particular settlement.

 

Don't be thinking that a company such as RLP are doing this for a laugh, I have seen them take some people to court and force them to sell their home to settle an outstanding bill from a crime. I would settle for a measily £150 against a day in court and appearing in the local rag.

 

The OP is no more of a criminal than you or I. She was not convicted, she was not even arrested.

 

What happened to the days when, if a 'crime' was committed, the aggrieved party would seek justice through the criminal courts... rather than making handsome profits through threatening letters and civil action?

[kiptower]

RLP wont go to court, because their claim could be challenged as "betterment" e.g., making a profit by what they are claiming, and they know the Courts would never allow them to fleece the accused with their exaggerated costs.

[Button1]

..

Edited March 29, 2010 by Button1

[shanty]

This "Bullybumpkins" creation,seems like a caricature of a person,its almost like someone has created this poster to have someone to win an argument with;).What do you have to say on that subject billybumpkins?

[Billybumpkins]

Care to share some evidence of this? I have it on rather good authority that they haven't taken anyone to court since 1993, and that was a career thief.

 

 

Yes, I can share, and have your authority shot.

 

One of my checkout operators was passing cheques which she knew would bounce. Total loss to me was £485. CR was issued for £605 the excess to cover costs and charges. She paid one installment and then defaulted. They went through the letter process and then to county court. The judge found in my favour and also added a further £175 costs which went on to her CR bill. November 2003.

[Billybumpkins]

This "Bullybumpkins" creation,seems like a caricature of a person,its almost like someone has created this poster to have someone to win an argument with;).What do you have to say on that subject billybumpkins?

 

 

I am no ones creation except that of my mother. I am an honest person who has a lot of experience in this field. I have picked no fights or arguements on here, just stating what I believe to be fact. I am not here to upset anyone, that is why I got married

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

We are always going to have trolls, but why oh why do we always the ones whose answers/comments clearly indicate they are TAPS

T = Dense

A = Like

P = Porcine

S = Ecreta

I've changes the words as Children and Trolls might read them.

 

andy

[shanty]

You have clearly not read all the threads yet.Mr bumpkins,if you read them,then come back.

[Billybumpkins]

The OP is no more of a criminal than you or I. She was not convicted, she was not even arrested.

 

What happened to the days when, if a 'crime' was committed, the aggrieved party would seek justice through the criminal courts... rather than making handsome profits through threatening letters and civil action?

 

 

What happened was in 2002 there were 900,000 incidents of retail theft report. The police attended 58000 of them and as a result 1700 received a custodial sentence. In only 11 cases was there any order made to compensate the retailer. Retail pay a lot of money to protect their goods and staff in this country. Why should they have to? So, in order to keep those costs more under control and to try to put an end to passing these costs on to you, the customer, the decision was to try to get compensation through the civil courts as there was nothing forthcoming through the criminal courts.

[shanty]

I am no ones creation except that of my mother. I am an honest person who has a lot of experience in this field. I have picked no fights or arguements on here, just stating what I believe to be fact. I am not here to upset anyone, that is why I got married

 

I am sure a retail manager would have experience of retail, tills etc.., perhaps you need to check your facts with your "profit protection manager",whatever that is.Could you do that?

Edited October 18, 2009 by shanty

[Billybumpkins]

Care to share some evidence of this? I have it on rather good authority that they haven't taken anyone to court since 1993, and that was a career thief.

 

 

 

RLP as a company did not begin trading until 1998. Zamara, I am really keen to see what the outcome is from the chat with your good authority is on that one.

[Billybumpkins]

I am sure a retail manager would have experience of retail, tills etc.., perhaps you need to check your facts with your "profit protection manager",whatever that is.Could you do that?

 

 

Hi Shanty,

I will most certainly have a chat with her. Would you like to list what facts I have got wrong??

[shanty]

Could re-read the threads and reread my posts to you,to find that answer?

Edited October 18, 2009 by shanty

[Billybumpkins]

awww, why did you take out the goodbye Mr Bumpkins? It was sweet.

 

Better things to do with my time.

[shanty]

Pleased to hear it.

[pedross]

Care to share some evidence of this? I have it on rather good authority that they haven't taken anyone to court since 1993, and that was a career thief.

 

What is a career thief?

 

Don't tell me someone who steals for a living. I don't believe what I am reading on this thread. However, I will not say stealing is wrong because I don't need the abuse.

 

I don't know anything about RLP or whatever but the thing I do not understand is when someone steals something how people can say the ones who caught them are just as bad. They would not be there in the first place if everyone was honest and trustworthy.

 

As for employers knowing if someone is a thief before employing them surely that makes sense. Why would you want to employ someone who might steal from you. I tried it once and gave the lad a chance as I thought my honesty would help him mend his ways - guess what, he stole from me.

[shanty]

What is a career thief?

 

Don't tell me someone who steals for a living. I don't believe what I am reading on this thread. However, I will not say stealing is wrong because I don't need the abuse.

 

I don't know anything about RLP or whatever but the thing I do not understand is when someone steals something how people can say the ones who caught them are just as bad. They would not be there in the first place if everyone was honest and trustworthy.

 

As for employers knowing if someone is a thief before employing them surely that makes sense. Why would you want to employ someone who might steal from you. I tried it once and gave the lad a chance as I thought my honesty would help him mend his ways - guess what, he stole from me.

 

A rare flash on common sense on this board!!Don't expect direct answers to any of your question though.They don't do balanced arguing here.

[Button1]

..

Edited March 29, 2010 by Button1

[Button1]

..

Edited March 29, 2010 by Button1

[mightymouse_69]

The idea that RLP seem to use the civil courts to punish people is questionable at best.

 

There have been many cases on here where the person (by mistake or on purpose) takes an item without paying for it and is caught doing so. This item is then returned to the shop once they have been caught.

 

Then, a company will chase them up demanding massive amounts of money when the actual loss to the shop is next to nothing.

 

The shop may argue that the cost of the 'investigation' needs to be recovered. But i don't see how when security gauds would have been patrolling the store anyway.

 

RLP also employs some questionable tactics - threatening letters for example. In one recent case we have seen on here, once a person was cleared of any wrongdoing, RLP said they would be keeping that persons details on record!!

 

Just a bunch of crooks.

[shanty]

Button-you are trying to draw me into an argument,unsucessfully.

I deplore RLPs tactics,as well you know.

And I told Pedross he/would not get a straight answer.

Pedross asked how the person who catches the alleged miscreant is somehow to blame.

Now button in your case your treatment was not acceptable,but other cases it has just been someone doing their job.It is RLP who have to brought to account in EVERY case.The security staff in some cases. thats the balanced view.

Edited October 18, 2009 by shanty