Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to clear it up, sorry I don't make sense sometimes. I have paid £4000 £1200 of that was suppose to clear the £1200 debt.   Meaning I have sent a extra £2800 on top of my normal mainternance money.   Thank you
    • Try CPR 31.15 Possibly but a party is not compelled to disclose any documents pre allocation
    • Hi, I shown my key worker a letter that was sent to me saying that I owe £1200, she setup a standing order around 2021, this was to pay back money I owed, with my mental health status I have had complex issues to deal with and I just simply forgot about this standing order so it has been running for about 3.5 years acording to my key worker, anyway I'm not worried about the money that was sent that I call a overpayment, it went towards supporting my child's household so I am just happy with that, I am a little sad that I am being told I still owe this £1200, I have sent bank statements over 3 years worth but they have not taken away this £1200 bill and still say I owe it   Thank you
    • She did try contacting EON in the early days of the debt but they refused to speak to her because she could not pass the security checks. She didn't know the answers on an account she hadn't opened?   I also saw this article recently which could be what has happended here: Debt collection agencies in the UK are using fair means or foul to link people to an address where an unpaid debt has been run up, sometimes years after they have moved out The Guardian Anna Tims Mon 22 Apr 2024 The letter from the debt collection agency arrived out of the blue, and it was intimidating. It informed Joshua Simpson* that he owed £2,212 to Octopus Energy, and accused him of ignoring previous requests to settle the bill. If he did not stump up within 14 days, he was told, further action would be taken to recover the money. Simpson checked his Octopus account – it was in credit. Then he noticed the address where the debt had been accrued between 2022 and 2023. It was his childhood home – which his family had sold 18 years previously. "Since I was only 16 when we left the property, I was astonished that they'd linked my name [to it]," he says. "The debt collection agency insisted I provide a tenancy agreement to prove how long I've lived at my current address. I couldn't, since we bought our home. "They are now actively pursuing me for this debt, causing me a huge amount of stress. We are about to remortgage, and if this debt prevents us switching to a better deal, we will face real financial hardship." Simpson had been sucked into the shadowy world of "identity tracing", whereby investigators recruited by creditors seek to locate individuals who have moved home without paying their bills. It is an unregulated sector where anyone can set up as an agent in a back room without a licence, or scrutiny, and use fair means or foul to identify debtors. Reputable companies join a trade association that operates a code of practice, but membership is not mandatory, and mistakes are common. Last year, a teenage boy was chased for a debt of more than £900 by debt collectors acting for the energy company Ovo. A "trace agent" had somehow linked him to the debt because his parents had previously rented the property in question. An investigation by the Observer established that the debt had been run up by a subsequent tenant. The consequences of mistaken identity can be catastrophic. Individuals who are erroneously linked to a debt face, at worst, court action, bailiffs and a ruined credit rating. At best, they can endure weeks of stress and paperwork in order to prove they are not the debtor. It is estimated that 20m identity traces are made in the UK every year, many on behalf of companies that are owed money. Personal data is often obtained from credit reference agencies, which record applications for credit, and details are supposed to be verified with several different sources before being used for debt enforcement. In practice, however, this does not always happen. Simpson's details had been passed along a chain of intermediaries before the demand was issued. Octopus had given the unpaid account to a debt collection agent, which had contracted a tracing service, GBG, to find the debtor................ Full Article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/04/a-cry-for-help-energy-providers-play-the-villain-in-dramas-to-chill-the-blood ..............The Financial Ombudsman Service, which investigates complaints about financial firms, states that debt collection agents have to produce convincing evidence to link an individual to a debt, rather than rely on names, addresses and birth dates. According to the trade association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, an unknown number of investigators and trace agents are operating below the radar. Many more are merely inept, as data protection compliance training is not mandatory. "We have been campaigning for many, many years to try to get all private investigators regulated," says secretary general Glyn Evans.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Present Victim of RLP (17 Years Old) - Advice Needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4950 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this thread post is too long! I believe it is worth it though as people have said that it is of use to them to fully understand the case! Also, I do not condone what has been stated below.

 

Hi,

 

I am new to this forum but looking forward to being a more active member as I believe there is a lot of wrong in society nowadays!

 

This thread post relates to myself and I am asking for no-one to judge me for my actions. In the end, everyone makes mistakes in life. Also, this is my very first offence and something that I consider minor too. So, the story is below:

 

Just over a week ago, me and my family decided to pop into TK Maxx to have a look around. We all split our usual ways to just browse around. Now, me and my brothers were just playing around (out of boredom) some games that we usually play in a place like TK Maxx (such as finding the highest priced item in a type of item) as we do as kids/teenagers.

 

Me and one of my brothers came across an item. It was a chain that came attached to a wallet. I didn't notice this but my brother did at first. He decided to take the chain from the wallet. (I'm solely not putting the blame on him.) I promptly did the same. (I am not blaming my younger brother here and accept what I did was wrong!) We then just walked around the store with the chains in our pockets.

 

My brothers then decided to get some elastic bands and leave the store to play another game with them. Now, shortly afterwards, an in-store detective came out and told us to go back in, to the back room.

 

We acted accordingly and they did their job of asking us to present the items we had in possession, got our parent in to the room, get us to admit. (All of this was done properly after researching what these people are allowed to do etc. thanks to this forum.) They did not search us and did not use threatening/aggressive behaviour and so wasn't acting unlawfully. In fact, they were quite authoritative but understood our case. (As closest as I can explain it.) No police were involved as the people gave us the option to admit or get the police involved. (This was considerate of them!)

 

In the end, both of us got a ban, signed a ban notice and we got informed that Civil Recovery would be used. (For other people investigating, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't see any Civil Recovery posters around the store but there was one in the back room that we were shown.) I didn't pay attention to reading it though.

 

Now today, as you may now guess, I have now received an expected letter from the famous company RLP(!)

 

As far as I'm concerned, the letter uses the standardised template that others have received as victims. The letter contains the usual text with the costs split up into the usual four categories totalling a "fixed" pricing charge of £137.50 that I believe that many others have received. However, I have the option to pay £110.00 within the first 21 days before the usual further action takes place.

 

As with my deep research, I understand that juveniles cannot be taken to court unless they have a litigation friend appointed. I am also aware that RLP still has a pending Consumer Credit License requested etc. My parents have decided for me to try to negotiate with RLP (which I know isn't going to work with other people's stories) or to take them to court. Also, my brother who also got caught hasn't received one yet (hope he doesn't) as he is only 13. If he does, he will be the youngest to get a RLP letter in the country. (The CAB report states age 14 was the youngest since the report in late 2009.)

 

Other notes are that I'm currently a student at college and not in any form of employment. I am of previous good character with no criminal convictions etc. I had no intention of entering the store to just steal something! I'm also aware of the Data Protection Act but can anyone please advise me further on this, I'd be happy. Plus, I'm currently studying Law as one of my A-Levels and so have a rough view of things. (I now understand that I could have jeopardised the chance of a Law career if I decided to continue Law! I might do though now, thanks to RLP and their greediness!) I have also learnt many things including that taking an item off of a product that is meant to be part of it is considered shoplifting, especially when the security guards/staff can only prove this after waiting for people to leave the store.

 

Now, deciding to take this up on my own (for now), I want your advice! I deeply resent what I have done and will never do it again! I have also decided to be as detailed as possible to make things clear to you guys.

 

The first thing I'm considering is to go to my local Citizens Advice Bureau as soon as possible. What do you guys think?

 

(I also have the banning notice and RLP letter at hand, just in case you guy want to have a look at it upon request.)

 

I hope that my case will guide others in the future, put RLP to shame with their ridiculous, out-of-proportion damages costs and thanks in advance to all. I don't believe that even juveniles like myself who have committed something like this should be pressurised into paying a huge amount of money for something that was so small in terms of costs. I will be fully co-operative.

Edited by AnonymousFighter
Added note

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying. Don't worry, I've been looking around! :)

 

The most common thing people have done is to ignore them. Is this wise?

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way your details WILL go on their database formerly called "The largest data base in the UK of 'dishonest people" to which they later added "some of whom have not been convicted" ... and which they now call a "data base of people who have been 'involved' (my emphasis) in civil recovery":rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about them being the criminals!

 

Isn't that against the Data Protection Act anyway? We should be able to retract our sensitive and personal data from them as they are misusing it for what it was not intended for. Plus, damaging other people's lives! I don't think the Freedom of Information Act that I think they use as their defense should ever cover for any data like this.

 

Anyway, I've agreed with my parents to ignore the letters for now and wait to see what happens. It'll take a long time though! (Fingers crossed the reward will be that they go away...)

 

I will keep regular updates on what happens as much as possible during the process. I just hope that I don't have to end up in court, especially as the police wasn't involved but CCTV evidence is available, if that has any use to them as a defense. I'll obviously ask for help if any action is taken against me.

 

For now, I'd like to thank JonCris for the contribution so far. However, others should still consider some input too! (I'm not closing this thread as I'm hoping that it'll help many others in the future too!)

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UNLESS you act promptly they will state the CCTV is no longer available AND your data will be processed to whoever pays them such as a prospective employer, insurer, lender AND should there be any other adverse (or mistaken) data on another website there's the possibility you could appear on a terrorist data base monitoring unusual behaviour

 

Adverse data never dies it remains in the system virtually for ever

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris, I don't understand what you're saying. I think you're saying that if I keep the case open long enough, the CCTV evidence will not be available? I'm aware that CCTV has to be erased frequently over a period of time but I thought that the security staff would preserve a copy for evidence purposes as well as provide a copy to RLP?

griffzilla, yes I did leave the store. However, it was to play another little game with my brothers as mentioned in the original post. However, I had no intent to think of shoplifting before entering/while in the store. However, I have now learnt my lesson in that even taking anything, even off a product that is of small value is considered shoplifting. I know this is something that I'm not going to be able to prove, especially with the CCTV to make me look bad.

 

I just don't understand the fact that the item recovered (a small chain off a wallet), I receive a large amount of damages costs to pay off for the "other admin" that has been involved.

 

If the cost I had to pay was something considerate like £35.00, then I might consider paying. However, what drives me up the wall is that I know I have received a fixed cost of £137.50 to pay off for something so little and isn't even justified with a cut down of the costs. This sounds like a opportunist [problem] to make money.

 

Also, I now believe that people like me who didn't know of the consequences need to be educated into what happens when caught shoplifting, especially with things like our own rights, the security staff's role and what they can do etc. like in Law with the topic Police Powers that I have come across. Importantly, I believe that Civil Reovery should be maintained and governed by law so that it can not be used to exploit people! So what I'm saying is to raise awareness on Civil Recovery and make companies like RLP look bad. (Maybe that is something that I should campaign for?)

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris, I was only making sure that was what you said. Thank you. :)

 

Also, it's very nice that you are helping me. Just one question, were you a victim of RLP yourself and that's what caused you to help others here on the forum? People like you deserve some kind of gratitude and reward! ;)

 

I'm currently thinking of what to do against RLP instead of the actions that I did to cause all this at the moment. Any further advice from everyone else will be much appreciated even though, experiencing the process at the moment is killing me...slowly.

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you not getting many posts is because those that are disputing the actions of firms like RLP are not posting. They know that such firms read this & other forums & they don't want to expose their strategy to the oppositions scrutiny.

 

On each occasion it has been exposed some of these firms have altered even their web site to remove any so called ambiguity. Nevertheless we do expect that one day soon there may be an opportunity to publicize matters

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris, I understand your point. If you want me to and other people as well, to contact privately, feel free to ask and I'll happily oblige to do so.

 

I just hope one day, our fight against this company will do some good.

 

It does raise questions with if any members of staff are currently a member here though... Hope not.

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AnonymousFighter:

 

Something you will no doubt learn in your studies: The definition of appropriation in relation to theft. In effect - you committed the act of theft.

 

Needless to say, proving the mens rea would be difficult.

 

Anyway - Just some useless info for you! :D

 

Good luck in your studies, and your fight against RLP

Link to post
Share on other sites

mightymouse_69, thank you for your support. I don't mind a bit of useless information either. It puts my case as an example that I can relate to in helping my studies (in terms of understanding)!

 

I kind of understand what you are talking about. Luckily, I had a glimpse of Tort and see what that was all about.

 

At my college, I have the choice to either study Tort or Crime in September for A2 Level, luckily I chose Tort as it seems far more interesting! :D

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At my college, I have the choice to either study Tort or Crime in September for A2 Level, luckily I chose Tort as it seems far more interesting! :D

 

I am more of a crime person.

 

Tort will come in useful should you go on to do law at uni - It is often a first year subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update to this thread post in that I reach the end of the 21 day 'offer' this Thursday.

 

I'm having second thoughts on whether or not to pay! One person has suggested that I write to TK Maxx head office with a 'sympathy' letter to explain my current circumstances of not being able to pay. I don't really agree with that.

 

As I research further into this forum, I become more doubtful of not paying due to posts of cases that do not have the outcome of what happened.

 

Just an expression of my current thoughts...

-------------------------------------------------------

An AnonymousFighter Thread Post Reply

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Whether you're guilty of a crime or not, the bigger picture is, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) commits the larger unjustifiable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man up! Stand by your principles and do not let these bullies get to you.

 

Read the CAB report that's stickied in this forum. If you've already read it, read it again. You will see that RLP do not take people to court - so the outcome is that nothing will happen.

 

If you're worried about their Ciresco database, paying/not paying won't make any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

spot on there mate....i have pm d a few experienced folk on here ,1 saying pay,the 2nd as yet to get back to me,it has only been 3 days though;)like you say + i have said on threads..there s no outcome any where on the forum + if people dont pm you with there thought + help in what to expect in makes you think why bother...may as well go it alone:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general rule CAG expects that advice should be given in open forum rather than by pm, which may explain why people haven't got back to you. The exception is where they may be legal action (against a civil recovery company, a retailer or a security company), which for obvious reasons must be kept private.

 

All the information you need on RLP is on the forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often thought that information on this matter should be made available to all members.

 

Either RLP is a con artist who can be easily defeated.... or maybe what we have been led to believe is not true and people being pursued by RLP are on rather dodgy legal ground?!

 

In the parking forum, the advice is to "ignore". I can only gather that RLP is harder to defeat than a PPC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree.

3 weeks without any information.

 

Even just a pm saying, right do this this and this and tell me what happens would be nice.

 

Everything you need to do is on the forums already; why do you need it to be repeated by pm?

 

Most of us will only give advice on the open forum; this is in accordance with CAG rules, and means that the information/advice is there to help many, not just one person. It also means that any inadvertent wrong info can be quickly corrected.

 

Anyway, you are dragging the thread, which is here to help the OP, off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...