Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
    • well ...... 1st you need to go back to post 1 and carefully read ALL this thread from the start again and pay attention to the advice and the undertones it explains about 'debt'.   2nd ...the truth is you owe no-one ANYTHING, the OC wrote off and sold the debt, and got most of it back against tax and business insurance schemes ...throw the morality card out the window...the OC did by selling the debt on for <10p=£1. and the DCa want the full balance ...id so many fools stopped paying powerless DCA's tomorrow, the whole industry would collapse overnight.   3rd the only reason this is still around your neck is because you failed to follow given advice...had you ..it would now be statute barred.      ^^^ very important research the M+S credit card debacle using our enhanced google searchbox on this page   as for the PAPLOC reply,   D.. desipte a previous CCA requests, the claimant has yet to supply any/all of the required paperwork.   i: delete [CC is attached to this reply form]"   
    • Hi again   Yes, it's been a lovely day weather wise.   Guess you've better things to do with weather like today than help with this problem, so thanks very much for your input, it's very much appreciated.   Late this afternoon I did receive a reply from the tenants, and they are asking me to go 50/50 with getting the garden sorted, not only that, as they have moved away they are expecting me to get the quotes.   Regarding you view on this issue, its so easy not to see the whole picture and my thoughts that the staining damp may be of their own doing didn't occur to me as I was so locked into the historical leak. Taking a closer look at the room in question today, I'm convinced that they are trying it on with the stained mattress- they did mail through a picture and then a receipt for supposedly the mattress. My wife and I then took both the pic and receipt to the bedding store where purchase was made to ask if the two married up, the picture does not show any emblems/manufactures logo or such to prove that this is the case, so we are none the wiser- our thoughts being that the stained mattress is from elsewhere.   A few days back I spoke to our letting agent regarding all of this, as was quite correctly mentioned there are two parts to this equation, namely the mattress and then the property.   Our agents mentioned to me that as an inventory was not carried out initially with the let, (hindsight) the pictures that were used to advertise the property could not be used as evidence to present to the TDS to be compared to the pictures now as there is no proof that the advertising pictures were in fact how the property was when the let started. I mentioned that all digital pictures have a means of finding when that pic was taken- Geo tag/Metadata- agent was quite surprised by this. The agents thoughts then went for a hide in a vacuum-   This is going off at a tangent here-many moons ago my wife studied computer science at a local University, one of her classmates who she is still in touch with is now a practising Solicitor. My wife suggested that maybe I give her a call, a bit rude I guess, but I did  phone and with the pleasantries out the way  I asked for her opinion of the best way to get this sorted. Her remit isn't landlord type stuff, however she will speak to a colleague on Monday and come back to me.   The property is due to be relet on the 21st, we will ensure that the new tenants move in to a home that is immaculate and welcoming, trouble is its getting a tadge close to get the garden issues sorted in time.   I know that all this will get closure in the end, but at the moment I've had more fun with a toothpick-   Again, many thanks.
    • The collection is currently stored at curator James Blower's home, but he has now found a space situated in an old bank premises where he hopes to exhibit them from this autumn or early next year. View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3903 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

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

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.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

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.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

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...