RLP and Wilkinsons stores ...another case.. advice

[busterthedog2010]

Hi guys

 

Just received a lengthy reply letter from RLP, after i had sent them an initial letter denying any liability on behalf of my daughter. i will include the letter body in this post ...its very long ..the upshot of which is that they are apparently not regulated by any official body, do not have to comply with any OFT guidelines, consumer acts or FSA guidelines... any ideas on how i should now proceed or answer this letter would be great.....one last thing...at the end of the letter they assure me that in no way would my credit files be affected by them holding information but in the initial letter that was one of the threats made...weird....

 

this is the letter received from RLP

 

We refer to a letter we have received from your mother on your behalf.

Please note that as you have not provided your written authority for us to correspond with your

mother, we are not permitted to respond to her, as to do so would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA").

We are happy to correspond with your mother, if you provide your written consent. You may wish to show this letter to her. —

In response to the comments made in your mother’s letter, we advise that we are not a “debt recovery agency". We act on behalf of Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited in actions for civil recovery matters. We pursue claims for damages which arise out of wrongful acts having been committed on our clients` premises. As we have no dealings with consumers, the various pieces of consumer protection legislation, to which your mother refers are irrelevant to our business activities and practices and she is therefore misguided.

 

As consumer law is irrelevant to us, we are not subject to the Consumer Credit Act or the

Consumer Credit Act Licensing Regime, or the Office of Fair Trading. _

Regarding your mother’s comment that our correspondence was inaccurate and misleading, please be

advised that we took instructions from our client on 1** ****** 2010. We were instructed that on 2**** 2010 you were apprehended after you left our client’s store in Trowbridge, after having

selected and concealed 2 packets of hair dye, to the value of £8.44, and left the store without making

payment, and after having passed all payment points.

In these circumstances, your actions gave rise to a civil claim for compensation for the losses which arose as a result of your wrongdoing.

The store opted not to report you to the Police because you had ID, the value of the items was

relatively low and you were calm and compliant upon apprehension.

The fact that the Police were not called is not relevant to the civil claim. These proceedings are

entirely separate from any criminal prosecution. Criminal proceedings are taken to convict, punish

and rehabilitate. Civil proceedings are issued in order to compensate for losses.

Several members of our client’s personnel were diverted from the usual business in dealing with your

observation, apprehension and post apprehension work. Several hours in total was expended between

them, We hope that you will appreciate that whilst security personnel are engaged dealing with such

issues, they are not able to carry out their primary duty, acting as a deterrent to crime on the shop

floor. Similarly, which the management and administrate staff are engaged in these matters, they are

not able to continue with their employment duties which are profit making for our client’s business.

such losses are recoverable as compensation known as damages, in a claim in what is called a “tort”.

It is noted that you allege the goods were recovered and fit for resale. You will note however that our

client is not seeking to recover the value of the goods. Our client’s claim is for a contribution towards

its losses. whilst our client’s staff were diverted for several hours, due to the value of the goods you

attempted to steal, considering your age, and considering the fact that this is the first incident of this

type you were involved, our client took a view on proportionality and has opted to seek a low level

contribution towards its losses. This is permitted in law. Our client is not permitted to seek to recover

in excess of its losses, and the law provides for a Claimant to be compensated, to put it in the position

it would have been in, had the wrongdoing not been committed.

Your mother’s threats to report this matter to the FSA and the OFT are irrelevant as we are not

regulated by these bodies. With regard to data protection issues, please note the Information

Commissioner has advised that if an individual has an issue with data protection, they must first

contact us directly.

With regard to court action, you have no cause of action against us nor our client. Perhaps your

mother could explain what is meant by this threat.

With regards to your mother’s comments about the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 and the

Malicious Communications Act 1988, none of these are relevant.

“Harassment” is defined in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It is where a person whose course of

conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against, if he knows or

ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

The person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that

violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same

information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

References to harassing a person can include causing alarm or distress. Neither this company nor our client

has any intention of causing you alarm or distress.

In any event, there cannot be harassment where conduct is pursued for the purpose of preventing or

detecting crime, under any enactment of law or to comply with the law, or where it is reasonable for the

protection of another’s property.

Our client is entitled to take all reasonable steps in order to protect its legitimate business interests and to

deter crime such as theft and fraud at it stores. By writing to a Defendant notifying them of a claim, and

seeking to pursue it in the absence of a Defence cannot amount to harassment.

With regard to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is an offence to send a letter where it conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; a threat; or information which is false and known to be false.

None of this applies. No offence is committed where the correspondence is an attempt to demand

something which it has reasonable grounds of making. ln these circumstances, given the instructions we

received from our client, our correspondence was entirely appropriate.

Together with the correspondence you received, you also received guidance as to what to do if you disputed

the allegation of wrongdoing. You did not notify us any information which may amount to a Defence.

Your mother`s letter does not disclose any information which may amount to a Defence either. The matter will therefore proceed, unless you advise us of a Defence, in which case, we will consider it, and respond to you.

The Civil Procedure Rules l998 and the Pre—Action Protocol provide that you must advise us if you feel you have a Defence.

We now refer to the position regarding the DPA, and your request to cease processing data. We advise that we process data in strict accordance with the DPA. The DPA provides for data to be passed in certain circumstances, which include for the prevention and detection of crime, pursuant to Section 29 DPA, and for the purpose of court proceedings, pursuant to Section 35 DPA.

Please note however, what whilst this matter is in dispute, your data cannot be processed and passed to a third party. Please be assured that your information is held here in strict accordance with the DPA and has not been passed to any third party, and will not be passed to any third party, whilst the matter is disputed.

Our system is secure and in any event, shows that the matter is in dispute.

There is no question of your credit files being adversely affected by us holding this information.

We hope that We have clarified matters sufficiently for you. Please advise if you require any further

clarification. In the meantime, we await hearing from you further, as to why you feel you have a Defence

to this matter. We can then take further instructions regarding the incident.

Yours sincerely

Legal Department

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

[JonCris]

Are you a minor if so RLP are talking nonsense they MUST communicate directly with your parent or guardian not you AND despite what they claim, by demanding unsolicited payments they are pseudo debt collectors

[busterthedog2010]

a quick addendum to the above post .....

 

The letter that i initially sent off to RLP is on my external HDD but that has just failled so i will post it onto here as soon as i can get the data recovered....but basically stated that

My daughter was a minor

the offence had not resulted in a prosecution/caution or involvement with the police so was therefore legally an alleged offence.

the goods had been recovered

and that further correspondence would be construed as harrassement and would result in details being forwarded to OFT, office of fair trading etc...

[JonCris]

Have PM'd you

[busterthedog2010]

Cheers Joncris for the reply

 

At the time of the offence my daughter was a minor.... but she turned 18 in June

 

Crazy things is with the initial letter to RLP we sent my daughters written permission for us to deal on her behalf.....

 

How should i reply .....to this letter...any pointers would be good....

 

Interesting article in lawyers gazette link below

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-warns-lawyers-acting-civil-recovery-claims-against-shoplifters

 

also found another one in another legal mag which was a little pro RLP but still concluded that they dont have a leg to stand on

 

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/2701

[JonCris]

The Standpoint post 'assumes' mistakenly that those accused are actually guilty of a crime when we now know that not to be true by any means

[Nufclesley]

Hi,i was wondering if anyone could help me, my daughter was caught shoplifting in Wilkonsons, she was taken by police and referred to Sunderland Youth offending team, as to a charge by the police at the time. The idea was to see why she did it and if there was to be any other actioned required. i thought that this was a gd idea so we went to the triage meeting, she was asked why she did it and asked if she would write a letter of apology she did that and was told that was it no further action was to be taken. this morning though she herself recieved a letter from RLP, on behalf of wilkonsons saying that they wanted £137.50 off her but then said if she paid within 21 days they would accept £110.00, could anybody give any advice on what to do and if this company is legite as she is only 16.

 

thanks

[JonCris]

Hi,i was wondering if anyone could help me, my daughter was caught shoplifting in Wilkonsons, she was taken by police and referred to Sunderland Youth offending team, as to a charge by the police at the time. The idea was to see why she did it and if there was to be any other actioned required. i thought that this was a gd idea so we went to the triage meeting, she was asked why she did it and asked if she would write a letter of apology she did that and was told that was it no further action was to be taken. this morning though she herself recieved a letter from RLP, on behalf of wilkonsons saying that they wanted £137.50 off her but then said if she paid within 21 days they would accept £110.00, could anybody give any advice on what to do and if this company is legite as she is only 16.

 

thanks

 

As she's still a minor she can't enter into a contract so even if you or she did pay you could sue to have repaid plus % Also as a minor they cannot place her name on their website of "people who have been involved' in civil recovery" nudge, nudge, wink, wink no what I mean eh! eh!

[Zamzara]

Jon, where are these laws about different rules for minors coming from? You've made several claims I'm unfamiliar with. Minors are generally liable for damages in tort; it's a question of being worth suing.

[postggj]

I cant believe these cretins are saying they do not have to abide by any form of regulation

 

no cause of action to take them to court

 

try cputr for a start

 

consumer protection from unfair trading regulation

[JonCris]

Jon, where are these laws about different rules for minors coming from? You've made several claims I'm unfamiliar with. Minors are generally liable for damages in tort; it's a question of being worth suing.

 

Minors CANNOT enter into a contract which is what the requirement for payment is AND for there to be a liability in tort (not assured) there HAS to be actual damage AND they have to have been under the control of a parent or guardian at the time.

 

I have no doubt that the likes of RLP will have to answer for their claims in open court. Also the protocols as defined by the architect of civil recovery Professor Bamfield specifically excludes, amongst others, minors Civil Recovery is meant to be used against recidivists not kids testing mousse in Boots. Disgracefully some retailers now see CR as a profit stream & until your caught would you know what a small sign stating "we operate civil recovery" means IOf as they claim its meant to deter shoplifting why aren't they shouting it from the roof tops instead of trying to keep it under wraps go on have a guess?

[Zamzara]

I agree with your wider point, but I don;t see how contracts come into it, nor am I familiar with the rule that minors are only liable in tort if their parents are present. What is the basis for this? Or the claim in post #2 that RLP cannot contact the minor directly?

[JonCris]

Even the police MUST contact the parent or guardian where a minor is involved to suggest they can lawfully threaten a minor is ridiculousness & could lead to serious FORESEEABLE consequences

[JonCris]

CR firms claim they have no choice & quote the DPA as the reason this is nonsense The ONLY priviledge that exists between a minor & 3rd party is that between their medical adviser