Idea: stores that use RLP

[Zamzara]

Idea:– Next time an RLP-associated store commits any 'wrongful act' against you, invoice them for £50-£80 fixed costs for your time in dealing with the matter.

 

Wrongful acts include:

 

• Wrong or misleading pricing
  
• Selling a faulty item (further costs per hour if it is not repaired or replaced within a reasonable time)
  
• Underchanging
  
• Misdescribing an item
  

Now, it could be protested that these are not intentional acts, but RLP claim on their own website that inadvertance is no defence, which to a tort or breach of contract, it indeed isn't!

 

So the question is could a retailer come up with any defence to such a claim, which hasn't already been denied by their own agent?

[MARTIN3030]

They would probably insist that RLP views and statements were not their own and so could not be presented.

 

What we really need to be doing is getting a response from all these retailers in writing.

Up to now they have been slow in responding to questions put to them.

[MARTIN3030]

I do know of one person who was hit with a demand for £137.50 and demanded a breakdown of the so called fees.

They did not respond with it.

He then sent RLP an invoice for £199.50 and a credit note for £137.50.

He heard nothing further from them.

This was in 2009 before this forum was in place.

[Zamzara]

They would probably insist that RLP views and statements were not their own and so could not be presented.

 

Which would be very useful to have on record.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes that was my thinking as if they endorse RLPs practices then they are a party to them.

If they distance themselves from them,then this contradicts RLPs stance.

 

Hence I think the reason that the businesses in the RLP recovery portfolio remain very tight lipped when asked to respond.

[brassnecked]

So when the tag is not disabled/removed at the checkout, and you trigger the alarm, they detain you, whilst you produce the receipt; you bill them for the "Incident" say the same amount as RLP £135 or so for the implied criminality, and the derogatory impact on your character as the vicar/ your children's teacher, or other pillar of the community, saw them question you.

 

If they tried to make me sign anything at the store I would refuse, and ask for the police as production of receipt is proof, and the detention becomes unlawful, this signature is the nub of it because it is the IN for RLP to invoice you. It needs this sort of case where the receipt is in order, goods not miss priced but RLP threaten with dishonesty database if £135 not paid, to create enough public disquiet to sort it.

[MARTIN3030]

You can hear the full report on 5 live Investigates on Sunday, 9 January at 2100 GMT on BBC Radio 5 live.

You can also listen again on the BBC iPlayer or by downloading the 5 live Investigates podcast.

 

 

BBC 5 Live Investigates are the latest to draw attention to these practices.

[ScarletPimpernel]

To RLP

 

Invoice:

 

To advising person accused of shoplifting, but never convicted, how to deal with RLP demands: £137.50

[Zamzara]

Several people on the Radio 5 show made the same suggestion; Jackie utterly flummoxed.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Several people on the Radio 5 show made the same suggestion; Jackie utterly flummoxed.

 

Jackie never misses an opportunity to give the impression that she's not very bright, it seems. Just my opinion, of course.

[MARTIN3030]

Well she gave long pauses as she tried to remember details of the 100s or 1000s of cases over the last 13 years that RLP had taken to Court......we did not even get details of a single 1.

 

Actually I think we could easily organise a whipround for £137.50 in exchange for the elusive list.

[caledfwlch]

Considering that one prime time BBC a store security officer was recorded and broadcast telling a suspect that they were being issued with a "fine" by the store, and clearly insinuating this as a legal thing, I am amazed the guard has not been prosecuted for misrepresenting/masquerading as a court officer.

[Zamzara]

I doubt he would be personally liable for any serious offence, as he would not have the relevant intent. But the store is likely to be guilty of an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, unless they could show that 'fine' was used in its very loose sense, as in a library fine. But my opinion in the context was that it was implied to be at least somewhat official.