Son sacked and now has RLP

[WhiteTigger]

I have just found out that my son was sacked from his job at Tesco for employee theft.... this was around 1 month ago.

 

He advised me that he admitted the theft to the manager of around £200 worth of goods, which he told me they agreed with. The police didn't attend although he said he think they were informed and he has not had a visit from them. Not sure why he was not charged ....

 

 

He has now recieved a letter from RLP demanding £1600 (£1200 for the goods and the rest costs). What should he do? Obviously the £1200 is wrong but does he dispute this or should he just pay it? If he doesn't pay it will Tesco then call the police on him....

 

I'm so worried and I just don't know what to advise him

Edited February 27, 2011 by WhiteTigger

[2Grumpy]

I would suggest that anything that happens is between your son & Tesco and that RLP has nothing to do with it

 

They might be using RLP because employment law is a bit of a minefield. Paying RLP might make that easier for them.

 

Although they sacked him, he would still be entitled to his pay up until then, plus any accrued holiday pay.

 

Presumably several weeks have elapsed already. There will be many more by the time RLP realise that he isn't paying. I think that by then it will be too late for Tesco to take any action.

 

If they did do, when asked why they didn't do that earlier, was it anything to do with the £1400 they were blackmailing him with otherwise they would call the police, what could they possibly answer? I doubt very much that Tesco would put themselves in that position.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for your reply 2Grummy....

 

So if we just ignore the letters what is likely to happen?

[2Grumpy]

Have a look through the threads

 

sometimes they say they will go to court

 

other times they give the amount to debt collectors

 

some of their letters do look scary ... but RLP don't have anything to do with whar has happened

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks 2Grumpy ....

 

Tesco did pay him up to the date they sacked him and paid any holiday pay he accrued.

 

They never offered him the chance to pay them what he owed him. He has also informed me that they tried to say he was responsible for money going missing days he didn't even work so I am wondering if they are trying to get him to pay for this as well as what he actually does owe.

 

Having read the threads on here I am inclined to advise him to just ignore the letters and see what happens.

 

Am I right in thinking that the worst that will happen is that they would take him to court or pass the debt on to debt collectors? Can they contact the police if he doesn't pay?

[2Grumpy]

Tesco would have to prove the case if it went to court. They would already have contacted the police if they could prove it in court.

 

The level of proof is much lower for an RLP invoice (they don't care what they ask for and have no proof)

 

It is too late for Tesco to do anything now anyway. If they were to go to the police, now, they would be asked why they had waited so long. The same question would then get asked in court. They wouldn't want to give the answer - we wanted to give the defendant the opportunity to pay us via civil recovery, plus an element of profit - and the get asked if that was really blackmail that you didn't give in to so they finally called the police.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for all your advice 2Grummy

 

From what you have told me and from what I have read on this forum, I have decided to advise my son to ignore RLP's letters and see what happens from there.

 

My main concern was that he could end up with a criminal record for not paying it but it seems from the info you have given me that if he was going to be prosicuted it would have been at the time he was called in to the office and sacked.

[brassnecked]

Thanks for all your advice 2Grummy

 

From what you have told me and from what I have read on this forum, I have decided to advise my son to ignore RLP's letters and see what happens from there.

 

My main concern was that he could end up with a criminal record for not paying it but it seems from the info you have given me that if he was going to be prosicuted it would have been at the time he was called in to the office and sacked.

 

The only way he could get a criminal record would be if he accepted a police caution or was fined in court, RLP make a big noise about their Dishonesty Database, but that may at some stage be challenged. it is significant that the only cases they have won are ones that were undefended.

[WhiteTigger]

it is significant that the only cases they have won are ones that were undefended.

 

So have they actually taken some people to court and won?

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP have taken a few cases to court, mostly when they first started (and only sought to claim from people who'd been convicted by courts), and/or default judgments.

 

The CAB's reports exposed RLP's threats of court action to be no more than threats designed to scare people into paying their speculative invoices and to enhance their marketing.

 

It has been suggested that they may try to take some cases to court to try to repair some of the damage to their rather fragile credibility, but we have not seen any evidence of this.

 

Remember that RLP is nothing whatever to do with preventing crime or arranging restitution - it's a company that exists to make money by sending speculative invoices. If Tesco wanted to seek restitution from your son they would do so through the legal channels available to them - either by involving the police or by seeking damages through a legitimate law firm who would charge them considerably less than RLP's cut of any money received.

 

We do not know why Tesco chose not to take any further action - they may have taken a commercial decision not to proceed.

 

As far as RLP are concerned, I'd advise you to read the CAB reports (stickied in this forum); they contain everything you need to know about dealing with RLP.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks so much for your reply ScarletPimpernel, I will go and read the CAB Report!

 

 

Thanks for your help

[WhiteTigger]

My son has now recieved 2nd letter dated 17th May, offering installments.

[kwaks]

So already RLP are backing off in effect, pay this now, followed by pay a bit at a time....

[WhiteTigger]

So already RLP are backing off in effect, pay this now, followed by pay a bit at a time....

 

 

I was hoping you were right kwaks. But unfortunally it doesn't look like they are.

 

My son has now recieved another letter advising that' their client is determined to make full use of the civil law including Court action if neccessary'

 

Not sure what to do now!

 

Should we continue ignoring the letters and hope they go away or contact them?

 

Any advise is welcome!

[Huff&Puff]

Keep on ignoring. If they really could win in court they would have started proceedings by now, instead of endlessly threatening that they will.

[WhiteTigger]

Keep on ignoring. If they really could win in court they would have started proceedings by now, instead of endlessly threatening that they will.

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply Huff&Puff.

 

So you think the best course of action is just to continue ignoring the letters and then hopefully they will eventually go away.

[dx100uk]

you'll get the big red scary letters one soon

 

then the one from graham white [or whatever 'fake' solicitor they use]

thats just the guy sitting at the next desk with a diff skirt on

 

dx

[WhiteTigger]

you'll get the big red scary letters one soon

 

then the one from graham white [or whatever 'fake' solicitor they use]

thats just the guy sitting at the next desk with a diff skirt on

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

Do you recommend to just ignore these when they com, as well, dx?

[dx100uk]

oh yes

 

nothing to worry about at all

 

dx

[WhiteTigger]

Well the next letter has arrived and states

 

'Your failure to respond is a breach of the Practice Direction realation to the Pre Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The purpose of the Practice Direction is to encourage negotionation adn settleement of claims, with the requirement to issue cort proceedings against you' 'In the absence of a Defence, it s not in your interest to allow the matter to be issued as to do so will increase your liability due to addiotional Court fees, legal costs and interest to be applied at the rate of 8% per annum. Your are again urged to sek some independent legal advice'

 

It then goes on to with the details on how to settle with them and offers installements.

 

This letter and the previous one states (but the 1st two didn't) that the 'incident' happened in on 5th Feb 2011 which is totally wrong as my son had left Tesco employment sometime in January and was out of the country on that date .....

[havinastella]

More rubbish!

[Sidewinder]

Although I do not wish to worry the OP unduly, and as much as it goes against my usual stance of deny then ignore as far as RLP are concerned, I fear that a little note of caution needs to be raised.

 

This is a case of employee theft, rather than customer theft/interference with goods, and there is a significant difference. RLP and other Civil Recover companies businesses are based on the legal right to recover actual damages caused by an 'act of wrongdoing'. Where their claim normally falls down, is that either the 'wrongdoing' never occurred, or that it caused no actual loss to the store concerned. They claim a fixed fee as a 'proportion' of costs incurred as a fixed fee with no breakdown, however to succeed in Court the loss must be shown to be solely as a result of the act concerned. Where security guards are on duty anyway, store management have not been called in especially to deal with the case and any other costs mentioned were not solely due to the individual's actions, then this cannot be proven. The accused can therefore reasonably deny any liability, and ignore further correspondence up to a summons, in the unlikely event that one should be forthcoming - and would be on even safer ground when there was no actual theft, and where the police were either not involved or took no action.

 

With an admitted employee theft, things are slightly different as IN THEORY, the employer could reasonably demonstrate that certain costs (management time, security surveillance, interviews, disciplinary hearings, appeals - and the cost of unrecovered items admitted to have been stolen), were incurred SOLELY as a consequence of the employee's actions, and MIGHT then stand a greater chance of a successful action in Court. Whilst the CAB 'Uncivil Recovery' report casts doubt on the legal authority stated by Civil Recovery companies to pursue demands through legal action and their seeming unwillingness to actually follow through action in CONTESTED cases, it does also imply that around two thirds of the Court claims lodged involved employee theft, and that much larger sums were involved - meaning that the likely rewards in the event of successful litigation were more worth fighting for.

 

I am by no means implying that you should cave in to the pressure and pay up, but please take professional legal advice, and/or speak to CAB for an opinion in the light of their published reports into Civil Recovery claims. Although it is true that the vast majority of claims are not pursued to the extent of Court action, the fact is that SOME cases - predominately involving employee theft are, and we would not be serving you properly to simply say that ignoring everything will ALWAYS be the right course of action. You need a defence to the threat of action, and this is more difficult (although I daresay not impossible) where your son has admitted theft in front of witnesses.

 

Police action is almost certainly impossible at this stage due to the passage of time and the consequent likely lack of evidence after such an extended period, so I think you can rest easy about that, but you would probably be well advised to try and work on disproving the claim made by RLP on the basis that no loss was incurred, or at least demanding a proper breakdown under the same protocols that they are seeking to obtain information from you.

[2Grumpy]

But can RLP take him to court? From some of the other threads that say that a DCA can't take a debtor to court because they are named in the original contract, can RLP unless they are specifically named in his employment contract

 

So should the OP's son write to RLP along the lines of

Further to your demands for payment and request for information re pre-action protocols, I am still unaware of what you are demanding money for.

 

Please provide a full breakdown of all if the costs that you are claiming. This should also contain dates, times, details, amounts and the actual losses incurred of whatever incident(s) you claim took place.

 

(I tried to word it so that it doesn't mention the type of incident in case they try to take that as an admission of guilt)

 

I have seen that RLP have a range of charges depending on the amount of the loss. Has this been inflated so that they can claim more?

[brassnecked]

Ignore but prepare a letter stating that as the incident took place according to their letters on 5th Feb, and he was actually not working for Tesco, at that time, and was out of the country, you consider the matter closed, any further correspondence and demands may constitute harrassment, others may be able to help further

[andydd]

Well the next letter has arrived and states

 

'Your failure to respond is a breach of the Practice Direction realation to the Pre Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The purpose of the Practice Direction is to encourage negotionation adn settleement of claims, with the requirement to issue cort proceedings against you' 'In the absence of a Defence, it s not in your interest to allow the matter to be issued as to do so will increase your liability due to addiotional Court fees, legal costs and interest to be applied at the rate of 8% per annum. Your are again urged to sek some independent legal advice'

 

It then goes on to with the details on how to settle with them and offers installements.

 

This letter and the previous one states (but the 1st two didn't) that the 'incident' happened in on 5th Feb 2011 which is totally wrong as my son had left Tesco employment sometime in January and was out of the country on that date .....

 

They really are twisting the CPR and PD rules, the rules are there to (if at all possible) to encourage people to settle their disputes outside of court, but RLP appear to be using them to imply that if you dont respond (or in some cases if you dont respoind and pay up) that you will somehow be found more liable if (and its a very big IF) the case went to court, even if it did get that far, it is very unlikley that a judge would read anything into a failure to respond and the costs would be rather limited as its a small claim anyway, limited to court fees and 8% interest at most, but as everyone is aware, RLP have no intention of going to court, if they did then a simple NBA is all they shoulkd send, not endless threatening letters, noit sure if its been suggested above, but all you really need to do is reply with a simple emial letter and inform them that any further (legally misleading) letters may be deemed as harrasment.

 

Andy