Son sacked and now has RLP

[Sidewinder]

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

 

Tesco's employment contracts do refer to the use of Civil recovery in the event of misappropriation, but I don't believe that they are specific in assigning any legal authority in terms of litigation. RLP do not claim that they will take action themselves, but instead state that 'their client is adamant that they will not let the matter go' and that RLP will 'recommend that their client takes legal action to recover the amount', so it would be Tesco that acts as the Plaintiff in a CC claim.

 

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?

 

This is why the main point of any letter of rebuttal is to challenge the level of damages being sought, and that a complete breakdown should be provided and the claim justified. It is not sufficient, nor would it be successful in a defended claim, to just pluck a figure out of thin air. The law does not allow for enrichment, merely for restitution - my cautionary warning was that in a case of admitted employee theft, such damages can often be justified in terms of security and/or management being able to prove that an exhaustive investigation had to be carried out to establish the true extent of theft, over what period and whether others were involved. Those costs IN THEORY may be more easily attributed directly to the individual employee's actions.

 

They really are twisting the CPR and PD rules

 

They are indeed, and this is something else which was noted in the CAB report. Civil Recovery companies use threatening pseudo-legal language designed to intimidate and to form the opinion in the mind of the unwary that something dreadful will happen if you don't pay up. One of the reasons that the Civil Recovery business is so successful is that it relies on shame and embarrassment, reinforced by giving the impression that worse is to come. In challenging the very basis of the claim itself, or at least the extent the legal authority to pursue it, one hopes to stop that process, and as stated by Brassnecked above, Harassment is indeed a very valid point to make. RLP may well be entitled to TRY and get you to pay, but equally you are entitled to challenge their claim, and if the nature of the threats or the frequency of demands become excessive, then there are laws to protect the individual which need to be asserted.

[andydd]

Sidewinder is of course coprrect, in that the companies that have had goods stolen (and probably RLP although that remains to be seen) have every right to recover losses (in exactl;y the same way as you and I do), however their previous actions have shown that they dont really have any intention of proceeding to court, their letters claim to be following CPR/PD rules but as mentioned, all they are doing is trying to threaten the people in question into paying up with psudeo-legal mumbo jumbo that I'm sure if actually went before a judge may come in for some critiscm.

 

The fact that they appear never to have actually gone to court makes their case very weak, and even then, they firstly have to prove guilt, the vast majority of RLP cases do revolve around people accussed of shoplifting but rarely charged and even rarer actually convicted.

 

The best advice would still be write a single letter of denial and see if it every actually gets as far as court, for the small sums involved and as it would be a small claim it simply would not be worth the time and money for RLP to travel the length and breadth of the country pursing small amounts of money, plus the run the very real rosk of losing or having the amount they claim somewhat reduced.

 

Andy

[WhiteTigger]

Thank you all for your replies since my last post...............................Is the general consensious that he should sent a letter of denial to RLP or perhaps a letter requesting a breakdown rather than just ignoring the letters?................ But would it now look strange after ignoring the 1st three letters?.................................I understand that employee theft is different to shoplifting allegations and that he has admitted to this but surely if it was agreed with Tesco that the theft was £200 they should be asking for £200 plus costs not £1200 plus costs. .................Also would the £1600 they are asking for be classed as a 'small claim' .............................Thanks again in advance for all your replies. ....................................WT

Edited June 25, 2011 by WhiteTigger

[2Grumpy]

My understanding of what Sidewinder said is that it would be Tesco & not RLP who would have to take your son to court.

 

For that to happen successfully they will have to show that they have tried to resolve their claim before going to court. I don't think that they could claim using RLP's speculative invoice, providing no detail, then asking what your son's defense would be against an action they can't start would fit the bill.

 

Maybe a single letter to RLP from your son

"I am not aware of any liability of mine to your company"

would make them wind their necks in

[MARTIN3030]

Yes Tesco would be instructing.

Drydens are known to represent quite a few of those registered under the CRS.

Small claims track is up to £5k.

As said previously,there would be an expectation to mitigate loss.

Responding with a denial and asking for a breakdown would not do any harm.

In fact since they are citing the Civil Procedure Rules,you may also advise them that if they do choose to litigate you will be requesting disclosure under CPR yourself.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for your replies 2Grumpy and Martin 3030

 

Yes Tesco would be instructing.

Drydens are known to represent quite a few of those registered under the CRS.

Small claims track is up to £5k.

As said previously,there would be an expectation to mitigate loss.

Responding with a denial and asking for a breakdown would not do any harm.

In fact since they are citing the Civil Procedure Rules,you may also advise them that if they do choose to litigate you will be requesting disclosure under CPR yourself.

 

I feel a little embarrased but I don't quite understand the above ..... what would we be asking for if we requested a disclosure under CPR?

 

 

WT

[2Grumpy]

I deny any liability to yourselves or any company that you represent

Please provide a full breakdown and justification of the amount that you are claiming

 

 

In the event that you do choose to litigate, please be advised that I will be requesting disclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules

Try something like that

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks 2Grumpy ....

 

 

We will try that ...

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks for your replies 2Grumpy and Martin 3030

 

 

 

I feel a little embarrased but I don't quite understand the above ..... what would we be asking for if we requested a disclosure under CPR?

 

 

WT

 

Basically everything they would be seeking to rely on as a cause of action,and you could include asking for a breakdown of the amount being claimed to determine a genuine pre-estimate of any actual loss,or true costs incurred in dealing with recovery pre-litigation.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks Martin3030.....

 

 

Letter sent ... now awaiting reply ....

[WhiteTigger]

Reply now recieved ......

 

In reply to

 

I deny any liability to yourselves or any company that you represent

Please provide a full breakdown and justification of the amount that you are claiming

In the event that you do choose to litigate, please be advised that I will be requesting disclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules

 

 

They have sent :

 

'We have considered all the issues you have raised in your recent correspondence with us in which you have disputed your legal responsibility to pay the sums sought by our client.

 

Regrettably, we are unclear on the exact nature of your dispute and whether it is in full or in part and therefore unable to fully consider your representation at this point. You are required under the Pre-action disclosure and the civil procedure rules to clearly set out the nature and basis of any defence and the information on which you rely on in court'

 

And then go on to give him 4 options ...

 

1. To supply further info

2. Pay in full

3. Make an offer

4. Request claim dealt with my mediation

 

Followed by the 'our client will be entitiled to issue a claim in County Court' etc etc

 

.........................

 

There is no breakdown or justification of the amount they are claiming but they have now changed the date of the incident....and have send a 'Defence to Civil Claim Form' for my son to fill in ......

 

So what to do next ? Any advice welcomed .....

[andydd]

EErr..tell em to bog off. ..................................All the talk of pre-action protocols and CPR is just there to confuse and doesnt really have any relevance untill (or more likely IF), legal action is started.Their talk of "you are required..blah blah" is rubbish, you may be required to file at defence at the court stage but you are not there yet and may never be !It really doesn't matter what you say at this point, they've done their bit by giving you some sort of Notice Before Action and you've denied you owe them anything. Full stop.Just get on with your life, they may or may not start legal action, there is very little you can do at this stage to influence them, your only real decision is whether to pay them now, IF they go to court and win you would of course be liable for the amount and some costs but this are likely to be small``````````````````````````````.Andy

[andydd]

EErr..tell em to bog off. ..................................All the talk of pre-action protocols and CPR is just there to confuse and doesnt really have any relevance untill (or more likely IF), legal action is started.Their talk of "you are required..blah blah" is rubbish, you may be required to file at defence at the court stage but you are not there yet and may never be !It really doesn't matter what you say at this point, they've done their bit by giving you some sort of Notice Before Action and you've denied you owe them anything. Full stop.Just get on with your life, they may or may not start legal action, there is very little you can do at this stage to influence them, your only real decision is whether to pay them now, IF they go to court and win you would of course be liable for the amount and some costs but this are likely to be small``````````````````````````````.Andy

 

Just noticed if you google Defence to Civil Claim form you only find it at www.losspreventation.co.uk, which is of course..what a surpise RLP, it appears they are trying to make a form of their own invention look like some sort of official form. I would never fill in such a form.Have a look at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_pre-action_conduct.htm RLP claim that they are loosely following these guidelines,, now whilst it does say "The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation." in my experience of small claims court there has never been any mention of pre-action activities and I'm not convinced most judges really care...............................................................................................................Also have a look at table 5.2 liosting the various pre-action protocols, I cant see one that would cover theft !............................................................................................................Also look at 6.2 "The parties should act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another. In particular, the costs incurred in complying should be proportionate to the complexity of the matter and any money at stake. The parties must not use this Practice Direction as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage for one party or to generate unnecessary costs.", it appears to me there is plenty of ammo to use against RLP if they want to play the CPR/Practise Direction/Pre-Action Protocol 'game'..............................Andy

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for your replies Andy ....

 

At this stage we have no intention in paying RLP ..... if legal action is taken against my son then we would have to think again.

 

When requested they didn't give him a full breakdown so I think it would be very unwise for him to just pay up ....

[MrShed]

That last letter is ridiculous. I would be inclined to reply something along the times of (obviously not these exact words) - "I would have thought it was quite clear that the entire claim is disputed. As such, I request you disclose full details of the alleged claim you or your client has against me, including details of all individual costs and how they have arisen (i.e. a breakdown). I am unable to rely on any information in court, as you havent provided me any."

 

I would say that I fully echo Sidewinders post above. Although the typical advise to "ignore" is well founded based upon the company doing the chasing, clearly there would in fact be a legitimate civil claim here, so you do need to tread a little more carefully.

 

I hope you firmly slapped your sons wrist btw!

[WhiteTigger]

I did MrShed

 

So you think he should write to RLP again?

 

I was thinking that maybe we should now just ignore anymore letters from them but now not sure that, that would be the right thing to do

[MrShed]

Personally, I feel you should chase them for full disclosure of the details of the alleged claim. If they keep sending you back fob off letters like the above, send the same letter again with the date changed

[WhiteTigger]

Ok, thanks for the advice Mr Shed ....

[dx100uk]

how can they claim there is a 'legal responsibility' to pay the sought

 

upon WHAT law??

 

there is not one!

 

dx

[WhiteTigger]

how can they claim there is a 'legal responsibility' to pay the sought

 

upon WHAT law??

 

there is not one!

 

dx

 

dx

 

Do you agree with MrShed that my son should keep asking them for a full breakdown or just ignore anymore letters from them?

[2Grumpy]

Because of the potential for a possible claim here, I would vote for MrShed's suggestion. If you keep on asking for a full breakdown I think that it will keep them at bay.

 

Don't consider giving them any information

[Sidewinder]

Absolutely agree. They would have to substantiate this at Court if they were to take it that far, and you are entitled to know the basis of any claim in order to decide whether that is a fair reflection of any liability. If they don't provide what you ask for and then send another unsubstantiated threat, then remind them again that they have failed to provide you with what you have asked for.

 

Keep copies of everything including proofs of postage, recorded delivery tracking information etc and keep all of this in a file.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks MrShed, dx100uk, 2Grumpy & Sidewinder for all your advice...

 

I will get him to send the same letter again with the dates changed and make sure he sends it recorded delivery so we have proof they recieved it if they do go to Court...

[2Grumpy]

No real need for recorded - 2nd class with certificate of posting is all that is required ... shows them what you think of their claim too!

[WhiteTigger]

No real need for recorded - 2nd class with certificate of posting is all that is required ... shows them what you think of their claim too!

 

 

Thanks 2Grumpy .....

 

A copy of our 1st letter (with the date changed) sent 2nd class with a certificate of posting obtained.....