Help with RLP

[Myddelton]

Dunno. What does Frogboy think? Was this covered on your A Level Law course, Frogboy?

[Gbarbm]

Dunno. What does Frogboy think? Was this covered on your A Level Law course, Frogboy?

 

LOL! When is the judgement expected?

[silverfox1961]

I see frogboy is looking in ATM. Any Comment?

[2Grumpy]

One thing that I really don't understand is how the recipients of RLP's demands for payments would realise that the demands actually come from A Retailer rather than RLP

[2Grumpy]

Perhaps frogboy is waiting for the fairytale kiss that will turn her into a person

[MARTIN3030]

LOL! When is the judgement expected?

 

The Judge was not specific it could be a week or more.I think he said a week or a little longer.

[andydd]

One thing that I really don't understand is how the recipients of RLP's demands for payments would realise that the demands actually come from A Retailer rather than RLP

 

and are RLP acting as advisor, debt collector, solicitor ?. It really is not clear. You wouldnt normally expect a 'third party' to be in court and be so concerned with the outcome, except in cases where the 'solicitor' was actually involved in not just the legal representation but also in the drumming up of defendants, sending of demands, etc.. Again very similar to ACS Law who in their last court hearing there was confusion as to who was doing what.

 

Andy

[Myddelton]

Frogboy come, Frogboy go. Without a word. Not even a croak.

[MARTIN3030]

I dont actually think that the Judge was aware there was anyone in the Court from RLP.

RLPs name was mentioned firstly when "A retailer" head of security was quizzed on how they arrived at costings figures.

 

There was actually very little mention of RLP throughout the trial.

When it was brought up that RLP themselves are taking 40% cut of monies paid following RLP demands,the Judge said it was up to "A Retailer" who they chose to pay and how much.

[rebel11]

As the saying goes, 'Silence is golden'

 

Frogboy come, Frogboy go. Without a word. Not even a croak.

[ScarletPimpernel]

and are RLP acting as advisor, debt collector, solicitor ?. It really is not clear. You wouldnt normally expect a 'third party' to be in court and be so concerned with the outcome, except in cases where the 'solicitor' was actually involved in not just the legal representation but also in the drumming up of defendants, sending of demands, etc.. Again very similar to ACS Law who in their last court hearing there was confusion as to who was doing what.

 

Andy

 

We know that RLP aren't debt collectors, because it has been clarified by the OFT that they do not need a consumer credit licence - they would need one if they were collecting debts (as opposed to simply inventing them).

 

We know that RLP aren't solicitors, because there are regulations about law firms that they'd need to comply with if they were.

 

I think they like to use the term 'agents', but we know that they aren't secret agents, because their tradecraft is hopelessly amateur, as is their COMSEC and PERSEC.

 

So, ultimately I'm not sure how to describe RLP*.

 

 

*Actually, I am, but I can't write it here.

[andydd]

Well...at least ACS were acting as solicitors although also taking a cut of monies recovered (as opposed to a fee), of course this was their undoing as the SRA got so many complaints they had to act.

 

Although upon reading the RLP site they appear to act like solicitors.

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

Although upon reading the RLP site they appear to act like solicitors.

 

 

Quite, but some legalese in letters, or indeed an in-house solicitor do not a law firm make. In any case, things are often not as they seem where RLP are concerned - as we have seen on this thread.

[Myddelton]

Whilst we wait for Frogboy to enlighten [shurely 'entertain'? Ed.] us with some more insight from her A Level Law course, let's take a look at the seven shoplifting-related RLP cases 'processed for court', as summarised on their website (at http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/court%20cases.aspx).

 

Case 0001 (Huddersfield CC, December 2011). This county court claim was issued by Iceland, in April or May 2011. RLP have described the defendant as "deceitful [and] obnoxious", but maybe they were just thinking of themselves. The claim was allocated to the small claims track, and seemingly resulted in a default judgment only. As of today, it would appear that Iceland have not received a penny of the default judgment for £155.

 

Case 0002 (Huddersfield CC, December 2011). This county court claim was issued by Tesco, in April or May 2011, against the same defendant as in Case 0001. In this case, the defendant had been convicted of the offence in question. The claim was allocated to the fast track (RLP's preference, as they then get to be able to threaten the defendant with substantial costs). Again, as of today, some five months after the judgment, it would appear that Tesco have not received a penny of the default judgment for £1,924.46, including costs. Frankly, I doubt they ever will.

 

Case 0003 (Edmonton CC, "on going"). Claimant retailer unknown, but claim resulted in a default judgment only. The defendant then settled the judgment (for £274.50, including costs) in full.

 

Case 0004 (Hartlepool CC, November 2011). This county court claim was issued by Boots in April or May 2011. The defendant offered to settle the claim for £40, and this was accepted by Boots. RLP/Boots appear to have also obtained a default judgment in respect of £115.00 of costs but, as of today, it would appear that they have not received any of this sum (and they certainly won't be getting any of it from Citizens Advice or the CAB, as they appear to hope). Obviously, if Boots wish to pursue the defendant - a young single mother - for the £110 of costs, that is a matter for them. As for the unfortunate defendant, it would appear from RLP's somewhat hyperbolic description of the case that she did not follow the advice given to her by the CAB (which is always to return to the CAB for further advice in the event of a CC claim being issued). But to date she appears to have paid only £40, somewhat less than the £137.50 that RLP was demanding from her.

 

[Cases 0005, 0006, and 0007 are employee-theft cases.]

 

Case 0008 (Nottingham CC, March 2012). Claimant retailer unknown, but claim was eventually settled by the father of one (or both) of the defendants, without a contested trial. As of today, the retailer and RLP appear to be awaiting payment.

 

Case 009 (Northampton CC, "ongoing"). Claimant retailer unknown. Claim allocated to small claims track, and "listed for trial in May". Strange that RLP should have posted up this case several weeks ago, but never found the time to post up a similar summary of the case that was also 'ongoing', until the contested trial in Oxford CC last week. Obviously, we will be trying to track down this pending trial (and, if you're reading this, and recognise yourself as the defendant, please do get in touch).

 

Case 0010 (Cardiff CC, February 2012). Claimant retailer unknown. Defendant a persistent offender, with convictions. Claim resulted in default judgment only.

 

So, of the seven shoplifting-related county court claims, four resulted in default judgments only (which are meaningless beyond the three individual defendants), two were settled, and one is awaiting trial in May. Leaving aside the case awaiting trial, the total of the 'judgment amounts' obtained by RLP and its retailer clients is £6,327.96, of which only £464.50 (7.3%) has actually been paid to date. So, that leaves RLP and/or a few retailers substantially out of pocket.

 

Will Case 0011 (Oxford CC, April 2012) be appearing on the RLP website any day soon? Perhaps Frogboy can tell us.

 

Finally, note that RLP appears not to know that courts issue judgments, not judgements.

[Myddelton]

Will Case 0011 (Oxford CC, April 2012) be appearing on the RLP website any day soon? Perhaps Frogboy can tell us.

 

Not today, it seems. Frogboy loitered for a while, but has now gone. Without even a croak.

 

[Myddelton]

I dont actually think that the Judge was aware there was anyone in the Court from RLP.

RLPs name was mentioned firstly when "A retailer" head of security was quizzed on how they arrived at costings figures.

 

There was actually very little mention of RLP throughout the trial.

When it was brought up that RLP themselves are taking 40% cut of monies paid following RLP demands,the Judge said it was up to "A Retailer" who they chose to pay and how much.

 

However, the Judge was VERY taken by the point made in the defendants' solicitor's evidence, about the arbitrary, pre-set sum demanded by RLP being determined solely by the value of the goods involved, NOT the time taken to deal with the incident.

 

Rest assured, the Judge was provided with plenty of written material on this and related RLP matters.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes true....wrongful actions under the spotlight.

[Sidewinder]

Of course the downside to a loss in Court for RLP and the Retailer Who Cannot Be Named is that the infernal 'Have you been missold PPI' TV adverts could be replaced with umpteen CMCs advertising their services to recover monies paid in error for 'Civil Recovery'...

[dx100uk]

not that WOULD be funny

 

but then why has it not happened with ACS:LAW

[Myddelton]

Of course the downside to a loss in Court for RLP and the Retailer Who Cannot Be Named is that the infernal 'Have you been missold PPI' TV adverts could be replaced with umpteen CMCs advertising their services to recover monies paid in error for 'Civil Recovery'...

 

Yep, as already noted above, I am setting up a new CMC with precisely that purpose. I'm hoping Frogboy is going to come and be my in-house lawyer - I will need someone with her unrivaled understanding of the law of tort (as demonstrated in her posts on this thread) if I am to outwit the great legal minds that work in the legal departments of e.g. The Retailer That Cannot Be Named. You know, the ones so immersed in court procedure that they think nothing of taking calls from head office on their mobile phone in open court, or shouting instructions to their hapless barrister from the door of the court.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Myddelton

[Myddelton]

Talking of hapless barristers, this is the unfortunate one who acted for The Retailer Who Cannot Be Named (and/or for RLP, it's all v confusing) in Oxford last week, and who got shouted at from the door of the court:

 

http://www.ropewalk.co.uk/barristers/jonathan_owen

 

Mr Owen is too modest to mention his work for major high-street retailers, but he does admit to having extensive experience of "fraudulent claims".

[Myddelton]

Morning, Frogboy! Any croaks for us today?

[ScarletPimpernel]

not that WOULD be funny

 

but then why has it not happened with ACS:LAW

 

ACS:Law went bust, and so did Crossley, the lawyer behind it, so there's no money to recover.

 

 

Just as people understand that copyright holders have a right to protect their copyright, so I think most people do not disagree that a retailer ought to be able to claim costs from a shoplifter. It's the lack of evidence that a crime was committed, the standard sums claimed that clearly do not reflect actual costs, the aggressive nature of the demands, and the targeting of the vulnerable that are the problem.

[rebel11]

Just make sure you have a 'Dress Code' in place.

 

Yep, as already noted above, I am setting up a new CMC with precisely that purpose. I'm hoping Frogboy is going to come and be my in-house lawyer - I will need someone with her unrivaled understanding of the law of tort (as demonstrated in her posts on this thread) if I am to outwit the great legal minds that work in the legal departments of e.g. The Retailer That Cannot Be Named. You know, the ones so immersed in court procedure that they think nothing of taking calls from head office on their mobile phone in open court, or shouting instructions to their hapless barrister from the door of the court.

[Myddelton]

ACS:Law went bust, and so did Crossley, the lawyer behind it, so there's no money to recover.

 

And RLP may go bust also. However, its retailer clients such as TK Maxx, Boots, Tesco, Debenhams, Primark and Iceland are very unlikely to go bust in the near future, so there is plenty of scope for recovering the share of the money paid to RLP that went to them.