Help with RLP

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP are currently claiming to have taken several cases to court recently, and make much of it on their website. Unhelpfully, they fail to give case numbers so they can't be checked for veracity - and RLP have form for stretching the truth and being very selective with how much they say - as in the way they claimed that ACPO & the PSNI worked with them or endorsed what they did. They had to remove the statements.

 

Looking at the cases 8 cases RLP say they were involved with, 2 involve the same defendant, and appear not to have been defended; 1 is definitely an undefended default judgment; 2 weren't decided in court, three concerned fraud/theft by employees. In some of the cases the defendants had been convicted in criminal court. In no case did RLP issue the claim. They do not give details of how many cases were defended and lost by their clients.

 

RLP's motivation is almost certainly the damage that was done to their business by CAB revealing that they very, very rarely went to court, though their entire business is built upon threatening court action. They still rely largely on scaring people into paying their speculative invoices, just as in this case.

[Sidewinder]

 

I don't appreciate the slurs against my solicitor.

 

He is a genuine bloke and helping me as a friend.

 

He also said that the cases shown online on RLP's website are public record and hardly likely to be made up.

 

I'll post the claim forms when I get them but I think I'm just going to pay.

 

No slur against the solicitor, and appreciate that he is helping as a friend, but investigating a defence is normally within the remit of a solicitor, especially where some of the legal arguments used by RLP are open to question - and especially by a trained legal professional. The cases shown on the RLP website are most certainly not a matter of public record as the cases as stated cannot be verified.

 

Would be hugely interested to see the Particulars of Claim on an N1 form when you receive them. Naturally if you pay up then that is your choice. We are not here to judge on that, and you wouldn't be the first, but in MOST cases where no actual loss has occurred, it is almost unheard of to learn of a case going to Court.

[andydd]

There appear to be a few recent RLP threads on CAG that smell fishy to me (and Im not talking about the contents of Baldricks apple crumble )

Edited March 27, 2012 by andydd

[ScarletPimpernel]

There appear to be a few recent RLP threads on CAG that smell fishy to me (and Im not talking about the contents of Bladricks apple crumble )

 

Desperate people sometimes do desperate things.

 

I cannot help but wonder why RLP have failed to list the case numbers so that their claims can be verified. It would also be interesting to know who the claimants were - it couldn't be RLP as they have no cause of action. I cannot imagine that any retailer would find any good publicity in cases where people have been accused of wrongdoing but not convicted by a proper court, and subsequently bullied into paying money.

[Sidewinder]

My solicitor told me he sent me the papers on Fri, so they should be here by tomorrow at the latest.

 

Any news?

[andydd]

HHmm....Who's a betting man..what are the odds on the mysterious court papers actually appearing ?

 

Andy

[rebel11]

Hi ebone

 

Could you kindly post your court documents, otherwise we can't help:-)

[andydd]

Well, Ive been thinking that all along...

 

Its worth anyone with a letter from RLP reading this great CAB blog. > http://thejusticegap.com/News/unreasonable-demands-supermarkets-criticised-over-shoplifter-allegations

 

This lack of any clear legal basis probably explains why the civil recovery agents and their retailer clients very rarely issue a County Court claim in pursuit of an unpaid, shoplifting-related demand, and why there is no evidence of them ever having won a fully contested claim in pursuit of such an unpaid demand. In practice, all but a tiny proportion of unpaid demands are quietly dropped when either challenged or ignored.

 

 

Put bluntly, the civil recovery agents and their retailer clients such as Asda, Boots, Debenhams, Primark, Superdrug, Tesco and TK Maxx appear to be playing the percentage game, banking on a sufficient proportion of the some 100,000 demands they issue collectively each year being paid out of fear, shame and ignorance of the law.

 

In recent weeks, RLP has posted on its website brief details of five cases in which its retailer clients have issued and ‘won’ a County Court claim in pursuit of an unpaid, fixed sum demand issued by RLP in relation to relatively minor shoplifting. However, it is apparent even from RLP’s somewhat hyperbolic description of the cases that none of the five claims was fully contested in court: three seemingly resulted in a default judgment only, and the other two were seemingly admitted and settled without a contested trial. So the judgments obtained are meaningless, beyond those five individual cases.

 

We know of only one case in which a County Court claim issued by a retailer in pursuit of an unpaid, shoplifting-related civil recovery demand is to be fully contested at trial. That case involves a claim issued by Boots in May last year, against a CAB client and another teenager, and the trial is now listed for 26 April, in Oxford County Court. Watch this space.

[jonny46]

I will post them as soon I can figure out how to actually scan and add them on.....

[dx100uk]

I will post them as soon I can figure out how to actually scan and add them on.....

 

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture[jpg] file

or convert them to .PDF

ENSURE:remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all figures and dates.

 

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf

than many single ones

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

then hit reply button

dx

[andydd]

As soon as a valid RLP court claim is scanned and posted we will all shut up.

 

So we wait with baited breath for *drum roll*..an actual real RLP court claim.

 

Andy

[frogboy]

lol. You'll be waiting a long time and suffocate. After getting wrong advice from you lot, I got some proper legal advice. It isnt RLP which issues the claims, its the companies RLP represent. Why dont you just make a Freedom of Information Act Request of the Courts on cases shops brought? Then you can find out the truth if you dont believe RLP. Sounds to me though like you dont want to know the truth. Dont know what you lot have to gain by giving wrong advice where are you over the weekend anyway? Out shoplifting?lots of luv frogboy

Edited March 31, 2012 by Sidewinder

[Sidewinder]

That doesn't sound like proper legal advice and sounds like it may have cost you money. There is no dispute that it is the organisation concerned who would have to issue proceedings, but in most cases they won't, and even if they did, where a proper defence was constructed, most would fail.

 

Please do not insult other posters with your suggestion.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've just checked, and RLP's website clearly states: "RLP have recently taken a number of cases to court..."

 

Given that RLP have no cause of action, as I mentioned earlier, which means that the retailer is the claimant, I wonder on what basis RLP are claiming to have taken the cases to court?

[Sidewinder]

My solicitor told me he sent me the papers on Fri, so they should be here by tomorrow at the latest.

 

Have you worked out how to post up the details yet?

[andydd]

Is this saga still continuing ? .. *Drums fingers on desk* Hurry up..fire up that scanner,

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm still waiting to hear how RLP have taken cases to court, as they explicitly state on their website, when the claimant in the cases they refer to is the retailer. What was RLP's role in the litigation?

 

In light of the Law Commission's recent statement on the dubious nature of the methods used by RLP and others, and given that RLP has at least two solicitors, one of whom is a director, I wonder what the SRA's view is?

[frogboy]

Where does it say RLP is dubious?

I have read the report.

It doesnt say that.

You lot really got it in for RLP.

Whats the lowdown?

Am I missing something?

 

Their website says that damages checked by courts.

 

That CAB man says they werent.

 

How does he know this?

 

Dont think RLP would say that if not true.

The Court could confirm.

 

Aren't Judgments and stuff available to the public?

 

CAB says 10,000 cases, then 15,000 cases.

 

RLP says few hundred.

 

CAB says it only knows of one case, but RLP has a case about another one where she had to pay costs cos of CAB advice.

 

Dont know who to believe.

 

Has anyone done a Freedom of Information Act request?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Where does it say RLP is dubious? I have read the report. It doesnt say that. You lot really got it in for RLP. Whats the lowdown? Am I missing something? Their website says that damages checked by courts. That CAB man says they werent. How does he know this? Dont think RLP would say that if not true. The Court could confirm. Aren't Judgments and stuff available to the public?CAB says 10,000 cases, then 15,000 cases. RLP says few hundred. CAB says it only knows of one case, but RLP has a case about another one where she had to pay costs cos of CAB advice. Dont know who to believe.Has anyone done a Freedom of Information Act request?

 

If you look in a dictionary you will see that dubious is a word used to describe something that is questionable or doubtful. The Law Commission report questions the legal basis for RLP's claims; furthermore, it is my opinion that some of RLP's aggressive methods are also questionable, so dubious is an appropriate word. However, it's just an opinion, so feel free to dislike or disagree with it; it matters not a jot. One of the joys of our society is that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, and unlike a barrister's, mine is free.

 

Are you missing something? I think this is extremely likely, but good manners dictate that I should not go into detail.

 

Have 'us lot' got it in for RLP? I can only speak for myself, and I wouldn't say I've 'got it in' for RLP. I certainly find the premise upon which their operation is based and the methods they use to be deeply unsavoury and morally repugnant. I believe that there is no place in a civilised society for self-appointed vigilantes, be they PIRA 'punishment gangs', or companies that set themselves up, purely for profit, as an alternative to the criminal justice system. RLP regularly accuse innocent people of wrongdoing, simply in order to generate profit for themselves, and they rely upon peoples' ignorance of their rights and aggressive letters to bully people into paying them. However, the only ways I personally seek to have an effect upon them is by advising people here, and by not shopping at retailers that I know utilise RLP.

 

As to whether RLP would say something on their website that isn't true, I couldn't possibly comment, though I do recall that the PSNI and ACPO made them take some inaccurate information off their website in the past - and that they were mentioning a company as a client that hadn't used them for some time. People will no doubt draw their own conclusions.

 

As to the court cases, they are recorded, but without the case number it would be impossible to find them. RLP are doubtless aware of this, which is why they haven't bothered to provide any meaningful detail with the very few selective cases they are crowing about. An FOI request would not be of any use, as I do not see how the information could be retrieved within the constraints of the FOI Act.

 

Who to believe - only you can decide. Anyway, we are still waiting for the court forms to be posted up, and to discover how, when they are not the claimant, RLP can say that they have taken cases to court.

 

Oh yes - to answer the question you raised in an earlier post - I won't be out shoplifting this weekend. I'll be on duty, helping to make sure that everyone, including those who insult me, like you, and even RLP, can enjoy the freedoms earned by people like me.

[lbruk]

i think this link will explain a little more

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10034289

 

The debt collectors have no powers, they can only write and ask you for the money, RLP appear to only be a debt collection agency and they use the same tactics as all debt collectors.

 

They have no jurisdiction to take you to court, only the retailer can do that. RLP have suffered no loss by your actions, they are employed by Retailers to attempt to get your money back.

 

Mod edit: link to commercial debt management company removed.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP are most definately not a debt collection agency. We know this because:

 

- they do not collect debts

- the OFT agreed that their activities did not meet the requirements for a consumer credit licence. Debt collection is a licenceable activity

 

In fact, RLP's activity is far simpler than that of a debt collector. RLP send out demands for money to people whose names have been supplied to them by other companies, in the hope that the recipient will pay them. RLP call these demands 'claims for damages' (although the Law Commission thinks that the legal basis for this is questionable); other people call them speculative invoices.

[andydd]

Where does it say RLP is dubious?

I have read the report.

It doesnt say that.

You lot really got it in for RLP.

Whats the lowdown?

Am I missing something?

 

Their website says that damages checked by courts.

 

That CAB man says they werent.

 

How does he know this?

 

Dont think RLP would say that if not true.

The Court could confirm.

 

Aren't Judgments and stuff available to the public?

 

CAB says 10,000 cases, then 15,000 cases.

 

RLP says few hundred.

 

CAB says it only knows of one case, but RLP has a case about another one where she had to pay costs cos of CAB advice.

 

Dont know who to believe.

 

Has anyone done a Freedom of Information Act request?

 

Whilst the word dubious may not be used, plenty of other (far stronger) ones have..."We believe the manner in which these requests for payment are made, and the threat of escalating costs and court action may constitute ‘deceitful’, ‘unfair’ and ‘improper’ business practice, as defined by the OFT." and "Criminal charges are rarely brought and often the police aren't even called. In some cases the intent to shoplift is questionable."

 

Its not 'us lot' who have got it in for RLp, the Citizens Advice Burea has published two scathing reports and a law commission report is not favourable towards RLP-style tactics.

 

So you honestly believe that everything said by RLP is 100% true ?. Why is that ? RLP are a profit making organisation wheeras CAB are not.

 

County Court judgements are generally NOT available to the public, this makes RLP's claims of court victories impossible to check without at least a court claim number.

 

There have also many some recent threads on here where a poster claims that RLp have started legal action but when asked to post up the details they are unable to do so ..suspicious..dubious ?..I think so.

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

My solicitor told me he sent me the papers on Fri, so they should be here by tomorrow at the latest.

 

 

 

...and still we wait.

 

Do let us know if you are having trouble with scanning the court papers.

[andydd]

maybe they are weak and cant lift the scanner lid or theyve fallen underneath it and now they are trapped

[Sidewinder]

I'm just worried that poor old Jonny46 has been given some extremely duff advice by a solicitor and will be tricked into paying money that he doesn't need to.