Help with RLP

[MARTIN3030]

I can only echo the points made by Myddleton.

 

Was a very eventful 2 days,and some very good submissions were made.

 

On leaving the Court I can honestly say,the claimants large contingency looked far from ecstatic.

 

It is for the Judge to make determinations,and it would not be right to try to pre determine what they will be.

 

That said,I came away with some encouragement and a hope that we will not be seeing again demands being made in the future for £137.50 purported to be a legitimate and lawful request.

 

 

Nevertheless,RLP and all those associated in supporting them and giving them business,should be aware that the CAG will continue to campaign against any speculative invoices,unfair demands,and credit / data storage which adversly affects or could potentially affect those people who have not been judged guilty by the proper legal process.

[Myddelton]

Major high-street.

 

Well, that narrows it down, as there are hardly any 'major high street' retailers that DON'T use civil recovery. Some use it more than others, of course.

[Myddelton]

And I'm sure Martin3030 will agree that, whatever the Judge decides, we will have some wonderful memories to treasure. One will be the sight of RLP's lovely Vanessa Willett clambering onto the bench between her and the claimant's unfortunate barrister, Jonathan Owen, to try and pass him a note that he clearly wasn't interested in receiving from her. Seated just behind her, I came within an inch of seeing right up her skirt (but the Judge looked even more horrified than me). Another will be the spectacle of the claimant's company solicitor running around the court in a panic and taking a phone call from head office in the court as she scrambled to instruct the hapless Mr Owen on the issue of anonymity for the claimant in the judgment. Again, the Judge's face was a picture. Another will be Mr Owen reduced to begging the judge for 'equality of arms' on the same issue, i.e. granting the claimant anonymity as well as the two young defendants. So, a multi-billion pound high street retailer takes on two foolish (but now repentful) teenage girls and then has the audacity to whine about 'equality of arms'. Hilarious (and the Judge appeared to share my view). The upshot was that the judgment will be: A retailer v Ms B & Ms K. Everyone should of course respect this, but from now on the claimant will be known as The Retailer That Cannot Be Named.

Edited June 11, 2012 by alanfromderby

[cerberusalert]

I can't see RLP including the case on their website somehow.

[cerberusalert]

But my absolute favourite will be the look of absolute devastation on the face of RLP's owner/manager, Jackie Lambert. All day yesterday, she looked like she was at a funeral. Her own.

 

[rebel11]

It explains why the retailers don't do it themselves, it would be easy for each store to send them out, some paper, an envelope, a couple of stamps and 'Bobs your uncle', a genuine 'speculative invoice' with 'threats' designed to scare, so the individual pays up. As I said yesterday, they spend millions to create a clean corporate image, why would they want to 'dirty it' in any way, when others can do their bidding.

 

'The upshot was that the judgment will be: A retailer v Ms B & Ms K. Everyone should of course respect this, but from now on the claimant will be known as The Retailer That Cannot Be Named.'

[Gbarbm]

i can't see rlp including the case on their website somehow.

 

lol

[cerberusalert]

One will be the sight of RLP's lovely Vanessa Willett clambering onto the bench between her and the claimant's unfortunate barrister, Jonathan Owen, to try and pass him a note that he clearly wasn't interested in receiving from her

Boy I bet she looked like a frog jumping around.

[Myddelton]

I can't see RLP including the case on their website somehow.

 

lol!

[Myddelton]

Boy I bet she looked like a frog jumping around.

 

I find your comment offensive to frogs.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It certainly does seem odd that RLP's top dogs should be playing such a prominent role in a case brought by A Retailer.

[MARTIN3030]

TSS security should also be feeling in the dumps,it seems they have a problem with simple maths,and telling the time.

"A Retailer" should present them with new clocks and calculators for Christmas.

Edited April 28, 2012 by MARTIN3030

[Myddelton]

It certainly does seem odd that RLP's top dogs should be playing such a prominent role in a case brought by A Retailer.

 

Indeed. But I doubt any retailer will be dumb enough to do so again. I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Retailer That Cannot Be Named has already dumped RLP, and they issued most of the recent county county court claims described on RLP's website. Most of RLP's retailer clients appear to have had enough sense not to go as far as issuing county court claims.

[cerberusalert]

I bet there are a few early meetings this morning. Interviews without coffee?

[Myddelton]

TSS security should also be feeling in the dumps,it seems they have a problem with simple maths,and telling the time.

Retailer A should present them with new clocks and calculators for Christmas.

 

Yes, there's a delicious irony in a security manager who can't tell the truth (at least, not until forced to do so after being taken apart in the witness box). I suspect that the transcript of the trial, and in particular the section relating to the clinical demolition of the TSS security manager in the witness box, will be used as a training tool for trainee barristers for years to come.

[Myddelton]

I bet there are a few early meetings this morning. Interviews without coffee?

 

lol! Yep, they should be working hard this weekend because, once the judgment is out, I suspect TSS, The Retailer That Cannot Be Named, Shakespeares, and the British Retail Consortium are going to have a fun time explaining themselves to the gentlemen of the press. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We must await the judgment.

[Myddelton]

I'm missing Frogboy already.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Indeed. But I doubt any retailer will be dumb enough to do so again. I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Retailer That Cannot Be Named has already dumped RLP, and they issued most of the recent county county court claims described on RLP's website. Most of RLP's retailer clients appear to have had enough sense not to go as far as issuing county court claims.

 

 

I think I am correct in recalling that the very first claims referred to by RLP were also issued by A Retailer too, and were also either employee theft or default judgements as well.

[woody1066]

I'm missing Frogboy already.

 

Yeah me too...like I miss piles

[MARTIN3030]

Yes the transcripts will be of interest to many.

Some of the things that the claimants came up with,would not be out of place in a Jonny Vegas tour.

[lbruk]

you think they might realise they are going out of business yet?

[MARTIN3030]

Well there are lots more out there who would like a piece of the cake.

Its not only about RLP its about all those involved.

We are talking about big money and its reasonable to assume that these in the business of making it,will always look for ways around continuing.

We have to make sure that any attempts to do this,are met with the same challenges we have seen in this case.

I would not even doubt that there are some new matrixes being put together right now.

[Holly117]

Frogboy is going to have a field day if it goes in their favour!

[MARTIN3030]

if it goes in their favour

 

their or her ?

[andydd]

Frogboy is going to have a field day if it goes in their favour!

 

Although a CC decision sets no presecedent and individuals could still argue that there was no crime in the first place, i.e there was some kind of mistake or again that the £137.50 is not a true loss and simply plucked from the air, in fact every court case (even if RLP/Retailer win) would be a loss for them (the court process costsing them far more than the amount/costs than could recover), so if everyone went to court they'd still be losing money even if they won every judgment.

 

Andy