Help with RLP

[lbruk]

I think he works for RLP here to spy on what we have to say. BTW RLP have £0.5m in the bank according to their accounts, I don't believe that to be a small profit line.

[woody1066]

And how we've insulted him when he called us all shoplifters....

 

I feel slightly guilty about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but I'm sure it'll soon pass.

 

Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[ScarletPimpernel]

Frogboy seems to have had his little lunchtime spurt, and now he's gone quiet again. I'd like to think he's busy typing a detailed response to the questions I've raised (with evidence, paragraphs, spelling and everything) - and I have, after all, answered all of his - but I am afraid that I suspect he has gone back to work to count paperclips or something. I really must make an effort to be more congruent with his sort; after all, it's not his fault that his education left him wanting. It's a sad indictment of society that fails to teach a youth to write properly, and then fills his head with a soupçon of law, and sends him unchecked into the world, in all likelihood with the crotch of his trousers around his knees and 'product' in his hair, bad manners and no humility. He sounds like the kind of youth my RSM would never tire of beasting around the square. Perfectly vile.

[Sidewinder]

Obviously only allowed out for a limited time each day. Poor disillusioned child.

[Anus Horribilis]

Dont know why you want continue to insult people who ask questions you dont like. You clearly have not seen the website lately. they are still involved with ACPO and also the National Business Crime Forum. That is a Parliamentary group. why would they say that if it wasnt true? and i ask again, why would all the big shops use them? they must have their own legal departments and advisersYour research looks like a waste of time to me. I only have an A level in law, and even I can see that your comments are all wrong.

 

Are you connected with RLP or a similar company, Frogboy? Straight answer please, because it seems you've created an account to defend and justify their behaviour.

It doesnt matter that a case related to a flood or whatever. The same principles for claiming damages in tort apply whether it was negligence for a flood, a trespass, nuicance or conversion (which in case you dont know, theft is a conversion, shoplifting is theft so shoplifting is conversion). somebody who gets hurt in RTA is also different from a shoplifter, but they still can claim damages.

 

Can you point out anyone who has said that the retailer cannot sue for damages? I don't recall that statement being made here. But they have the burden of proving that the theft occurred, and they can only recover their actual losses (which in most cases amount to much less than RLP's demands).

 

For that reason, RLP are very anxious to avoid suing any defended case, because they know that they would reveal the utter hollowness of their threats. If you wish to assert otherwise, please cite 3 examples of denied, defended civil claims which were won in the county court for damages resulting from ordinary shoplifting. Any 3 cases you like, as long as they are reliably reported.

[Anus Horribilis]

You should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man. CAB v RLP - like David & Goliath, but we know what happened there. I think I'll go to the case in Oxford if they let me in. As that CAB man says through his dubious pubication - Watch this space!

 

Stop, please. You're just making a fool of yourself, and I honestly can't carry on laughing like this without some kind of injury.

[andydd]

Who is David and who is Goliath ?. Im confused ?. RLP, CAB or individuals accused of shoplifting ? (Be aware that most of the people accussed by RLP there has been no conviction and no police involvement). Id say in cases of individuals v RLP/Big Stores that the individual is David !

 

Andy

[frogboy]

I've made a Freedom of Information Act request. It is easy to get the information you seek. As I said before, it wouldnt suit whatever agenda it is you have to find the truth.

[lbruk]

who have you made this request about?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've made a Freedom of Information Act request. It is easy to get the information you seek. As I said before, it wouldnt suit whatever agenda it is you have to find the truth.

 

A FOI request will not provide answers to the questions I asked you - which were, in case you've forgotten, asking you to provide evidence to support the statements you have made here. Why won't you engage in a proper discussion - perhaps it doesn't suit your agenda? Whatever the answer, your credibility becomes ever diminished the longer you continue with this silly attitude.

 

Why should we make a FOI request? Why don't you (or RLP) provide the information that would lend strength to their arguments? I think we should be told...

[Anus Horribilis]

I've made a Freedom of Information Act request. It is easy to get the information you seek. As I said before, it wouldnt suit whatever agenda it is you have to find the truth.

 

The information we seek is simple - no FOI is required.

 

We want you (RLP) to cite 3 examples of denied, defended civil claims which you have won in the county court for damages resulting from ordinary shoplifting. Any 3 cases you like, as long as they are reliably reported.

[jonny46]

Attached sealed notice of issue

sealed claim form.pdf

[andydd]

Interesting.

 

*More Later*

Edited April 20, 2012 by andydd

[MARTIN3030]

Quote myddleton;

On 26 April, a claim by A Retailer is going to a contested trial.

 

 

So is the case above the one in question ?

 

It is established that the goods were recovered and re-saleable.

It is also established that a FPN for £80 was paid.

 

In the totals box on the N1 there is no figure given except that the claimant expects the amount to be less than £300 with solicitors costs to be assessed.

[andydd]

A good piece of RLP > http://thejusticegap.com/News/unreasonable-demands-supermarkets-criticised-over-shoplifter-allegations/

[dx100uk]

you said in post 10 it was Tkmax - this has boots as the store

 

dx

[MARTIN3030]

A good piece of RLP > http://thejusticegap.com/News/unreasonable-demands-supermarkets-criticised-over-shoplifter-allegations/

 

Wonderful.

[andydd]

Rumbled !

 

(Although many of us knew already).

 

Also the first page of the claim is the Claimant's copy

 

Andy

[MARTIN3030]

We have been aware of trolls and dark forces posting and visiting these forums for years,

in fact quite shortly after we first became aware of RLPs practices.

 

During and throughout this time we have amassed a large amount of information,

uncovered many attempts to disrupt our work,

and banned countless of bogus members.

 

It is a pity RLP and their agents have not credited us and our members with a little more intelligence.

 

That said,

it is easy to see why they rebel and take objection to ours and the CAB campaign,

since there is lots of money at stake.

 

It is not unreasonable to assume that any threats to their business,

could equally impact on the secondary one which maintains a database of so called wrongdoers and is marketed to employers and businesses in consideration of its employee hiring.

 

The job of curtailing RLPs questionable business models,

is only half of the equasion,

their associated sister company should also be put under the spotlight.

 

RLPs contempt and attacks on CAG are one thing,

but to see how they have sought to discredit and dismiss the CAB,

who are in the business of protecting consumers,

shows clearly that RLP do not care who stands in their way.

[andydd]

*Here Here*..

 

Bye bye jonny46 *waves*

 

Im surprised though that RLP really are that dumb !.

 

Andy

[Anus Horribilis]

*Here Here*..

 

Bye bye jonny46 *waves*

 

Im surprised though that RLP really are that dumb !.

 

Andy

 

withdrawn

Edited April 21, 2012 by Anus Horribilis

[jonny46]

I'm not RLP but I've realised that this is about Boots not TK Maxx. The TK Maxx one just happened a little while ago but the Boots one happened years ago. My solicitor had the papers so I just assumed it would be the TK Maxx one. Does anyone know why Boots are doing this now? And can they?

[frogboy]

What is your advice for naughty Johnny boy then?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm not RLP but I've realised that this is about Boots not TK Maxx. The TK Maxx one just happened a little while ago but the Boots one happened years ago. My solicitor had the papers so I just assumed it would be the TK Maxx one. Does anyone know why Boots are doing this now? And can they?

 

You must think we're all stupid. You see, in your first post you said that, in relation to 'your' case, that:

 

My solicitor has said that the claim has been issued.

 

If a claim has been issued against you, as you assert, why would your solicitor supply you with the documentation which not only doesn't relate to the correct case, but is also the documentation which would be held by the claimant's lawyers? What we need to see is the claim paperwork relating to your own case. Without this, you have no credibility, and all your posts will appear to be no more than another one of RLP's turd-polishing attempts.In any case, time is marching on and you or your solicitors must have had to send something back to the court by now.

 

Frogboy - your attempts to divert attention from your own failure to provide any evidence whatever to back up your claims and refute ours are now becoming tedious. Put up, or shut up.

[Myddelton]

Oh, you have to laugh. How could "naughty Johnny boy" have a copy of the document issued by the Court to the solicitors (Shakespeares) of the claimant (Boots) , if he is not an RLP stooge?

 

I also note that there is a date stamp of 20 April 2012 on the front page (ie the date Naughty Johnny Boy posted it on CAG), but the document relates to a claim issued on 20 February 2012. So, why would it be date stamped 20 April 2012? And the claim relates to two defendants, and they sound female to me. Is Naughty Johnny Boy actually Naughty Johnny Girl? I think we should be told.

 

The defendants had until 8 March to submit a response. Was this claim defended? Or did it result in yet another (meaninigless) default judgment? Come on, Naughty Johnny Boy/Girl, tell us what happened.

 

Martin3030: no, this is not the claim that is being tried in Oxford County Court on Thursday (10am, in open court, so feel free to attend). That is a claim issued by A Retailer in May last year, against the CAB client 'M', featured in the Citizens Advice report Uncivil recovery, and another teenage girl. A Retailer/RLP have so little confidence in the legal basis for their claim that they are trying to exclude any evidence about RLP's practices more generally.

Edited May 3, 2012 by BankFodder
Edited by request of the claimant - A Retailer - and in response to an anonymity order from the court