Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2453 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Is anyone aware of any legal action started by RLP since then ?

 

Thanks for all the help and I am an indirect beneficiary for all your messages. I was wondering wether there was any other legal case happened due to RLP recently?

 

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sylvia and welcome to CAG.

 

I'll start a new thread for you. I think there may have been another case and will try to have a look for you. I'm not sure if it was RLP though. What are you trying to find out please?

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New thread started, please continue to post here.

 

Do you know about the Oxford case?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any recent cases, or any at all that have been properly contested other than Oxford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much both. So far I have received 3 letters from RLP and about to send a short letter to decline the claims as you guys recommended to the others (thanks again) and hopefully it is not too late to do so. I noticed that the wording in my letter is slightly different or maybe just RLP has 3 or 4 templates to send to everybody.

I understand that although the chance is very slim, RLP may still be able to convince their client to move to the court, therefore I was wondering how slim it is. Was there any court case happened after Oxford (to reply your question Honeybee, yes I read the case from this forum) at all, if not all so far, then I would feel a bit "safer" to ignore the letter onwards.

I am not proud of what I did, however feel silly to pay 137 pounds to RLP meanwhile.

 

If, if there is a 4th letter coming, I will let you guys know.

 

Fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again and thank you for the extra information. I think sending the letter is the right thing to do.

 

Would you be able to scan up the letter without your personal details please? It's always helpful to see what you've received.

 

And no, I'm not aware of a case since Oxford.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned elsewhere I think it fair to say there was a case a few days after Oxford (Debenhams v Gee) where the Judge took the opposite position of that in Oxford and gave Judgement to Debenhams.

 

A few points have been made about this:-

 

The defendant represented himself.

 

In his defence he admitted being drunk and not knowing what he was doing at the time.

 

The Judge possibly should of followed the result in the Oxford case, which didnt set a prescedent but was specifically allocated to a circuit Judge as they were aware of the contenscious issue and that it was a 'first' for this type of case, although it may be that in Debenhams the Judge was completely unaware of what happened in Oxford, no reference was made to it.

 

The point the Judge made appeared to be quite frankly wrong, no security staff were diverted from money making operations and reading it, the Judge appears to allow the cost on the basis that if no-one stole then stores wouldnt need any security which is a bizarre and unrealistic argument.

 

RLP dont appear to mention Debenhams in their various letters, no doubt it gives them a sliver of hope but I suspect they are well aware that there really is no definate binding decisions either way and that most legal people would swing the way of the Oxford case.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andy, I thought the Debenhams case was before the Oxford one. But it was brought by Debenhams and not RLP?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee was shorty after Oxford, but wasn't really a properly contested case for the reasons Andyorch has outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Andy, I thought the Debenhams case was before the Oxford one. But it was brought by Debenhams and not RLP?

 

HB

 

Decision was dated 3 days after I believe and yes it was bought by Debenhams (in Oxford it wasnt bought by RLP either it was bought by 'the store that cannot be named'), all the case have/will be ? bought by the store, RLP cant start the cases as has been discussed elsewhere.

 

Im not sure its that fair to describe it as not properally contested, clearly the defendant didnt have legal representation but most of the important case law was bought up, its just the Judge took a very different view of it, it boils down to the fact he thought that it was ok to try and recover costs taken as a whole, he (wrongly IMO) even commented that if it wasnt for people like Mr Gee then there would be no need for any security, but thats not a fair argument.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello again and thank you for the extra information. I think sending the letter is the right thing to do.

 

Would you be able to scan up the letter without your personal details please? It's always helpful to see what you've received.

 

And no, I'm not aware of a case since Oxford.

 

HB

Thanks HB, I have sent the letter. I also scanned the 3 letters however how should I post them here? I certainly do not want to show to people who suppose not to see.

 

And, thanks to Andy and SP too, for the latest update re court cases. I had another look at RLP's website. They have listed 13 cases and almost half of them were staff members involvments, however re customers cases, they have said something nasty about CAB. I am not sure how much of that were true though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had another look at RLP's website. They have listed 13 cases and almost half of them were staff members involvments, however re customers cases, they have said something nasty about CAB. I am not sure how much of that were true though...

 

On their website, RLP do not provide the standard references to the cases - one has to ask why. We suspect it is because the cases not involving staff theft are default judgments - in other words, uncontested. Also, they do not say whether, even having won, their clients actually collected any money.

 

As to whether anything RLP say is true - their website used to show some documents that purported to show that RLP had some sort of working relationship with, and approval of, ACPO. They also said that they were in talks with PSNI. Both ACPO and PSNI required RLP to remove these documents on the grounds that they did not reflect the true situation. You can draw your own conclusion.

 

RLP make much of their business being some sort of crime deterrent; in my opinion this is merely to lend an air of legitimacy to what they are really about - which is to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks HB, I have sent the letter. I also scanned the 3 letters however how should I post them here? I certainly do not want to show to people who suppose not to see.

 

Sylvia, if you're able to do jpegs of them, you could send them to me by PM if you like.

 

HB x


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On their website, RLP do not provide the standard references to the cases - one has to ask why. We suspect it is because the cases not involving staff theft are default judgments - in other words, uncontested. Also, they do not say whether, even having won, their clients actually collected any money.

 

As to whether anything RLP say is true - their website used to show some documents that purported to show that RLP had some sort of working relationship with, and approval of, ACPO. They also said that they were in talks with PSNI. Both ACPO and PSNI required RLP to remove these documents on the grounds that they did not reflect the true situation. You can draw your own conclusion.

 

RLP make much of their business being some sort of crime deterrent; in my opinion this is merely to lend an air of legitimacy to what they are really about - which is to make money.

Thanks for the info. I totally agree that RLP is just an agency trying to take the advantage of people who are scared of the concequences. I am not really worried about them to be honest, I am more concerned that what could be the chance that their client(s) suddenly have some time to listen to their suggestions and take it to the court, and if it goes to the court, what is the possibility of their client wins. For example, if Mr.Gee properly hired a lawyer, do you think the story will be different? Again re Gee's case, is the court's decision will affect his life apart from the money he needs to pay? e.g., credibility, morgage, job seeking etc.? Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can never be 100% certain of what will happen in court. If Gee had a lawyer, the outcome may have been different, or it may not. If a retailer went to court - and the evidence is that they do so very, very rarely - then if the sum awarded is paid at once then it would be unlikely to affect a credit rating. Whether or not it would affect job prospects is impossible to say; that would be a matter for an employer. Why Gee's case went to court we do not know, but some of the other cases have involved people who have been persistent shoplifters; Gee was apparently drunk, and perhaps caused a nuisance that may have influenced the retailer. It seems clear, though, that RLP don't really have any influence on retailers' decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your prompt response SP. The picture is much clearer now. If RLP can not really give much impact onto their clients' decisions probably they would be the last people to be worried about. To clarify, when I said Job Seeking, I meant to say whether the employer would be able to know the job seeker's court case, i.e. whether there will be a public record. However if a credift rating is not affected, I assume this kind of info is not opened to everybody?

 

Once again, I am very much appreciated that you guys' contribute so much here. Sometimes I couldn't believe that people are spending time to help strangers for nothing. Having said that, I would do the same, however depending on how much spare time I have, totally being honest here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One can never be 100% certain of what will happen in court. If Gee had a lawyer, the outcome may have been different, or it may not. If a retailer went to court - and the evidence is that they do so very, very rarely - then if the sum awarded is paid at once then it would be unlikely to affect a credit rating. Whether or not it would affect job prospects is impossible to say; that would be a matter for an employer. Why Gee's case went to court we do not know, but some of the other cases have involved people who have been persistent shoplifters; Gee was apparently drunk, and perhaps caused a nuisance that may have influenced the retailer. It seems clear, though, that RLP don't really have any influence on retailers' decisions.

 

I cant see how a CIVIL claim against someone can affect any job prosepects, a future employer wouldnt know (or care !) about it, some employers do want a CRB check and some do a credit check (this would show if you had judgment against you AND if you didnt pay, thus getting a CCJ).

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I am very much appreciated that you guys' contribute so much here. Sometimes I couldn't believe that people are spending time to help strangers for nothing. Having said that, I would do the same, however depending on how much spare time I have, totally being honest here.

 

We occassionally get given goodies :)

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how a CIVIL claim against someone can affect any job prosepects, a future employer wouldnt know (or care !) about it, some employers do want a CRB check and some do a credit check (this would show if you had judgment against you AND if you didnt pay, thus getting a CCJ).

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy, I saw the big AND, all understood ! Thank you very much! Will update here when receiving further letters from RLP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We occassionally get given goodies :)

 

Andy

 

How do people give goodies Andy? I don't even know how to send a file by PM? What is PM by the way? I assumed it is Personal Message?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how a CIVIL claim against someone can affect any job prosepects, a future employer wouldnt know (or care !) about it, some employers do want a CRB check and some do a credit check (this would show if you had judgment against you AND if you didnt pay, thus getting a CCJ).

 

Andy

 

In the normal run of things it wouldn't make a difference, but there are some jobs where a CCJ - even if satisfied - has to be declared - some civil service jobs, armed forces and so on. I was asked about any CCJs or pending cases as part of my security clearance; having them isn't a bar, but it forms part of the overall risk assessment. Some employers have fidelity insurance and it's usual for CCJs to be asked about for them, too. I specifically exclude the silly Cireco nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked about CCj's in my upcoming job, I said I didnt have one..it was over 6 years ago and it was satisfied and no longer shows on my credit file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do people give goodies Andy? I don't even know how to send a file by PM? What is PM by the way? I assumed it is Personal Message?

 

They give them with their kind hearts :)..PM = Private Message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Updates!!

 

I was happy too early! After a month without any letter from RLP, I thought I was out of the hoop however just received another one! This time they said they will pass the case to a debt collector if I don't respond in 2 weeks.

 

What shall I do?

 

Thanks a lot for your suggestions!!!!

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...