please can you help - worry over a RLP from Primark

[ScarletPimpernel]

Have good read of some of the other RLP threads here, and you will see that like all bullies, they appear to be intimidating but are actually weak and powerless.

 

Normally I'd say you have two options, but on this occasion I think you have three:

 

1. Ignore RLP entirely

 

2. Send the short 'denial of liability' letter and then ignore RLP

 

3. Send the 'denial of liability' letter, but add a counterclaim for the property stolen by the guards.

 

Personally I'd have some fun and do 3, but it's up to you.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The fatal flaw in RLP's latest effort is that there is no debt - it exists only as a figment of RLP's corporate imagination.

 

The only way that their speculative invoice for a random amount could become a debt is if they issued a court claim and won. Now, we've seen that in the only properly defended case involving a claim based on RLP's notorious matrix, the claimant lost convincingly. RLP have claimed in various rambling letters, and on their website, to have won lots of cases - so we can only wonder, perhaps rhetorically, why, given the number of speculative invoices they send out, and the endless begging letters that follow, why they do not use this apparently successful method more often.

 

The reality is that they do not, preferring instead to employ methods of the sort described by the Law Commission as 'aggressive and misleading', an example of which we see here.

 

You may get a letter from a second-rate DCA called JB Debt Recovery. We can give you a reply to send that will remind them that pursuing non-existent debts is contrary to the terms of their consumer credit licence, and they will crawl back under their stone. We have not heard of any other DCAs taking on RLP's nonsense 'debts'.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I don't think anyone has brought an action for harassment - yet. It would be the security guards who stole your goods, not RLP.

 

However, you may be assured that bringing your issue to CAG, and resisting RLP's bullying, has a pleasing effect. Like all bullies, they hate it when they are shown up for what they are.

 

Remember, their silly letters are just pieces of paper with not very well-written words on them. Despite their grandiose posturing, they are entirely impotent; they have no legal authority, and no power to make you do anything you don't want to - ultimately, it's just some unpleasant, inadequate people trying to get money from you.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thanks for scanning the letter. It's the usual psuedo-legal drivel, as you may expect.

 

Let's just dissect what they say:

 

as we have not heard from you, our client's account of the incident may be relied upon as an accurate account...

 

This is meaningless; RLP can rely on whatever they want - it doesn't matter, since they aren't any sort of statutory authority. What they appear to be trying to imply is that if you don't respond a court may give more weight to some shop security guard's recollection. In the Oxford case, of course, the shop security staff's accounts of the incident were found to be wholly unreliable; indeed, they were so inaccurate that anyone reading the judgement might think they were lying.

 

In the absence of any defence, our client is also in a position to issue proceedings against you, blah, blah

 

Another bit of meaningless, misleading tosh. Their client could issue proceedings whether you have corresponded with their drones at RLP or not. RLP aren't solicitors, so can't issue on behalf of the retailer anyway. The only time you'd need a defence is in the remote event of receiving a claim - and then it would go to the court, and not RLP.

 

Whilst there is no legal obligation to consider mitigating circumstances in civil proceedings...

 

Well this, at least, is accurate - there is no such legal obligation. Similarly, there is no legal obligation to deal with companies like RLP for any reason.

 

Our client operates civil recovery within a set of core principles which were initially agreed upon with ACPO..

 

At one time RLP's website made much of apparent links to ACPO which appeared to be intended to suggest endorsement of RLP's activities. This included an document that purported to show some sort of agreement between ACPO and RLP. However, ACPO subsequently made RLP remove these references and documents because they were misleading. Note that they go on to say that these 'principles' (not a word I'd ever associate with RLP), were 'developed further' - but they do not say with whom - not ACPO, we know.

 

If we do not hear from you... it will either be issued, or passed to a company that specialises in recovering debts and undisputed claims for damages.

 

The wording of this part is interesting. We know that RLP can't bring proceedings themselves, and that retailers do so very, very rarely, so the chances are that a court claim won't happen. So, their next step is often to pass this to JB Debt recovery, a distinctly second-rate DCA. One letter confirming that there is no debt, and that any liability is disputed, and they shuffle off at once. I suspect that the 'undisputed claims' bit is an attempt by RLP to get round the fact that any DCA trying to collect unsubstantiated or non-existent debts (like RLP's claims), is in breach of the terms of their licence. To suggest that a claim might be undisputed and thus amount to a legitimate debt is misleading.

 

So, in summary, then, what you have is another fanciful attempt by La Lambert to legitimise RLP's grubby business and bully you into parting with some money. Nothing in that letter has any real substance, and you should not be concerned by it.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Lies, damned lies, and RLP letters...

[ScarletPimpernel]

That last letter is interesting only because it speaks volumes about the writer. Remember, bullies are bullies because they are inadequate, and doesn't that shine through in that letter?

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP know that people who come here for help will publish the letters they receive from RLP, and RLP seek to attack CAG through these letters. Utterly unprofessional, obviously, and a clear sign of the inadequate, bullying personalities involved, but no more than we should expect from an industry whose tactics the Law Commission described as 'aggressive and misleading'.

 

In my opinion, the letters reflect the grandiose sense of self-importance of the writer, their sense of entitlement and superiority, and their frustration at being unmasked as inadequate and a bully. Then we have the risible allusions to RLP being involved in crime prevention, and the references to relationships with police and ACPO that do not exist, the lies about criminal investigations and the fantasy that CAB orchestrated some sort of harassment campaign. The writer of these letters is desperate to be taken seriously, and clearly takes being ignored very personally. These behaviours tick lots of the boxes for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which readers may like to Google.

 

The reality is that RLP is not some sort of crime-fighting agency with close links to the police; it is a small company operating from a back-street business centre in Nottingham..

 

I'm not expecting RLP's tactics to change anytime soon.

[ScarletPimpernel]

There is no debt, so Scotcall have no business trying to collect.

 

They know this, so don't try very hard, because the 'we acted in good faith on the info supplied by our client' excuse doesn't wash once they're made aware of a dispute.

 

The good news is that I think you are nearing the end.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm having the same trouble at the moment as I am awaiting a letter from RLP and am unsure of what to do about it when it does come. I've spent the past two days searching and reading all about RLP and everywhere is just saying to ignore it and that they cannot do anything about it and now I that I've read this and seen that you have chosen the option to ignore it all and not pay for it that im curious as to how this has worked out for you and if they are still pestering you about it?

 

 

Please start your own thread, tell us your story, and we'll be able to help you.

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

Again, with the latest letter from "scotcall" I now wonder if the two companies are connected. Why?

 

The first line of this letter "Our clients have instructed us to collect payment.........as you have failed to respond etc., etc.," followed by the second paragraph "should they not hear from me with payment within 7 days - then our client may consider legal action" ???

 

Why then has this issue been sent to "scotcall" only for it to be returned to the client in order for them (RLP) to start legal proceedings should I not respond - why bother to use the middle man/option?

 

There is no connection between RLP and Scotcall other than RLP using Scotcall as a DCA to try to collect these non-existent debts. The letter from Scotcall is a template - DCAs don't use anything else. Just like RLP, the words are supposed to impress, scare or otherwise persuade you to send money to them.

 

Scotcall, like all DCAs, just believe whatever their clients tell them - they will just accept that there's a debt if RLP say there is. When they are told that there's no debt - and thus, that they are acting contrary to the terms of their licence - they will say that they took RLP's instructions in good faith. This is why I personally would send Scotcall the 'no liability because there's no debt' letter, but it's up to individuals to decide what they want to do. Now, anyone with one iota of intelligence would know that if a client keeps asking them to collect debts that don't exist, they should stop taking their business; but we all know that greed rules DCAs as it does RLP, so until they are stopped by a regulator, they'll carry on.

 

 

Plus have had the thought....as none of the letters have been sent "recorded" how can they prove that you have received them - which looking at the flip side, should you make any form of response to any letter received - they could potentially use this as their "proof of delivery" ??

 

A court might accept that one or perhaps two letters weren't received, but unless the address is wrong, it would probably be taken that they were received. A letter denying liability may show that the RLP letter was received, but it also shows a judge that the receiver's position has been made clear.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hi

I just happened to pop over to the RLP website and noticed that IF they are taking people to court, why is the last entry from July 2012. If they were so sure of their position then surely they would be shouting recent court wins from the rooftops. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

As for Snotcall-stuff em!

 

RLP don't take anyone to court - they have no cause of action.

 

Although the reporting of cases on their website may make it look this way, only the retailer can bring an action. This is one of RLP's biggest problems - retailers do not want their names in the newspapers for taking a customer to court, either because RLP's 'matrix' is legally very dodgy, as the Oxford case showed, or on the basis of unproved allegations made by a back-street civil recovery firm or some security guard.

 

RLP's operation is a numbers game based on a percentage of targets paying - it has nothing whatever to do with crime reduction, prevention or deterrence, and court is the last place they want to be.

[ScarletPimpernel]

what do I do next?

 

 

 

Ignore any calls or texts from them. You can also report their text to your phone provider.

 

If you accidentally pick up a call from them, just refuse to answer any security questions.

 

I hate to say it, but the denial of liability letter would have created a dispute that would have seen Scotcall off at the first.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think Mystic is looking for more direct help. Hands on

 

Then I shall leave it with you, as you appear to know something I don't.

 

There is little to be done.

 

The treatment of any illness is a matter for Mystic's doctors, as already said.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Perhaps I should have sent that "non liability" letter as was suggested previously......but not sure even that will stop these leaches???

The letter establishes that you deny any liability; this is clear evidence of a dispute and Scotcall have obligations in these circumstances under the OFT Guidance, compliance with which is a condition of their licence. We all know that RLP's invoices aren't legitimate debts, but DCAs don't use due diligence and as far as Scotcall are concerned they are pursuing a legitimate debt. They aren't going to go away if you do nothing, though they will have some sort of time limit after which they'll realise they aren't going to collect.