I have received a letter from RLP. They demand £90

[garnet2k]

Hi all,

after doing something very stupid (shoplifting an item worth 8 quid) and being caught, it is my turn to ask the same question.

I have received a letter from RLP. They demand 90 pounds.

My situation:

 

-Got caught with the item.

-The item was recovered by the store is sell-able condition.

-Police came and gave me a community resolution. I signed the resolution.

It states that I admit shoplifting an 8 pounds worth item.

It was signed by the PCs and the store security guys as well.

I also apologized (a bit too late, I know) and this was noted in the resolution.

 

-Received a letter from RLP demanding 90 pounds.

 

While I am ashamed of what I've done,

I think criminal record is bad enough penalty I got to myself.

I also think a fair compensation is OK to the store.

I dont think 90 pounds is a fair amount.

 

While I got the general idea I should NOT pay,

does the fact I have received community resolution (in effect admitting the crime) changes anything?

Should I still not pay?

 

Any suggestions welcomed.

[dx100uk]

own thread created

 

dx

[dx100uk]

NO!!

 

you should not pay

the retailer gets nowt.

 

and i don't think the community resolution IS a criminal record either.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

http://www.communityresolution.co.uk/

[garnet2k]

Thanks for the advice.

What should I do then. Ignore the letter?

I have read the CR page you provided. I am a bit uncertain IS it a criminal record or NOT.

Any opinions on that too?

[renegadeimp]

You can ignore it or send a one line letter that simply says:

 

Dear RLP,

 

Any liability to you or your partners is denied. Any further communication will be ignored. Should you pursue this further i will not hesistate to pursue legal action against you for harassment.

 

Sincerely.

 

The legal action part is up to you if you want to put it in. However, it is best advised for now to ignore them. You will get a few more letters becoming more and more desperate in detail ( some of their letters run into multiple pages). They will only start threats if you start playing letter tennis with them though.

 

Once they realise youa rent interested in what they are saying, they will just move on to the next poor sap. Understand that theyve tried to take people to court, and in the only court case that was properly defended ( ALL RLP court cases have got judgement by default), they lost badly and the judge even said that they had no basis to bring a claim.

 

Also of note is RLP now try to get DCA's involved claiming their is a debt owed to them. If you get one of those letters, please let us know, as we can help you issue formal complaints to the regulators.

[dx100uk]

certainly always ignore rlp.

 

as for if CR IS recored

 

i'm surprised none of the viewers of this thread have commented.

 

i take it you might be worried about your CRB record showing it if it was?

 

dx

[garnet2k]

Thanks to both of you.

I will send a letter as suggested and ignore afterwards.

As of CR, yes I was wondering if it will show on CRB.

Any ideas?

[renegadeimp]

It wont. Not chance at all. In any way.

 

 

Only the police or a court can add things to a CRB, and the police already gave you a quick slap on the wrist and told you not to do it again. A silly outfit like RLP cant do anything as has been proven by the recent legal case.

[Sidewinder]

It wont. Not chance at all. In any way.

 

 

Only the police or a court can add things to a CRB, and the police already gave you a quick slap on the wrist and told you not to do it again. A silly outfit like RLP cant do anything as has been proven by the recent legal case.

 

Only correct up to a point regarding the CRB. Any incident where there was police involvement will create a record on a database - this will not appear on a standard disclosure, but should you need an Enhanced CRB or the in-depth vetting required for certain professions, then not only the CRB is checked, but also any information held on local police databases and the police can - and frequently do - include this where it might be considered relevant to the occupation under consideration. This is entirely down to the discretion of the police at the time the disclosure is requested - all too often they may choose to disclose on the grounds that the prospective employer MIGHT consider it relevant. Toss a coin - they may disclose, they may not, but it would not be a good idea to not discuss the implications of a negative report when agreeing to them seeking an ECRB.

[renegadeimp]

i know sidewinder, but it is very doubtful that it would show on a CRB check, unless the person was applying for a very secure or important job. But as you say, at the end of the day, it will all depend on the inspector who is issuing the CRB.

[garnet2k]

Thanks to all again.

It is my paranoia but just to ask the same question again.

 

does the fact I have received community resolution (in effect admitting the crime) changes anything?

Should I still not pay?

 

I think the general rule to ignore RLP is valid if no police was involved and no official record was created (albeit may be not in CRB).

Is this the case or one should ignore them even with a police document signed, admitting the theft?

[renegadeimp]

Please re read this thread. You already have your answer.

 

RLP have no rights, no reason and no basis to make you pay. They rely on uneducated people to fall for their spoofs and generate a huge profit for no work.

[andydd]

Thanks to all again.

It is my paranoia but just to ask the same question again.

 

does the fact I have received community resolution (in effect admitting the crime) changes anything?

Should I still not pay?

 

I think the general rule to ignore RLP is valid if no police was involved and no official record was created (albeit may be not in CRB).

Is this the case or one should ignore them even with a police document signed, admitting the theft?

 

On the very rare occasions that RLP have started court action, the first question asked is 'did the defendant actually steal something' ?. Normally there has been police involvement or admittance, thus overcoming this hurdle (it is worth noting though that people have received 'demands' from RLP where there has been neither of these.)

 

However admittance or police involvement is only the first hurdle, RLP (and the store) have failed to persuede a Judge that any further damages are payable, the Judge in Oxford was quite clear, and RLP would be wise to listen to him.

 

Andy

[garnet2k]

On the very rare occasions that RLP have started court action, the first question asked is 'did the defendant actually steal something' ?. Normally there has been police involvement or admittance, thus overcoming this hurdle (it is worth noting though that people have received 'demands' from RLP where there has been neither of these.)

 

However admittance or police involvement is only the first hurdle, RLP (and the store) have failed to persuede a Judge that any further damages are payable, the Judge in Oxford was quite clear, and RLP would be wise to listen to him.

 

Andy

 

Thanks a lot. So in effect what you are saying is:

 

I have admitted that I have tried stealing something, but got caught and the item was recovered by the store (a fact)

 

if they take me to court, they will need to persuade the judge that I have to pay the amount they demand. And this amount is to cover store's expenses for this an that.

 

And this persuasion is the hard part for them.

 

Am I right?

[renegadeimp]

RLP have no basis at all for a claim. Simple as that. They are a third party to the situation and think they are a law unto themselves. In last years legal case, when they tried to bring a claim against someone, the case was defended with a professional solicitor and the judge railed RLP.

[andydd]

Well.... The court cases have been instiagted by the stores in question and at that point rlps involvement is a bit strange as they dont own the debt, they are not a solicitor nor a debt collector. The best advice is to read the transcript and judgment of the Oxford case which are available here somewhere. I expect someone can post a link.

 

Andy

[renegadeimp]

I liken RLP to a schoolyard bully. Not the one that actually does the deed, but the smaller kid behind him egging him on and wont shut up.

[citizenB]

garnet, have a read of the Oxford judgment, referred to in a post earlier.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer&highlight=Oxford+Judgment

 

The actual judgment is in the pdf at the bottom of the 1st post in the link above.