Help please.

[janegrace]

A month ago I stole £12 of make up from Boots and was issued a fine through RLP which i have paid.

 

I was told at the time that the police wouldn't be involved

but they rang me up today saying that i needed to come into the station but i won't be taken to court.

I am 17.

 

What will happen and why have they been informed?

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG. Sorry you were missed.

 

It's a shame you didn't find CAG before you paid RLP but hey ho, the deed is now done.

 

If the police are saying they are not considering court action, the only thing I can think of is that they may be wanting to issue you with a caution. This isn't recorded as a criminal offence but it would show (I think) on a CRB check.

 

Hold fire for other opinions. If they actually arrest you and try to interview you, you have the right to be legally represented. The police should make you aware of this. If you choose not to have a brief during any interview, you have the right to stop the interview and ask for one.

[janegrace]

Ok thanks, I'll wait and see what other people think they'll do too

[renegadeimp]

RLP have nothing to do with this. You just gave money to a private company for absolutely no reason at all. THe police action would have been decided by the shop. RLp push their greedy noses in and blackmail you into giving them money. Which you did.

[Sidewinder]

I agree with Silverfox - you may well end up being given a caution - and they may also be looking to question you about whether you might have done this before - have you perhaps been caught acting suspiciously elsewhere?

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with the comments about paying RLP - they set themselves up as a parallel justice system, but in reality they have no such legal standing and in paying them you simply legitimise their rather shady business model.

[2Grumpy]

I think that most people believe that they are dealing with RLP instead of the matter being reported to the police

(although I'm sure that RLP will claim that they can demand money even after a court has been involved).

 

What will it do to RLP's operating model if people hear about paying RLP and then the store reports the person to the police

(especially if they were told that the police would not be involved at the time).

[Sidewinder]

The correct way of dealing with this is for the Police to be involved and upon a successful conviction after all of the evidence is considered, the retailer awarded compensation as determined by the Court. If the matter does not proceed to a prosecution, or if compensation is not granted, then the matter rests. There should be no place whatsoever for a vigilante organisation to take a second bite of the cherry and to attempt to either bypass the legal process, or to demand money over and above what is determined by due process and awarded by a criminal Court in possession of the facts.

 

Of course in this case RLP should not be allowed to even chance their arm and I would suggest that to do so whilst there is police involvement (and presumably consideration of criminal proceedings) is a gross abuse of the legal process.

[renegadeimp]

The problem with RLP is that jackie ( the owner) thinks she is part of the legal process. She has already ignored court decisions, and thinks court 'results' do not apply to her or her company. There are many instances of that.

[renegadeimp]

Just checked their site. There are an abnormally large amount of factual errors in the information she gives to people.

 

Also, http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/advice/critics.aspx?page=8

 

and http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/advice/advicepage.aspx?page=5 click what to do if you disagree you are liable. Seems she thinks everyone is liable.

[dx100uk]

A month ago I stole £12 of make up from Boots and was issued a fine through RLP which i have paid.

 

I was told at the time that the police wouldn't be involved

but they rang me up today saying that i needed to come into the station but i won't be taken to court.

I am 17.

 

What will happen and why have they been informed?

 

how did you pay?

 

dx

[CRblogger]

The problem with RLP is that jackie ( the owner) thinks she is part of the legal process. She has already ignored court decisions, and thinks court 'results' do not apply to her or her company. There are many instances of that.

I've heard the owner is forgetful, but what makes you say she thinks she's part of the legal process?

[renegadeimp]

Read the forums CRblogger. You'll soon see. Also check up the history of the case last year in oxford, and what she did afterwards.

[CRblogger]

Thanks, I was following the oxford case in these forums up to about a week afterwards. That's when she hit one of the defendants' victorious solicitors with a libel writ from Schillings, that own goal was all over Private Eye! But if there's anything else she did afterwards, can you point me at a specific thread/page?

[Sidewinder]

Read some of the threads where people have posted letters that have been received - the woman is a piece of work and seems to make up the law to suit herself!

[CRblogger]

Read some of the threads where people have posted letters that have been received - the woman is a piece of work and seems to make up the law to suit herself!

Well, so do government and large companies and the police. What marks her out as worse than them?

[renegadeimp]

Your replies are slightly suspicious. More so given that 5 mins of searching this forum and other consumer forums will bring up a whole wealth of info.

[Sidewinder]

Well, so do government and large companies and the police. What marks her out as worse than them?

 

That may well be the case, but those agencies don't often trawl through this forum and copy/paste an OP's thread into a letter aimed at making the person feel that they are being stalked. Neither (so far at least) have correspondents received too many letters from the government, large companies or police making outrageous claims that CAG is the subject of a criminal investigation. As for the rest - do some reading.

 

You are in danger of appearing to be an apologist for Ms Lambert. Forgive the suspicion if you are not, but her staff do like to engage in a little forum banter and misinformation from time time, so you wouldn't be the first.

[CRblogger]

That may well be the case, but those agencies don't often trawl through this forum and copy/paste an OP's thread into a letter aimed at making the person feel that they are being stalked. Neither (so far at least) have correspondents received too many letters from the government, large companies or police making outrageous claims that CAG is the subject of a criminal investigation. As for the rest - do some reading.

 

You are in danger of appearing to be an apologist for Ms Lambert. Forgive the suspicion if you are not, but her staff do like to engage in a little forum banter and misinformation from time time, so you wouldn't be the first.

 

Thanks for the warning:jaw:, a most monstrous accusation. I was playing devil's advocate and was genuinely curious. Actually now that you mention it I do remember that stuff. In the terms you've set out, I appreciate that false accusations as to this site as to being criminally investigated would send a frisson of fear through everyone (doubtless the intention) and in the end result in blowback - a justified permanent hatred of people who undermine the law and everything for which it stands.

 

In mitigation, I'm afraid I was far more exercised at the time by the BWB episode as an example of gross cheek. Barristers and solicitors parade their reported cases like trophies, especially as most solicitors go a whole career without one, so it was hilarious (in an insane Kafka-esque way) when she tried to stick BWB for doing... exactly what all lawyers do. A defamation judge, even the generous ones like Eady, after reading the papers might be irresistibly tempted to utter the killer words: "Counsel: why are we here?"