Caught shoplifting from Primark - RLP letter

[jaya jain]

Ok !! i understood what u said !! i was just worried... coz there is no money written in the letter .. i assumed they will write the money ...and ask me to deposit or so

[jaya jain]

coz at all the post people mentioned they ask some huge amount of money to deposit

[renegadeimp]

jackie will say and do ANYTHING to scare you into paying. Thats just how the woman is. Ignore everything she sends and she'll eventually go after someone else. She always does.

[jaya jain]

ya thats what i am reading at other posts and respect what all you suggested sorry for being repetitive .. but as i mentioned i got tensed coz:

1 there is no amount of fine written on it

2. some data protection act

 

so ya that makes me worried

[renegadeimp]

Thats what she wants to happen. For you to get worried by her silly threats and cave in and pay her. Like i said, she plays on your guilt.

[silverfox1961]

Regarding the data protection act. RLP say lots about passing on details to employers. They cannot do so without your permission and you won't be doing that. It is just another scare tactic.

[jaya jain]

All right

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

To put it simply, RLP are lying to you in the hope you will pay them.

No-one can use civil recovery to get money that was not lost or to punich you or to presuade others not to do something. It is a fantasy at best and a downright lie.

Thier client is in no position to do anything and I bet they know nothing about RLP's attempts at losing them all of their customers. As for writing to them to expalin yourself, why the hell should you. The matter was dealt with at the time and nothing happened so it sure as hell isnt going to happen at some unspecified point in the future. they want you to think that there is some kind of threat of punishment hanging over you that can be activated at any time. There isnt.

There can nevr be a fine because it is not now a criminal matter. You cannot be foreced to pay compensation because no actual loss has occurred and if there was it would be the store, not RLP who would be after the money. They dont want you contacting Primark as it will ruin their little game.

[andydd]

I think people's (both this OP and other threads) reactions to RLP's letters show that recipients do get unnecessarily worried,

especially about data held and/or passed onto others by RLP, and

 

also about possible criminal record/CRB checks,

 

this shows to me that letters sent out by RLP are NOT simply trying to follow civil pre-action protocols

but are worded in such a way as to cause recipients unnecessary distress and worry,

 

they continually make vieiled references to mitigating circumstances,

the ACPO and that data may be passed onto other organisations and agencies,

this is wholly incorrect and wrong IMO and RLP would be wise to put a stop to it.

 

LETS MAKE IT CLEAR.

 

1. RLP have no connection or involvement with the police or the criminal justice system.

 

2. They have shown they have no real intention to pursue claims through the civil courts, therefore any claims to follow the CPR Pre-action Protocols are irrelevant.

 

3. They have no right to pass data held on you to any other organisation.

 

4. They have made no attempt to appeal the verdict in Oxford despite claiming that it was wholly wrong. (One must ask why, whilst it was only a County Court decision, it is clear that it was considered an important decsion by both sides and the Judge).

 

5. Finally, the claim for damages is based on the flimsiest on legal pretences, see here > http://addleshawgoddard.net/view.asp?content_id=2785&parent_id=2781 *

 

* The Court of Appeal formulated a three point test:

 

1.In order to succeed with its claim, a claimant must adduce all the evidence that it could reasonably adduce to show the extent of the diversion of staff;

 

2. Further, the claimant must establish that the diversion of staff caused significant disruption to its business;

 

3. If the first two elements can be established,

it is reasonable for the court to infer that, had the staff not been diverted from their usual activities,

they would have directly or indirectly generated revenue for the claimant in an amount at least equal to the cost of employing them during that time.

 

 

Its my opinion that so far RLP/The Stores have failed in not one but all three of the above criteria.

 

1. They have made no real attempt to justify the amounts claimed,

simply claiming that it is a 'contribution' to costs, however when cross-examined in Oxford they found it very hard to justify the sum involved.

 

2. One or two (low paid) staff being spending perhaps 30 - 60mins is NOT a significant disruption and is I believe a daily occurance,

in fact that is exactly what the security staff are employed for, how can they possibly be diverted !?

 

3. The security staff are NOT employed to generate revenue, they are not sales personal nor are they at a till

[Itsryanzc]

Hi all,

 

I decided to ignore the scotcall letter completely and I haven't received anymore since.

 

However, my mum (I live with my family) just informed me that I got a phonecall from a debt collector company a few days ago (she put the name in google)

 

Luckily,

Scotcall said they can't discuss anything with her,

it was me they wanted to speak to.

 

I'm aware I should never speak to them on the phone,

so what should I do if they call again?

 

Is there anything I can send them to stop the phone calls?

[renegadeimp]

Use cags library. Theres a telephone harassment letter in there.

 

Scotcall are the lowest of the dcas. They only deal in unenforceable alleged debts or those that no other dca will touch.

[Itsryanzc]

Use cags library. Theres a telephone harassment letter in there.

 

Scotcall are the lowest of the dcas. They only deal in unenforceable alleged debts or those that no other dca will touch.

 

Yeah I've found the telephone letter. I was in the middle of filling it out but I don't know the account/reference number as I've thrown the scotcall letter out, or misplaced it. I don't really have any of their information to put on the letter. Should I wait for another letter and then send it?

[dx100uk]

pers i'd just ignore them

 

theres nowt they can do to you.

 

dx

[Itsryanzc]

I'll just keep ignoring for now. If they do call again, and I happen to be at home and pick it up... should I just hangup straight away or is there anything I should say?

[dx100uk]

if it were me i'd wind them up

 

theres absolutely NOTHIng they can do to you

 

they are NOT BAILIFFS

 

so have NO LEGAL POWERS WHATSOEVER.

 

might be funny to listen to their waffle and laugh at them TBH.

 

theres no 'debt'

there never can be a debt in this instance.

[Sidewinder]

Completely agree with DX - play games with them if you are so inclined and listen to them trying to shout over you - record the call too if you have the means...

 

Alternatively, simply tell them that they are pestering you over a non-existent 'debt' and are in danger of breaching the terms of their credit licence. they will back off and end the call.

[porkyp1g]

I don't think the charges are that bad. Compared to the fines you get ton trains for dodging fares, which can go into thousands, just avoid court.

 

Shops don't just have to worry about actual costs, surely it should also be a deterrent. If it was a slap on the wrists and £20 fine, some might not be put off by it.

[Peterbard]

I don't think the charges are that bad. Compared to the fines you get ton trains for dodging fares, which can go into thousands, just avoid court.

 

Shops don't just have to worry about actual costs, surely it should also be a deterrent. If it was a slap on the wrists and £20 fine, some might not be put off by it.

 

I suppose it has something to do with the fact that avoiding paying for a train ticket is an offense, where as getting stooped at Tesco check-out because your toddler has put a packet of polo mints in your bag isn't.

[Sidewinder]

I don't think the charges are that bad. Compared to the fines you get ton trains for dodging fares, which can go into thousands, just avoid court.

 

Shops don't just have to worry about actual costs, surely it should also be a deterrent. If it was a slap on the wrists and £20 fine, some might not be put off by it.

 

Point is that 'fines' or 'penalties' for acts of wrongdoing can only be levied by a Court or by the Police - allowing any private company whose sole aim is to generate profit can never have any place in the Justice system. The deterrent when shoplifting must surely always be the fact that if you get caught, you may well end up with a Court appearance and a criminal record. Derogating that responsibility cannot be an option for the retailer any more than it is wrong for the Police/CPS to not prosecute for small sum thefts.

 

Let's not also forget that many of the recipients of RLP letters have never been guilty of more than a mistake or an oversight, and where a prosecution would never proceed because of that, yet those victims can still be labelled as 'wrongdoers' and hounded into absolute misery.

 

The charge would not be bad - if it were imposed by a Court after due process and an establishment of guilt, not when it is a figure plucked from thin air and a licence to print money.

[porkyp1g]

No I agree innocent people shouldn't be harassed. I think the rlp letters should only be issued to those where guilt is proven (with CCTV) or admitted to.

[Peterbard]

No I agree innocent people shouldn't be harassed. I think the rlp letters should only be issued to those where guilt is proven (with CCTV) or admitted to.

 

It is not for RLP to decide if the person is innocent or guilty, they are civil enforcement, not the police.

 

Civil law can only recover damages, they cannot enforce fines.

[porkyp1g]

Well if you admit to it or there is proof of you sneaking something away, then you don't need a jury. In most of these threads you see, the poster admits to guilt, I don't see why they shouldn't pay, but that's all IMHO.

 

I'm sure they would give them the choice if the thief wanted, are you guys saying the stores should be notifying the police regardless? If so, I have to agree with that as well.

[boswell]

No I agree innocent people shouldn't be harassed. I think the rlp letters should only be issued to those where guilt is proven (with CCTV) or admitted to.

 

Wrong, from what ive read here RLP are nothing more than chancers demanding money with menaces.

If stores decide to call police, so be it. But if they dont there is no legal basis for RLP demanding ficticious amounts of money to line their own pockets.

Read the CAB report in the sticky, and the failed prosecution. Like most on here I dont condone shoplifting, neither do I condone fleecing by chancers.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Wrong, from what ive read here RLP are nothing more than chancers demanding money with menaces.

If stores decide to call police, so be it. But if they dont there is no legal basis for RLP demanding ficticious amounts of money to line their own pockets.

Read the CAB report in the sticky, and the failed prosecution. Like most on here I dont condone shoplifting, neither do I condone fleecing by chancers.

 

If the failed case you are referring to is the Oxford case, it wasn't a prosecution, but a civil case, as are all civil recovery cases. Prosecutions are in the criminal courts. It's important to be accurate, because RLP would love people to think, wrongly, that they have some sort of connection to the criminal justice system.

[boswell]

If the failed case you are referring to is the Oxford case, it wasn't a prosecution, but a civil case, as are all civil recovery cases. Prosecutions are in the criminal courts. It's important to be accurate, because RLP would love people to think, wrongly, that they have some sort of connection to the criminal justice system.

 

Yes, thanks SP I stand corrected. It was the Oxford case to which I was referring. Wouldnt like to give RLP any glory through a misquote.