Letter from RLP - TK Maxx incident

[Shaun9]

Hi, guys

 

I know there is a lot about RLP on here and people say not to worry and ignore there letters,

but I was hoping for a bit of advice on my own letter I received.

 

I went to tk maxx to return a item what was the wrong size,

but they said the return expiry date had expired by 2 days as it said on the back of receipt.

 

So after being quite cross and I know it was stupid of me now, I decided to go and take the size I wanted. But

 

Security saw me and stopped me on the way out the door.

 

I did not damage any goods,

they just took them back off me,

took my details and gave me a 12month banning order.

 

Then I received this letter from RLP.( below )

 

THE LETTER....

 

 

We are instructed to notify you that you are not to return to our clients premises for the next 1 year.

If you do you will be a trespasser and maybe liable for arrest and further criminal action.

 

It is alleged that you were involved in a wrongful act and your actions caused significant disruption to the clients business at those premises.

 

Our Clients lossed include the value of the goods, if not recovered or fit for resale ,

the cost of security and store personnels time who were diverted from there duties for which they are engaged

and paid, plus administration security costs.

 

The law provides the recovery of these losses and makes no distinction between profit generating personal

and profit protecting security personal who are equal value to the business.

 

Collectively a substantial amount of time was incurred as a result of your actions

such as observing, apprehending, interviewing you, and undertaking all necessary internal and external procedures thereafter.

 

Before instigating a civil claim, which is entirely separate from any police action or criminal proceedings,

we invite you to advise us if there are any facts or circumstances surrounding the incident that led to your involvement

in the incident that you would like us to take in to account.

 

If you believe you may have a defence, or if there any other circumstances which led to your involvement in the incident,

you need to inform us within 14days and provide any evidence in support of your representations.

 

Any information you provide will be evaluated in order to make decision as to whether it is appropriate to seek the cost of your actions

( the disruption ) from you.

 

You will appreciate we can only take into consideration information if it is provided .

If we do not receive any information or evidence from you,

the information our client has provided will be relied upon, and a claim will proceed.

 

The actual cost of dealing with your actions is considerable .

The average cost to our client of an incident of this nature is between £300 and £500,

before taking into account the value of losses for any goods not recovered or not fit for resale.

 

Although our client is legally entitled to claim its full costs and losses, our client proposes to seek only a contribution

towards the costs of dealing with the incident, which it considers is sufficient to deter you from involvement in further such incidents.

 

Provided our client does not seek to recover in excess of its losses, such losses are recoverable in law.

 

A total sum of £50 ( including any goods if they were not fit for resale ) therefore required to settle this claim.

 

The procedure for this claim is set out in the practice direction for pre-action conduct and civil procedure rules 1998.

 

You are required to respond within 14days.

 

If we receive no response, our client would be entitled to issue proceedings for the fuul value of the claim.

 

We summarise your options

 

. if there are factors that you wish to be taken into account you must advise within 14days

. if there are any considering factors, settle the claim by paying the amount stated £50 ( see enclosed sheet)

.if you wish to settle the claim,but cannot do within 14days, contact us to discuss payment options.

. Negotiate an alternative settlement by conducting our collections department.

. Advise that you require more time to take advice and consider your position.

 

We will put this matter on hold to allow you the full 14days to respond.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

RLP

[renegadeimp]

Follow the advice in every other thread. Your letter is a standard letter from Jackie and co.

 

You can either ignore or send the one line letter and ignore. Both achieve the same thing.

[andydd]

"The average cost to our client of an incident of this nature is between £300 and £500, ". HHmm..Really ?. The Oxford case went into the alleged costs in some details, the security staff were paid just above minumum wage and the time spent was less than an hour I believe, there is no way that the cost (even IF recoverable) would be between £300 and £500, this figure is clearly plucked out of the air and is used to try and scare recipients of RLP letters into paybe the lower figure suggested by RLP, my suggestion is to pay RLP a big fat zero pounds £0.00.

 

Nearly every paragraph of the letter is unneccasary or just wrong, they try to blind the recipients with legal jargon or facts that are plainly inaccurate and incorrect, the law clearly does NOT provide for such losses to be recovered, IF they did then the stores/RLP would take legal action every time, the fact they do not speaks volumes.

 

The staff would be employed (at the same rate), irrespective of whether they observe, aprehend and interview any alleged shoplifters or not, RLP really should go back to the judgement in Oxford and re-read it

[renegadeimp]

Jackie knows what the judgement was. She ignores it, and even said the judge was wrong.

[rebel11]

Guys, what's wrong with the following statement?

 

'The average cost to our client of an incident of this nature is between £300 and £500'

[renegadeimp]

Heh nice catch there reb.

[rebel11]

Maybe she can enroll as a mature student, instead of sending out speculative invoices.

 

Heh nice catch there reb.

[renegadeimp]

She might... if you removed the word 'mature'.

[rebel11]

No chance:-)

 

She might... if you removed the word 'mature'.

[renegadeimp]

What i want to know, is if she thinks her business is legit, and she has nothing to hide, and she knows about CAG, why doesnt she come here for a proper discussion? Any trolls can easily be removed from it. I dont Consider her business moral, ethical, or legit, but that doesnt mean she cant have her voice heard.

[ScarletPimpernel]

What i want to know, is if she thinks her business is legit, and she has nothing to hide, and she knows about CAG, why doesnt she come here for a proper discussion?

 

Once bitten, and all that. RLP tried to justify themselves before, using sockpuppets - the renowned-for-all-the-wrong-reasons Frogboy and others. There was another who came on and tried to justify RLP's practices from the retailer's perspective; he said he was a retailer. But something didn't seem right, so I did a bit of digging, and discovered the poster actually worked for a non-retail business, which, no doubt by sheer coincidence, wasn't a million miles from RLP's location. His PERSEC was shocking, so I rang and left a message for him. Oddly, he stopped posting...

[Shaun9]

Thanks for the helpful infomation, If I do write a letter back do you have any advice how I should put it?

[dx100uk]

yep two words

 

dx

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Reading other threads is the best way to understand the tactics used by this 'company'

 

RLP will send many pages of guff in the guise of legalese with the implicit intention of scaring you into paying.

 

let us be clear, RLP cannot take court action, TKMAXX (to the best of my knowledge) do not take anyone to court. The amount of time and cost to them to do so would outstrip any possible return.

 

My own opinion is to send the one liner and then ignore every other letter including the ones from RLPs pet debt collector (who are as much use as a chocolate fireguard)

[Sidewinder]

Personally can't understand why anybody shops at TK Maxx. Jumble sale of a store and an absolute dogs dinner

 

...they and RLP are similar in so many ways

[renegadeimp]

I havent set foot in one since the wrexham one opened in the late 90's

[ericsbrother]

If any of what was said in the letter was true TKMaxx would be unable to sell any item for less than £51. Not my favourite store but I do believe that they sell clothing for much less than this sum and make a very good profit according to their annual accounts.

RLP are not noted for their probity so dont even bother writing to them, a waste of a stamp. Let them spend their money telling you fairy stories.

[renegadeimp]

We suggest sending the one line letter as it makes anything else she tries and say completely redundant. She relies on this liability phrase for everything she tries. Deny liability and she cant do anything as it is up to her and the retailer to prove it.

[Shaun9]

Okay, so I have posted a letter to Jackie and RLP & co. Simply saying ( All liability to you or your client is denied) lets see if she responds.

[renegadeimp]

She'll answer with a few letters of complete rubbish. When you get them have a good chuckle. The woman is seriously deluded.

[Alfie29]

I sent her mine one back and I shredded the paper up she sent me and said 'ur rubbish back for you'! I've had 2 letters from pointless RLP and laugh at everyone

 

Bring it on...

 

Buy urself a shredder, works wonders for u lol

[silverfox1961]

I sent her mine one back and I shredded the paper up she sent me and said 'ur rubbish back for you'! I've had 2 letters from pointless RLP and laugh at everyone

 

Bring it on...

 

Buy urself a shredder, works wonders for u lol

 

Ya know, I quite like that idea.

 

Ok, it will cost a bit more in stamps and paper and ink but.

 

Print off a letter containing any old rubbish, shred it then enclose a covering letter saying:

 

"Please find enclosed copy of letter suitably shredded for you as to save time as I know that you will do so anyway."

 

Wonder if they will try to put it back together before realising it contains nothing of value.

 

[Shaun9]

RLP have broken their silence saying

 

this matter will not go away, and

 

is in your intrest as it could count in additional liability if the matter proceeds to court.

 

legal costs that would be sought at the rate of 8%.

 

There is sufficient evidence to establish liability.

( there is loads of other jiberish about my rights) then

 

they go on to say the information we hold may now be passed on to the police

or other crime initiatives in the interest of preventing and detecting crime

and may be available to other members of a closed user group for employment screening.

 

( Please note employment screening will only be conducted with your consent)

 

Should I just ignore this letter or reply again?

 

Thanks

 

 

Shaun

[renegadeimp]

Keep ignoring. Sadly it is a standard letter jackie uses to try in vain to get you to make contact. Have a look around these forums, you'll see plenty of people have recieved the same one.

 

Basically for lack of a better phrase... She's full of ****.

[dx100uk]

can we see a scan of that letter please we need it.

 

dx