RLP and CPUT - discussion thread

[itsworthatry]

Have been reading a few threads on this RLP crew having been looking at the enhanced CPUT regs on another matter. Has anyone considered paying up like a good consumer then sending a nice letter with all sorts of legal stuff claiming some arbitrary damages sum pulled out the air back to RLP. It could be entertaining, and then take them to court when they fail to pay up.

[renegadeimp]

Wont happen, youd have no basis for a claim. They can simply say they are contracted by the business to recoup losses. Of course, the losses incurred are miniscule, but thats up to a judge to decide.

[itsworthatry]

But it is RLP who are setting the "losses" not their "client" so they are responsible for the unfair practice, inflated claims (and of course the aggressive practice). If it is business who are setting the amount RLP are claiming that is a different matter and you could pursue their clients. I am sure their clients would be thrilled that RLP are passing the buck back to them.

[honeybee13]

Hello there. I've started a new thread for you to discuss this so that the OP on the thread you tacked onto can comtinue to receive advice.

 

HB

[2Grumpy]

The amount claimed being the same for different retailers shows that it is RLP setting the demand and not the retailer, even if RLP claim that they "guided" the retailer who agreed with their suggestion.

 

Would someone need to pay before taking action against them? Would the claim be against RLP or the retailer?

[silverfox1961]

OOH! an aarea of deep interest to me.

 

Having read the guide (rather than the full regulations) it would appear that there need be no exchange of cash to make a complaint.

 

I already have some letters pre Oct 1st and only one (so far) after that date for comparison. Apparently RLP told the BBC that they had no intention of changing the format of the letters.

 

As it stands, the letters are misleading in that they are claiming for costs that could not be claimed for and the following letters get more aggressive. Let us also not forget that RLP are the agents for the stores and as such the stores are ultimately responsible for their agents actions. The same applies to the DCAs. They are acting for RLP under instruction from the store.

[ericsbrother]

RLP are claiming there is a contractual obligation, we argue that there isnt.

If you take RLP's claim at face value then it is open season on them and claiming that there are unfair and misleading terms in the contract. That doesnt mean that you have to pay RLP to take up the baton, just accept that they have a right to act on behalf of the retailer and have the right to claim a (random) sum of money that represents the supposed cost of their action. Bit of a double bluff if you dont pay but someone who does pay up and then finds us here may wish to claim their money back pronto now has a reason and method for doing so.

[itsworthatry]

RLP are claiming there is a contractual obligation, we argue that there isnt.

 

 

If you take RLP's claim at face value then it is open season on them and claiming that there are unfair and misleading terms in the contract. That doesnt mean that you have to pay RLP to take up the baton, just accept that they have a right to act on behalf of the retailer and have the right to claim a (random) sum of money that represents the supposed cost of their action. Bit of a double bluff if you dont pay but someone who does pay up and then finds us here may wish to claim their money back pronto now has a reason and method for doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

So it would be even better if someone paid up the demanded money then claimed back a sum. Interesting, less than £300 would mean £25 cost to claim and potentially cost to RLP defending claim if they chose to. Any legal views out there?

Edited November 4, 2014 by itsworthatry

[renegadeimp]

RLP can say they are instructed by the business to recoup losses. The loss amount can be said to be set by the company, and then RLP add on their amount. However, the loss incurred is miniscule. RLP add on their charge which is often 80% more, then try to say it is ALL losses and costs incurred.

 

You can try and claim it back, but youd have to have one considerate judge to award money back, and even then jackie will be stubborn enough to appeal it as far as she can.

[silverfox1961]

I think that once any money is paid, everyone should forget it as the costs and the risks involved with going to court are not worth it.

 

Nothing should need to be paid to claim misleading or aggressive practice and we also should remember that the regulations make it a criminal offence to send this type of letter.

 

I have already noticed that some DCAs have changed the wording of their letters, making them more 'sympathetic'

[ericsbrother]

I would not advocate paying up and trying it out, I said that if someone has been duped into paying they have a reason to dispute the payment and recover it by use of the civil procedures.

The point about the letters sent i was trying to make is that if you acept they have a right to pursue you then you have a reason to say that the letters fall foul of the law. Generally, if you choose to ignore them then they cant be said to be misleading as you havent fallen for them.

[itsworthatry]

So if someone has written to RLP (lets say opening negotiations) in response to some of their letters and then realise that RLP are falling foul of the CPUT as the content of the letters are misleading then they could take up a claim against RLP (or report them to someone in authority)? I bet RLP are changing the tone of their letters. I notice some say the later letters "threaten" to engage a DCA to put the frighteners on people. As there is no debt (as defined by law as no CC judgement is in place) this could be seen as a misleading statement and people could be forced to make a transactional transaction based on that fear. I bet RLP are worrying since 1st October......

[ericsbrother]

I'm not sure that the level of coercion is there to defeat a proper claim but there will never be a proper claim from RLP because they have no locus standi as the Oxford case showed. the real problem is RLP are actually too dumb or too pig headed to understand that they are wrong and that the law has now caught up with them. they wont stop sending out letters just because they are unlawful demands as they send them to people who are by the most part vulnerable rather than criminal. The criminals laugh at such things and would be dealt with differently anyway.

As with when BG got done for harassment, there must be some belief as well as a level of continuance. The latter got BG into trouble so with RLP you would have to consider the former as a causus belli and I'm sure that they wouldnt help themselves if you did take up the challenge becuase they think they are right (or at least they talk the talk).

[itsworthatry]

Well that is a real shame that it looks like this crew RLP can carry on with their brand of piracy without anyway of being stopped despite the law strengthening with the CPUT. I think some of these high street retailers should be ashamed of themselves for employing these tactics. I am not condoning people for doing wrong against a business (I include people who park inconsiderately in private car parks) but it is the way these businesses go about the recovery or these fictional "losses". Reasonable losses yes but inflated claims are just contemptible. It would be interesting for someone to test the CPUT against RLP. If nothing else it would distract them from their usual "business".

[ericsbrother]

The High St retailers are not employing these tactics, they are missold a service based on spurious promises, assumptions and assertions from RLP. None of the money collected goes back to the store, they PAY RLP to help reduce or prevent loss by theft without any evidence produced that can show that it works.. There may be some truth in RLP's assertion that stealing money from vulnerable people helps prevent crime but without a proper investigation and analysis of their business no-one will ever know. If RLP were good at their supposed job we would be reading scientific papers on theri methodology and results with proper peer review and suitable cohort studies as you get with any other epidemiological study .

[itsworthatry]

I think that is exactly why RLP could be in a very sticky situation. As I understand it they claim to be working on behalf of their "clients" making claims on behalf of their "clients" have no hand in what they actually get up to, and what they say in their correspondence. I think a claim against CPUT would be hard to defend, and in court their "clients" would have no desire to back up the claims they make and they would not be able to prove what they claim, therefore are making misleading claims. As has always been said in these discussions RLP have no legal basis to make a claim only their client, but do RLP have they formal authority from these so called clients to be representing then, and are in fact not a firm of solicitors so can not work in that way. Look at how Parking Eyes are struggling to defend their actions, which I would suggest have a more solid legal basis for claiming money from consumers. I think RLPs greatest saviour is they people they are pursuing are usually embarrassed of they accusations made against them, when they don't need to because in the cases where no conviction has been made the moment RLP name and shame shall we say, they could be off to see the beak themselves....

[itsworthatry]

Just out of interest, does anyone know how RLP deal with the retailers. Do they pay them a fixed sum for each 'guilty' person referred or do they pay a percentage of the ill gotten gains. It is key to understand if the retailers are also guilty of contravention of the CPUT or if it is just RLP?

[silverfox1961]

There is no absolute proof of any split of revenue as this would be commercially confidential however, there was a rumour that RLP did split the revenue on a 60/40 basis with RLP getting the lions share.

 

I don't think that it would matter that much as the retailer has a contract with RLP for them to act as the agent of the retailer so (IMO) the retailer is as liable as RLP for the content on the letters.

[SabreSheep]

As far as im concerned

 

THE RLP will claim permission is granted to pass on data etc by the retailer. It is the Retailer that advertises the warning notices outside and inside the store.

 

Therefore the Retailer is allowing them to do what they do.

Therefore, they are complicit and jointly responsible.

[itsworthatry]

As RLP are the agents for the retailer, if a case came to court under CPUT, then in order to defend themselves RLP would be forced to reveal this relationship otherwise as they send the letters it would be their individual liability? That would be interesting. It is not like they are a legal firm so can't claim any privacy under that, could they keep this relationship private as how else could the court decide whether the letters and amounts claimed are misleading. Interesting thought if someone decided to take this crew to court how they would defend their actions under CPUT.

[renegadeimp]

RLP wont take anything to court. The last time jackie did take someone to court, she got railed, and hasnt taken a single person to court since.

 

If they get took to court themselves, they could say that they are operating and following the instructions of the retailer under contract. Thats why in the last court case they did, the retailer demanded not to be named. Possibly because they didnt want to be associated with RLP and couldnt say anything publicly due to contracts and publicity.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP wont take anything to court. The last time jackie did take someone to court, she got railed, and hasnt taken a single person to court since.

 

If they get took to court themselves, they could say that they are operating and following the instructions of the retailer under contract. Thats why in the last court case they did, the retailer demanded not to be named. Possibly because they didnt want to be associated with RLP and couldnt say anything publicly due to contracts and publicity.

 

 

 

To be clear, RLP don't take anyone to court. They can't because they have no legal standing to do so, and are not a legitimate legal firm.

 

The case to which you refer - the Oxford case - was brought by the retailer. We know that RLP had significant involvement, because the repellent Jackie and her unlovely sidekick were in court and whispering to the retailer's lawyers (I have heard one of them on the radio - very common). It has been suggested that RLP may have underwritten the retailer's costs, but we can't be certain of that.

 

It is certain that RLP were keen to get a retailer to take a case to court, because they thought it would be an easy win that they could then use to add to the pressure they apply to their targets. That may be why the case involved two girls who'd confessed to stealing from the retailer's premises; on the face of it a slam-dunk win for the retailer.

 

On the day, though, it was not to be, as the judge was unimpressed by the security staff's inability to accurately remember significant events, nor did he find that RLP's 'matrix' of charges represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In short, there was no proper legal basis for the claim. But we've always known that, and indeed the Law Commission have said so.

 

After the case was decided, the two defendants asked for anonymity, and when the learned Judge said he was minded to grant it the retailer asked for it too. Any suggestion that the retailer wanted to avoid any corporate embarrassment because of the sort of company they were keeping in RLP is of course, purely speculation.

 

In summary, RLP can't bring court action themselves, and retailers are remarkably reluctant to do so. RLP may be the subject of court action themselves, of course, should someone bring an action for harassment, for example. If they were to be prosecuted under CPUTR, I do not doubt that they'd claim to be acting as agents, but I suspect that since the retailer would be vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, it would just mean that both retailer and RLP would be co-defendants.

[silverfox1961]

Just for completeness, here is the judgement.

 

http://www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/cms/uploads/A-Retailer-v-B-K_001.pdf

 

I won't post details of the two day case as it runs into 150+ pages

[itsworthatry]

Thanks for that link to the Oxford Case judgement. I wonder who the anonymous retailer was. In that transcript it states the retailer has 2500 stores. That sounds like the large retailer who has been in the news recently for falling sales etc. I wonder if whoever is was are still using RLP?

 

 

I still think this CPUT needs to be tested against these types of operators. There is nothing worse than a corporate bully preying on vulnerable people, or in fact anyone. The Oxford case just general civil liability law, for which RLP and the retailer lost because of the flawed basis for the claim. Nowhere have they been reprimanded for the approach they take in misleading people with their lies.

[renegadeimp]

Lets not hypothesise on here who it was. The company has court ordered anonymity, so it really wouldnt be wise to break that.