From RLP now to BPO letters.

[silverfox1961]

The problem with this 'database' (again-if it exists) is that it contains the names and addresses of ALLEGED shoplifters. Nothing has been proved in a criminal court for the majority of those stored. You have to remember, only a small amount of the actual shoplifters (as opposed to those that made a mistake) get taken to court and get a criminal conviction.

 

So, those who have not been convicted of any crime have their details stored without their permission and the database could be factually wrong. Store security guards will 'nick' anyone whether an error was made or not. In their eyes, guilty! They then pass the details on to RLP who have no idea if the person they will be chasing is a shoplifter or not. They take the security guards word for it.

[ericsbrother]

see the thread on this subject headed letter from rlp tkmaxx incident

it has the script from Jackie claiming she does indeed want to see thee inside of a cell for doing this.

[jjholland]

Hi

 

 

following numerous letters from RLP,

 

 

I believe my case was passed on to BPO and received txt messages and now this letter.

 

 

I would be extremely grateful for your knowledge and experience in this sector .

 

What I'm trying to find out is whether they will actually go foreword and impose a ccj as I'm a recent graduate

and obviously would not want this showing on job screenings etc.

 

(History - caught shoplifting in boots for amount £150+ in early part of year and cautioned by police on the same day-never been in trouble before etc )

 

Heres the letter that i received for your viewing pleasure.

[citizenB]

Hmm, well who are their clients? If the client is RLP.. well we already know that RLP cannot issue proceedings so that letter is very misleading and should be copied to the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

I will try and find someone who can advise further.

[citizenB]

I have moved your thread to the RLP forums as it is obviously not just a simple Debt collection situation.. as there is NO debt !

[jjholland]

Hi the rlp dept originally came from boots to which is where i was caught shoplifting just to clarify.

[Peterbard]

did you ever respond to any earlier claims ?

 

These people deal with "uncontested debt", personally I would drop them a line in this instance. Simply state that contrary to their letter you do not acknowledge any debt, and as far as you are concerned the matter is closed.

 

I would state that you do not intend to enter into any further correspondence in the matter.

 

Send recorded there is also an email address on thier web page here. http://www.bpocollections.co.uk/index_flash.html

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

Firstly, BPO cannot claim this is an undisputed debt as it is not a debt until a court says it is. Misleading

 

Secondly, their client is RLP who cannot commence legal proceedings. Misleading

 

The only 'further action' BPO can take is to send it back to RLP.

 

Can you say what date this letter was dated?

 

If you have kept all previous letters from RLP can you upload them (minus personal details of course)

[dx100uk]

for history old and new threads merged

 

 

ignore BPO

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

Quick bit of simple maths here for you- what is 0+0?

the 2 sums are what RLP and BPO are entitled to so where does the figure £196 come from?

once you get your head around the first bit everything else becomes clear. They cant take you to court as you dont owe them anything so you wont get a ccj so there will be no adverse effect on your job prospects.

reread the letter and read it very slowly and consider each word and its relationship with the one next to it rather than making an assumption on the whole lot thrown together in a way to make it look scary.

broken down it means nothing.

I could threaten you with court for eating bits of the moon, which IS made of cheese and not basalt as those NASA people like to tell you but there are fundamental problems with this as a civil tort, namely I have no proof that the moon is cheese, I dont own the moon and there is no evidence you have eaten any of it.

[silverfox1961]

Whatever Ericsbrother is on, I want some

 

People have been saying ignore this letter. I am not going to be one of them in this instance. I would be sending them a nissive on the lines of:---

 

"I am in receipt of your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx and the contents are noted however, it is my belief that this letter may be considered as misleading which is against the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations which was updated from the 1st October to make misleading statements a criminal offence.

 

I bring to your attention what I feel is misleading.

 

1 Undisputed. I can assure you that this fictitious amount is fully disputed and for you to make this claim is misleading

 

2 Liability. There is no liability nor has there ever been. This is a demand for compensation without fully breaking down the actual figures. The only way this could ever become lawful is if a judge rules it so. This then follows on to:-

 

3 I quote this back to you. "Could you please contact us within 7 days of receipt of this letter, failing which you are at risk of our client issuing proceedings against you."

 

This is totally misleading as your client is Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) who are acting as an agent for Boots and as an agent are unable to commence proceedings against anyone.

 

I will be making a copy of this letter available to the relevant authority who may wish to raise these statements with you,

 

 

Etc. Etc.

 

That is what i would do. Others will disagree but if we can get BPO squirming, all the better.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I agree with the above. However, as the letter does not make clear who their client is, it may be better to ask them to identify who has instructed them as the first move. If it's RLP ( and we know it is), then stating that legal action may be taken when in fact it can't be is another clear offence under CPUTR.

 

I believe that failing to identify their client is a breach of CONC rules, too.

[renegadeimp]

Didnt jackie start using BPO because even scotcall wont have anything to do with her?