RLP - Challenge vs. Reduced Settlement? (Urgent)

[ice_dragoness274]

I was taken to a room for questioning, upon leaving a departmental store, for allegations of shoplifting.

 

I had picked up several cosmetic tester samples from the stands, as often (for products apart from foundations), the staff do not give you free samples and it is difficult to get an accuracy of colour matching in lighting outside the store.

 

I wish to emphasise that these were all tester products - they had been used already/ were not brand new. Some were also smaller than the standard product size. So it wouldn't be fair to equate them to the price of a brand new, full-size product, nor the theft of an actual product. Though, I do feel it was not the right course of action.

 

Nevertheless, I was given an exclusion order from the store. When I was questioned, I was asked to put out all the Make-Up testers I had picked up, and I co-operated fully in returning these. Given they were for high-end brands, the total was estimated at around £200 (in any case, given they were opened, non-full size testers, this estimation is inaccurate in itself); I was told by the Store's Security Officers that this would affect the charge RLP would ask for.

 

However, in the letter RLP wrote to me, they contradict the store staff - RLP are saying that due to all items being recovered, the £197 I owe is purely for the "substantial amount of time...in observing, apprehending, interviewing you..". I believe this is quite an extortionate amount in light of the circumstances, and the fact I was fully compliant.

 

Moreover, when I was questioned by the Store staff, they asked for my University address (assuring no correspondence would be sent there), as well as home address. They may have confused University with University residence, but they did not make this clear. Eitherway, RLP addressed their charge letter to my University, who had to open it before redirecting it to me. This is infringing on my privacy, and I am now also concerned if this could affect my employability? I didn't receive any Police Order (it is a civil matter), but could future employers see this on an DBS (CRB) check or elsewhere? Does paying the fee clear my name from any databases?

 

Should I dispute this case, or ask for a reduced settlement? Any advice would be much appreciated. This is really worrying me, and making it hard to focus on my work.

Edited January 8, 2015 by ice_dragoness274

[ScarletPimpernel]

You should just ignore RLP, who will try to bully you into paying money you do not owe.

 

They have no legal powers, no authority, and all they can do is send willy-waving letters. They stop in the end, but since all they have to lose is the cost of a stamp it takes a while.

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

If the letter was addressed to you but with the unversities address and not the residential address then they would usually open the mail and redirect it. This may have been deliberate but you would have a hard job proving it. You could complain to RLP but I suspect they won't do anything.

 

As to the demand letter, I would like to see it (suitably cleansed of all identifying date) as I want to collate all the different types of letter they send.

 

I suggest that you ignore RLP. They have absolutely no right to be demanding anything from you. Have you been convicted in court? No! Therefore they are assuming guilt without a judges ruling. Only the store can take legal action against you but as far as I am aware, no store has taken this action since 2012 after a certain retailer and RLP got a slapping in court.

 

They will pass the 'fee' on to a debt collector who have even less power than RLP

 

No point disputing anything with RLP or even offering a settlement. You owe them nothing.

[renegadeimp]

Dont let it worry you one second longer. They cannot touch you. All jackie and her minions can do is thrreaten you by letter. Thats it. Theoretically, you could take them to court for harassment, but she'll claim she was acting under instructions from the retailer.

 

Regarding her letters, they are normally full of misinformation and lies. They are designed purely to intimidate you and scare you into paying.

 

Read your OP, you state that RLP said its for apprehending and dealing with you... Nope. SOrry jackie and co. Those costs are all factored into the wage the security guards get per hour.

 

Youd have thought she would have learned her lesson after the failed court case in 2012 ( she hasnt taken ANY legal action since). She even had the cheek to say the judge was totally wrong and she was right.

[ScarletPimpernel]

In the matter of how their letter was addressed, if it was addressed to you by name at a university 'business' address, then there's not much you can do - lots of places have a policy of opening mail unless marked as private.

 

Don't worry about databases. We aren't aware of a single employer (or anyone else) who uses the Cireco database, which may well just be an Excel spreadsheet.

 

Paying RLP makes RLP a profit to which they are not entitled; nothing else.

[ice_dragoness274]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

If the letter was addressed to you but with the unversities address and not the residential address then they would usually open the mail and redirect it. This may have been deliberate but you would have a hard job proving it. You could complain to RLP but I suspect they won't do anything.

 

As to the demand letter, I would like to see it (suitably cleansed of all identifying date) as I want to collate all the different types of letter they send.

 

I suggest that you ignore RLP. They have absolutely no right to be demanding anything from you. Have you been convicted in court? No! Therefore they are assuming guilt without a judges ruling. Only the store can take legal action against you but as far as I am aware, no store has taken this action since 2012 after a certain retailer and RLP got a slapping in court.

 

They will pass the 'fee' on to a debt collector who have even less power than RLP

 

No point disputing anything with RLP or even offering a settlement. You owe them nothing.

 

Thank you all for your replies. I did write an email to RLP, to inform them to post to my home address in future, just to avoid my University finding out - however I have not yet submitted any challenge to my case.

 

Hence, would you all advise that I do not contact them at all, even to dispute the case? I am aware that the possibility of them taking me to court is unlikely, but once they pass on the case to a debt collector, could the equivalent of a bailiff come to my address to demand the fees? I would be mortified of that happening, or my parents finding out.

 

I know with Parking tickets, for example, or ignoring a PCN, they can send bailiffs to your door to demand a sum. But this cannot happen with ignoring correspondence from RLP, as it is a civil matter?

[silverfox1961]

could the equivalent of a bailiff come to my address to demand the fees?

 

NO! A bailiff can only call AFTER a court case and then only if you lost and failed to pay. Anyone else who turns up can be told to bu**er off. RLP do not send anyone to your door and the debt collector won't as the tend to get a success fee so they won't spend much time on this.

 

IF (and it is a big if) anyone turned up on your doorstep and divulged any personal info to anyone other than you then they would be in breach of the Data Protection Act

[renegadeimp]

IGNORE THEM. And any stupid DCA that tried to chase you. NEITHER of those companies can touch you. You are getting worried and worked up over nothing. Take some time and read the RLP forum. youll soon see there is nothing to be concerned about.

[ice_dragoness274]

I'm looking through the Forum, and also came across this post, quoted below. I understand that it is rare for cases to be taken to court since 2012 (with the exception of internal allegations against employees). However, I noticed the following post in March 2012 in a thread with a former TK Maxx Loss Prevention officer.

 

Is it basically 100% guaranteed that my case will not be taken to court (thus incurring further fees)? And do you think the post quoted below, is just an anomaly, or a false posting to deter people from ignoring RLP?

 

Hi, I think your information about going to court is out of date. I've also received court papers about a shoplifting in TK Maxx and the amount they are now claiming is the original £137.50 plus £80 court fees and £35 solicitor fees, so the bill is now £252.50. I looked on RLP's website and they show the cases they have taken to court recently. I don't know what to do now because one person has to pay £1900.00. I wish i'd paid the £137.50 now. I don't know what to do either

[ice_dragoness274]

Also, if I emailed them before I came across this forum earlier today, asking to change my University address on the record, and asking that they put my case on hold beyond the 21 day period for making a challenge...is it ok to now ignore any reply I receive, and not challenge them at all? Or would they use this against me

[honeybee13]

Ref your post #9, ebone posted the same thing twice on their only posts in early 2012 and they haven't been back to update us.

 

From memory, this was just before the 2012 court case that RLP lost.

 

HB

[silverfox1961]

Every now and again, we get posts which look suspicious and make claims that do not stack up. this ebone made two posts in March 2012 so well before the other case which RLP I(and the retailer) lost.

 

Emailing them has done no harm whatsoever but not contacting is the way I would go

[silverfox1961]

I am going to reproduce the transcript of the letter you sent me below as it is one we have seen before but I will put some additional info within it to show how misleading they are.

 

Dear X,

 

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

 

We have been informed by Y in relation to the incident at Y on Y, where it is alleged you were involved in Theft of Goods. As you are aware, you were apprehended as a result of your actions.

 

Your wrongful conduct gives our client the right to pursue a civil claim for damages against you in the Country Court (true, they could but it won't be worth it)

as this caused significant disruption to our client's business at those premises (false. this is something they do on a daily basis so no disruption can be quantified). Our client has sustained losses as a result of your wrongful actions which include the value of the goods, if not recovered or fit for resale(true but they got the stuff back so no loss there); the cost of the diversion of it's staff's time and associated security and administration costs. (total rubbish. what staff? security staff diverted from their usual duties which they already paid for and their duties include apprehending shoplifters so I ask again, what diversion?)The average cost to our client of an incident of this nature is between £300 and £500(utter bovine excrement. The costs to the store are already factored into the prices people pay at the till), before taking into account any goods or cash not recovered. Please read the attached information in conjunction with this letter.

 

Recovering the goods or cash does not mean our client has suffered no loss. Collectively a substantial amount of time was incurred as a result of your actions in observing, apprehending, interviewing you, and undertaking all necessary internal and external procedures thereafter. (already included in the stores general running costs that cannot be reclaimed)

 

Given the low value of the claim, our client is required to process it expediently, cost effectively and proportionately. A fixed contribution of all the losses is therefore sought, in sum of £200. This does not include any amount for the property or cash as these were fully recovered.

 

If you believe you have a Defence to this claim, or there are other factors you wish to be taken into consideration, please advise us, and provide any evidence in support, within the next 21 days. You will appreciate that our client can only take into consideration information if it is provided.

 

This is a civil claim and separate from any criminal proceedings or police action. This letter is sent in accordance with the Practice Direction for Pre-action Conduct and the Civil procedure Rules 1998 ('CPR'). We would refer you in particular to paragraph 4 concerning the Court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction. It also provides that we must inform you that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the Claimant starting proceedings and may increase your liability for costs. The Practice Direction can be found at: Y ( again, utter crap. You are under no obligation to contact them-ever)

 

We have put your case on hold for 21 days for you to consider your following options.

 

We look forward to receiving your response. Please ensure you send correspondence to us, and not to our client directly, as this will cause unnecessary delay.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

 

All the store can claim for is the cost of the goods if not recovered plus an admin fee at the true rate for the time taken to produce a letter.

 

Any security costs (observing, deterring, apprehending etc.) are all covered by the shops running costs so cannot be claimed for; the same applies to cctv and uniforms.

 

This is the reason most people who don't find CAG, pay up in the mistaken belief that RLP have some power when in fact they have none.

[ericsbrother]

I love the bit about losses for things not being fit for resale.

 

 

How do you estimate the loss of a tester sample?

 

 

Are they going to calculate the number of people who tested the sample,

divided that by the number who purchased as a consequence

and then weighed the tester sample to make an estimation

on how many more they would have sold if the items had been successfully snaffled?

 

 

If so then they have to subtract 100% as the tester was recovered and then add the lost sales in the time the lippy was in her hadbag.

 

That make a grand total of £0 in my reckoning and invite RLP to produce their figures if they disagree.

 

As you can see, the claim is risible and best ignored

but you could invite them to comment on the above calculations

if you want to waste time playing letter tennis with them..

[dx100uk]

ignore the little fleecers totally

 

 

dx