Primark Oxford Street, did a silly thing for my friend

[ericsbrother]

RLP tell you this site is being investigated by the police.

Is that a statement or do they write something that insinuates this and you read it that way.

 

 

Read everything they write very carefully and you will see that they dont state such things but suggest them.

 

 

You are in a vulnerable position and they wish to exploit that and that is how they conduct business

- selling spurious claims and massaging data, making exaggerated claims about who they work with

-they use

d to claim an intimate relationship with the ACPO to make them look like thay have some function of judisprudence

but they were ordered to stop that ( anyway the ACPO is just a members club for senior police officers

and has no powers in itself although they like to sell their services in a quasi-official way)

 

 

so you can take anything they say with a large pinch of salt.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I was thinking about RLP the other day; it's a few years now since their name started to appear on this forum.

 

 

Our advice has never wavered, and we've seen that the only time a retailer tried court (perhaps on RLP's recommendation, given that they were in court)

in a properly defended case, the retailer lost and RLP's claims were shown to be baseless.

 

 

Then there was the Law Commission's report, that said that companies in the 'civil recovery' industry, of which RLP is the largest,

used 'misleading and aggressive' practices. We've seen ACPO instruct RLP not to pretend that a relationship exists between them when it does not.

 

It struck me that after all this time, RLP is still essentially a one-woman backstreet speculative invoicing operation.

After all the risible suggestions of police investigations and the spurious attempts to blacken CAG's name,

I remain of the view that a narcissistic personality is involved.

Could this be the reason why RLP as a business doesn't appear to have grown much.

 

 

A look at its accounts shows that its turnover is very small - less than £500k - but with 'debtors' at almost £250k.

I wonder if all the speculative invoices are added into the 'debtors' column

- perhaps a forensic accountant may have a view on whether debts that don't really exist can be included.

 

 

Maybe that's why it hasn't been snapped up by a company like Capita, who bought Parking Eye, and run TV Licencing,

so aren't averse to speculative invoicing and a spot of intimidation (just my opinion, of course).

 

So whilst La Lambert's need to control and sense of invincibility may play a part (as evidenced by her obvious involvement in cases - doesn't she have people to do it?),

it may just be that it's simply not much of a business. It probably keeps her and the other director, the luridly-named Rhianna-Jade Lambert, in Mercedes, but a big player it's not.

 

In summary, then - nothing to be afraid of - just a rather unpleasant woman who chooses to make her money in a rather unsavoury

- but entirely legal - way.

[Mr.P]

[...] just a rather unpleasant woman who chooses to make her money in a rather unsavoury

- but entirely legal - way.

 

I would question that it is entirely legal in the way that Ms Lambert makes her money. She uses questionable legalese and overt intimidation to extract payments from her victims. It is a thin line between legitimate civil recovery and that of blackmail & extortion.

[silverfox1961]

I would question that it is entirely legal in the way that Ms Lambert makes her money. She uses questionable legalese and overt intimidation to extract payments from her victims. It is a thin line between legitimate civil recovery and that of blackmail & extortion.

 

Unfortunately this is an unregulated activity so until challenged in the higher courts, still legal. County court cases are only persuasive in similar actions.

 

The only way I can see this being challenged is for an alleged shoplifter challenging them but you can understand the reluctance to do so.

 

Ideally, I would like to see a wrongly accused shoplifter who is being chased by RLP to complain about harassment and misleading statements and taking the appropriate legal action against RLP by either complaining to the police (if they can be bothered) or by instigating a civil case against them.

[renegadeimp]

Well silverfox, there is a thread currently open where the other company similar to rlp is chasing an ex employee of a store that is wrongfully accused of theft and lost their job

[silverfox1961]

Well silverfox, there is a thread currently open where the other company similar to rlp is chasing an ex employee of a store that is wrongfully accused of theft and lost their job

 

I was thinking of the DWF thread as I was typing. We don't hear much about them and I am yet to see any comprehensive correspondence from them.

 

I would love to see those letters or recordings of phone calls.

[renegadeimp]

Yeah. Sadly people are too reluctant to show dwf letters

[Priyanka99]

Hi,

 

my friend received her letter and it wasn't from RLP, it was from Primark.

 

She asked me if that still makes a difference and if she still has to pay? They're demanding £180.

 

If i or her don't pay, will we get a criminal conviction?

[Priyanka99]

She also said that on the letter was her face through Primark's CCTV footage.

 

Really stressed now about my letter turning up!

[renegadeimp]

Please scan and post that letter but take out personal info please. I can pretty much guarantee it isn't primark that sent you that letter

[dx100uk]

follow the upload

guide

[Mr.P]

If i or her don't pay, will we get a criminal conviction?

 

If the police were not called at the time of the incident, then Primark had little interest in getting you convicted. RLP can not bring a prosecution against you regardless of whether you pay them or not.

[renegadeimp]

Please scan that letter. If RLP has sent it and is pretending to be primark, then they have just made a HUGE mistake.

[citizenB]

Yes, can you please depersonalise the letter and scan it in for us to see. I am very surprised that Primark have written ?

[Priyanka99]

Please scan that letter. If RLP has sent it and is pretending to be primark, then they have just made a HUGE mistake.

 

why did they make a mistake?

[renegadeimp]

Stop worrying and post that letter up.

[Billy5642]

Is it normal for RLP to send out a print out of CCTV with the letter??

[Priyanka99]

Sorry, my friend was just exaggerating. It was a letter from RLP demanding the £180 fine. I guess she got scared, called me, and over-exaggerated. There was no CCTV image on the letter of her, it wasn't sent by Primark.

 

Sorry again! (forgive me!)

[honeybee13]

Is it normal for RLP to send out a print out of CCTV with the letter??

 

Hello Billy.

 

If you have a problem with someone like RLP, it would be better to start your own thread.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

IT IS NOT A FINE..

 

 

dx

[silverfox1961]

IT IS NOT A FINE..

 

 

dx

 

She will get it.....eventually!

 

Even though it is from RLP, we could do with seeing it as they do change over time.

 

Ensure the letter is posted in pdf format and has zero identifiable marks on it, name, address, reference numbers, bar codes (if any)

 

As for the letter itself, as the others have said, ignore

[Priyanka99]

Someone send me some RLP letters again thanks.

 

I cant open the others someone sent before.

[silverfox1961]

Someone send me some RLP letters again thanks.

 

I cant open the others someone sent before.

 

That might be quite hard at the moment as CAG got hacked over Christmas. No personal details taken. We have lost some attchments and I am having difficulty re up loading them. bear with us.

[caro]

She also said that on the letter was her face through Primark's CCTV footage.

 

Really stressed now about my letter turning up!

 

That's what they're counting on. Scaring you into paying. Learn from your mistake and move on with your life. They can't and won't do anything apart from send scary letters.

[Priyanka99]

Was it RLP that hacked CAG?