RLP, teenager, shoplifting....what do I do? desperate for some up to date advice

[ajgg543]

Help....worried sick mum here....and a newbie to this site, please tell me if I've forgotten anything on this post.....

 

My daughter (age 16) was really stupid in July and tried to shoplift from Boots,

she was stopped (thankfully - believe me lesson learnt

- why does it always have to be the hard way?),

 

 

the police were called who in turn called us.

They had a 'discussion' with my very distraught daughter in front of me

but said they wouldn't charge her and that this would be the end of the matter

(before I got there they had already tried to calm her down telling here there would be no further action as she was falling to pieces)....

 

As soon as the police left the security guard said that RLP would be making a claim

(he didn't mention this once when the police were saying that there would be no further action taken and waited for them to leave),

 

 

he pulled out a piece of paperwork and worked out what the amount would be (the goods taken were under 19.99, undamaged and recovered), so it was about £130.00.

That evening I looked on your site and discovered the delights of RLP's reputation and waited for the letter.

It has now arrived....

 

The amount they claim she attempted to take is way more than reality therefore the compensation cost has gone up

(I believe they are set in brackets of value?).

 

They have written a letter in a very 'you need to take responsibility for what you did' naughty girl way

(believe me the police and we have utterly made sure she has taken responsibility)

 

The letter is very much worded aimed at a juvenile,

my guess is they got rapped on the knuckles for sending out scary letters to minors???

 

Otherwise the rest of it is pretty much what others have said in the past that they got from RLP,

 

 

the problem though is that I can't find any recent threads.

. is the advice still the same as in,

write to them and say 'any liability to you or any company that you represent is denied' or have things changed?

 

 

She would pay it off (slowly - she earns a pittance), I

n fact she says that's what she deserves for being so stupid and disrespectful

but I am worried that if she does it could show on a DBS check which she needs for work as well as me really being disgusted with the underhand way in which they dealt with this..

.(make no mistake I am totally disgusted at what my daughter did in the first place - just felt I needed to clarify that)

[dx100uk]

moved to the RLP forum.

 

 

you IGNORE RLP TOTALLY

and never waiver from that.

would like to see the letter for our records though.

 

 

can you scan it up to PDF please

once any identifiers are removed please

 

 

dx

[renegadeimp]

DO not respond to them. Jackie is a very crafty person and will say and do anything to get money.

[Sparks_]

Your daughter owes nothing so pay nothing to these leeches!

[ajgg543]

RLP Youth Letter

RLP youth letter 2016.pdf

[ajgg543]

dk100uk please excuse the rubbish photos of the letter, my scanner was playing up.....

 

Getting a very clear picture here that the only change is to completely ignore them and not engage with them even with a one liner.......

 

Going to have to sit tight then

 

Thank you for helping, guessing this won't come up in any future DBS checks then?

 

Any further reassurance welcome I'm a real stress bucket....

 

Thank you....will update

[dx100uk]

I've sorted the letter

and popped it on your earlier post

very useful

 

 

dx

[brassnecked]

Ignore RLP totally, they got tolchocked in the Oxford case so are unlikely to try court, as the items were returned and saleable, ther is no crredible basis for RLP to ground any claim.

 

As to DBS if police didn't caution should be no effect, as to RLP's "Dishonesty database" it probably breaches the Data Protection Act, so is a crock of wombat excrement.

 

That letter is a complete crock, they are just like any powerless Debt Collection Agenct.

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG and my favourite company. Can I firstly say thank you for posting that letter up as I hadn't seen that one before. It does seem to be aimed at 10 year olds doesn't it!

 

The advice IS still the same. You, as the parent are in a good position with this as RLP have in the past written to a juveniles parents without fully considering the consequences. How do RLP know what the family situation is like? If they did the same to other juveniles and that was a 'broken' home, what would happen to that person?

 

I haven't seen this happen for a while as the majority of the teenagers involved lived away from home so this is another opportunity for RLP to show their true colours and also an opportunity to take them to task. Even though your daughter is under 18, she still has protection under the Data Protection Act so if RLP write to you instead of her, I would be wanting to put them through the wringer.

 

You have already had the advice to ignore and I share that. As more letters turn up, please post them up so I can add them to my own database.

 

I could go into detail over the 'costs' but if you read my sticky on this forum, that should answer most of your questions

[ajgg543]

Thank you all so much for your replies and advice.

Silverfox1961 I will post any new letters (I hope she doesn't hide them from me as she did with this one until I asked if anything had arrived...)

 

Thank you all for the help, a donation to this site very worth while...keep up the great work x

[ajgg543]

....and I will figure out what a sticky is when I am on the pc tomorrow!!

[antone]

A sticky is just a thread which always stays at the top of the forum. Normally threads are ordered by time of the last post, so the more recently active threads will be at the top. A sticky is "pinned" to the top. You can spot them because they are coloured a sort of unpleasant shade of yellowy-green

 

I think that this is the thread Silverfox1961 is referring to.

[brassnecked]

As she is under 18 she cannot be taken to court for a civil debt by anyone let alone RLP, their bill has no legal standing with no compulsion or need to pay. Neither can they go after you they said so in that letter.

[silverfox1961]

A sticky is just a thread which always stays at the top of the forum. Normally threads are ordered by time of the last post, so the more recently active threads will be at the top. A sticky is "pinned" to the top. You can spot them because they are coloured a sort of unpleasant shade of yellowy-green

 

I think that this is the thread Silverfox1961 is referring to.

 

Thank you for that.

 

As she is under 18 she cannot be taken to court for a civil debt by anyone let alone RLP, their bill has no legal standing with no compulsion or need to pay. Neither can they go after you they said so in that letter.

 

Absolutely correct but RLP are well known to sit on these things until the juvenile turns 18 then go for it again. Even then the advice is still the same. What would be the icing on the cake (for me) is for RLP to pass this on to some equally powerless debt collector to chase. That would be grounds for harassment.

 

I love it when DCA's state that they 'Understand the amount is not in dispute' How do they know? If it wasn't in dispute, why would they have it. Laughable!

[ajgg543]

Ok, so with all of the replies I am now calmer about the whole thing and able to think through logically........

 

RLP's demands are a bit like someone saying she's had goods or services and just sending an invoice for what they believe she owes, if there is nothing to invoice (which in this case there is not, no goods lost and security were there anyway?) the onus is on them to prove differently and they would have to go to court, which they would have to win and she would have to then not pay.....surely only then they could send it to bailiffs, why would they send it to bailiffs before that?

 

And I do get that if there were no shoplifters there would be no need for security but I'm sure that by now this is just an included cost that we pay for each time we shop.

 

Re DBS (were CRB checks) guessing they do not affect these checks if these people have no authority, but would like to be sure, could anyone just let me know about that.......promise not to keep asking questions!!

 

Thank you silverfox1961....that was one of my questions, I wondered if when she hits 18 they would try again.

 

And thank you antone for the post about where to find the stickies.....makes perfect sense now as in they stick to the top of the threads........you must all despair...

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I think you're getting the idea now. There may be other letters, but as you've spotted we're talking about speculative invoices.

 

One comment, RLP can't take court action themselves, they would have to persuade the retailer to do that. We have another sticky on the Oxford court case where the defendants were backed by the CAB and where the retailer [we can't name them] lost badly. I'll find it for you, it's a revelation.

 

HB

[honeybee13]

Here you go.

 

HB

[unclebulgaria67]

Bailiffs only get involved if there is a court or judgement, so not relevant.

 

Shops employ security for several reasons, including keeping an eye on staff.

 

DBS checks only relate to criminal convictions and Police cautions for offences.

 

RLP invoices work on the basis that enough people pay them, that it is not worth going beyond sending a few letters.

[silverfox1961]

From the post you made, it seems you have read my sticky. You are absolutely correct. One thing I didn't mention on this thread is the fact NO retailer has taken court action since 2012 after the failed attempt by a retailer, with the assistance of RLP and a barrage of lawyers to get their claim paid.

 

As the two teenage girls were allowed to be anonymous in the case, the retailer (probably knowing they were on a hiding to nowhere) wanted their name redacted. I wonder if the retailer would have wanted to be anonymous had they won the case??

 

Let RLP waste their time and money chasing this case. You are wiser now to their tactics and all this BS about each case costing between £300-500.

[ajgg543]

From the post you made, it seems you have read my sticky. You are absolutely correct. One thing I didn't mention on this thread is the fact NO retailer has taken court action since 2012 after the failed attempt by a retailer, with the assistance of RLP and a barrage of lawyers to get their claim paid.

 

As the two teenage girls were allowed to be anonymous in the case, the retailer (probably knowing they were on a hiding to nowhere) wanted their name redacted. I wonder if the retailer would have wanted to be anonymous had they won the case??

 

Let RLP waste their time and money chasing this case. You are wiser now to their tactics and all this BS about each case costing between £300-500.

 

Hi Silverfox1961

I was just reading another thread from a 17 years caught shoplifting and I saw your reply, you mentioned that the letter I referred to was sent to us as parents, I apologise if I have caused any confusion by not staring that the letter was addressed to our 16 year old. Should she reply as you have suggested to the other case?

Many thanks in advance (again huge thanks to everyone who has helped / sorted letters etc )

[renegadeimp]

Dont reply in any case. AS people have repeated over and over, RLP cannot touch you or your child in any way. Jackie knows this very well but she still sends out letters lying through her teeth to get people to pay.

[brassnecked]

They are toothless ignore them, they would send a letter to someone who had not shoplifted, as in tag not removed at checkout, customer stooped by security taken to back room details of name and address taken, and receipt shown. Jackie would bill that customer just as surely as she would a shoplifter.

[ericsbrother]

if you read the first line very carefully and consider what they say under english contract law you will then realise that the rest is also utter drivel.

Boots have not made a loss and the police have dealt with the matter. It ends there RLP have no part to play so ignore them.