Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry I'm not sure what you mean - I haven't suggested any of that - I'm just letting you know what letters come next from who. I'm aware what they're doing and that only an eventual LoC matters
    • Hi all   Firstly, thanks for all the helpful threads on here. Whilst there's a lot to read and get through, it's both helpful and reassuring to see so much great advice and support to others in similar situations.   I've received a letter and a Claim Form from Moriarty for an ADCB CC debt. I'm presently in a DMP for existing UK debts and (probably like many others) I truly don't know the best way forward, as time is clearly of the essence - but I don't feel I've 'up to speed' yet on all the other threads, advice, lingo etc. to respond accordingly.   I'm looking at drafting the PAP and getting it of tomorrow, but just want to get into the other threads to see if it's the right thing (and get more info on similar cases).   Please feel free to comment with any advice - all gratefully received of course. Thanks again for anyone that's posted in other threads and great to see so many kind and generous respondents helping others.   PS. Haven't posted/scanned details onto the thread yet as still to read up on the rules/tips, but Claim Form filed in Northampton on 20 Nov.
    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1164 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A few weeks ago I had a moment of madness and thought I could get away with shoplifting a £6 nail polish from Boots. I didn't even make it out of the store before a man in casual clothing calmly told me to follow him to the back room. From there I returned the product (in a sellable condition) and gave him my name and address. No picture, bank details, phone number etc was taken. Police were not involved either. I was told that I was banned from that particular store for a year and that I should be expecting a letter from RLP soon. I left the store and that was that.

 

I received my first letter a week ago and from reading around this particular topic, I know not to be stupid enough to give RLP any money. However, I am curious to know when RLP eventually give up and stop sending letters. As I'm currently at uni (I'm 19) the letters are being sent to my mum's house and I won't be travelling back home soon for a few months anyway.

 

Any help is appreicated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no strict limit to the number of letters that RLP will send - reading the other threads on here will give you an idea of what to expect. They will though become increasingly desperate in nature and will make many threats about taking Court action, adding costs to the amount owing as a result and then it will be passed to whichever debt collector is for hire this month to write a further two or three letters. The last of these will recommend that their client (RLP) prepares the case for court action. Don't get involved in any response to the letters though - or your mum if she happens to open any of them, and the matter will finally be passed back to Boots to instigate a court claim. Only Boots can issue a claim however and they most certainly won't do that - in fact they will have forgotten the matter altogether as soon as you left the store at the time of the incident.

 

That isn't a green light to shoplift in future though, as you may find that the Police get involved next time and things will get a whole lot more uncomfortable. Just learn from this event and move on

  • Haha 1

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your response, it has put my mind at ease. Just another quick question - because I did not have my picture taken by the security guard, will they use a still CCTV footage of my face to log that I am banned? When I was in the back room with the man, he showed me a book full of banned peoples' faces (very briefly) that looked to have been taken on a professional camera, not from CCTV.

 

I have most definitely learnt from my mistake and will not shoplift again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG. Sidewinder has started you off on the long and winding rogue that is RLP.

 

A more apt answer to your question is 'How long is a piece of string?'

 

I have seen a thread or two where RLP and their pet debt collector have gone silent for a year or more only to be contacted yet again.

 

Now that Boots have passed this matter on to RLP, their entire interest in the matter has finished. They don't actually care what RLP get up to and while two wrongs never make a right, Boots shouldn't be encouraging RLP to chase people with these dubious charges.

 

While shoplifting is wrong, we on CAG believe that the correct way to deal with this is for the Police to get involved in all cases however, the police abdicate their duty on manpower grounds but when they do get involved, this usually concludes with a warning or a fixed penalty. That is usually enough for the first timers.

 

RLP on the other hand will say that they are pursuing a civil matter and that what they are doing is legal. This is true. Civil action is a remedy used by a store to put them back in the same position had the shoplifter not stolen something so in your case all they could ever claim is the £6 plus a small admin fee, nothing like what they do which is wht no court action has taken place since 2012 when a retailer and RLP got a severe spanking.

 

Sorry for the rant.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for putting my mind at ease.

 

I have scrolled through a few other threads and have seen some users recommending that you should send RLP a letter stating that you deny any liability to RLP or any company they represent. Should I do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

 

Doing this will only start them off with a game of letter tennis. They tegularly read these boards anyway and match up cases and then write to tell you not to listen to our bad advice. Why encourage them further?

 

Simple thing to remember - how many people on the threads that have gone before have returned to say that they received a court claim? Not one unless you go far enough back to see a thread started by a member of RLP staff who was planting seeds of fear and pretending to be a victim of RLP who was being taken to court. Laughable and speaks volumes for the type of organisation you are dealing with!


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for putting my mind at ease.

 

I have scrolled through a few other threads and have seen some users recommending that you should send RLP a letter stating that you deny any liability to RLP or any company they represent. Should I do this?

 

This is something I advised people to do in certain circumstances such as when they lived at home and didn't want their parents to know or when they had other good reason to write. The majority of the cases were to ignore them. Neither way stopped the letters.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when we say ignore, that is what we mean. If this advice was wrong everyone one who came for help would have been sued by now but no-one has and the reason is that Jackie doesnt have a cause for action and she knows it. telling people that she knows they are getting advice on advice forums an they are doomed if they take that advice is just another attempt at twisting the guilt trip knife a bit harder. Essentailly that is the only weapon she has, your conscience. Use that conscience properly and be a good citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...