Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
  • Our picks

jacob_gladstone

Are RLP legit? I'm 16 and they're demanding £186.50?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 871 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

Hello CAG!

 

As stated im 16 years of age.

I am ashamed to say that one day I was extraordinarily stupid and stole an £8.00 rucksack from primark.

 

I was stopped and detained by two men (who were very rude and arrogant) who proceeded to demand my name and address, which they said they would check on "police radio".

 

I gave them said info and they let me go.

 

A few weeks later I receive a letter from "RLP" demanding £186.50, and claiming that I stole £12 worth of goods.

 

I have a few questions.

 

 

  1. what should I do about the letter and fine?
  2. is the police radio thing legit or a scare tactic?
  3. could I get into any trouble with police?
  4. could I get taken to court if I ignore the letter?

thanks a lot guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst you are waiting on one of the team to look in on you - I suggest that you read round other threads in this section of the forum.

 

 

Almost certainly the police radio would have been to frighten you - As I understand it our police force are so badly funded they dont have sufficient radios for their properly trained, legitimate police officers - let alone funding those for store security !

 

 

I am not sure if there is an age limit regarding - but one of the team will definitely be able to confirm that.

 

 

Unless the police were called at the time of the event, then it is most unlikely you will have any problems there.

 

 

It would be most unusual for RLP to take court action.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read through the forums about RLP. You will see that they are a firm of bounty hunters.

 

I be grateful if you would reproduce the letter here in PDF format. Redact the identifiers that we would love to see one.

 

You certainly shouldn't ignore them because this may prompt them to feel that they can simply begin a small claim against you and get a default judgement.

 

I think you should respond to them and tell them that you have no intention of paying them and if they feel that there is some legal basis for their claim then they should let you know what it is and then you will consider the position.

 

The police radio thing was a scare tactic. If you do end up being taken to court then I suggest that you refer to this as part of your defence.

 

Note you won't get into trouble with police. All that is over. If they wanted to call the police then they should have done so at the time.instead for some reason rather they prefer to get in contact with RLP. There have been some unkind suggestions that some security staff are receiving commissions for putting these matters into the hands of RLP. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this suggestion and it will be so improper that I can't possibly imagine that RLP would do such a thing. It cannot be true. If you hear any rumours to this effect then if I were you I would discount them.

 

Yes you could be taken to court if you ignore the letter. You could be taken to court if you respond to it in the way that I suggested. The court would simply be a County Court where a money claim would be made against you and you would have an opportunity to defend yourself. If they won then they would get the money that they are claiming and also some other costs including the hearing fee and the claim fee – may be a total of £300 or so plus the money they are claiming.

 

This wouldn't give you any kind of criminal record although if you didn't satisfy the judgement within 30 days then it could go down on your credit file and stay there for six years. This could impact on you getting a credit card or borrowing money.

 

If you were taken to court and you wanted to defend it then I would suggest that you were defended on the basis that firstly you are 16 years old and you are a minor and you had no capacity to enter into any kind of contract.

 

Secondly, you were placed under pressure to sign any documents agreeing to pay money and so your consent was obtained under duress. The trick with the police radio was part of the charade to put you further under pressure

 

The goods which you took were returned to the shop in perfect saleable condition and the money being sought is an extortionate penalty and doesn't reflect any losses either in terms of the goods taken or in terms of administrative costs.

 

Let me say that although RLP have managed to secure judgements against people, I'm not aware that they have secured any judgements in cases which have been defended. I could be wrong, of course that I certainly don't know about them.

 

I believe that on their website they list a lot of cases were apparently they obtained a judgement but nowhere does it say that there is cases were defended and so my feeling is that those cases were undefended and so they were default judgements.

 

I'm interested in the apparent disparity between what you say you stole – £8 and what they say you stole – £12.

 

Is there any explanation for this?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your rapid response!

 

so should I send a letter or just email them?

 

there should be no legal basis as the bag was not harmed in any way, and any costs they try to claim for "security staff" are surely already accounted for as it is their job?

 

there are many different criteria for which they are trying to make me pay for, no category of which my case falls into.

 

I have no idea why they say it was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but I disagree

unless the age thing is something useful that BF is thinking about.??

 

you totally ignore RLP - they cant do court

only primark can do that

and they wont for an £8.00 rucksack

as they'll get in trouble for not summoning a responsible adult as you are under 18yrs.??

 

you should never have been taken to the room and questioned alone.

 

theres nothing at all RLP can do to you.

 

 

thread moved to the RLP forum

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as they'll get in trouble for not summoning a responsible adult as you are under 18yrs.??

yep,

and, re the police and pace re 'appropriate adult' its 17.

if all is genuine :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was close...:wink:


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

technically, anything said and done re when 'questioning' wld be inadmissable anyway.

as for store security guards 'checking police radio'....


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would NEVER have access to the police tetra system.

more like townlink handsets.

mickey mouse walkie talkies.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My turn :madgrin:

 

Hi and welcome from me. Hopefully your idiocy is now over and you won't do it again as if you did so, it would make all of us look like fools for assisting you.

 

Now, the letter from RLP bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever. They cannot take any action whatsoever in their name. Only Primark can do this as they are the ones that "suffered the loss".....allegedly.

In fact, Primark got the bag back so what loss have they incurred. None! Simply put, Primark pay a security company to monitor the store. The security staff are paid whether they catch anyone or not. If they were paid on results, they would be on less than the National Living wage. RLP make the claim that incidents cost between £300-500 per incident yet have failed on so many occasions to show this to be true. The one time it was tried on in court was 2012 and a retailer (with the backing of RLP) lost the case as they could not justify those costs so it's fair to say that RLP are making up an arbitrary sum and pretending that it is a true figure.

 

Primark do not take court action. It would cost them more to take action than they could ever hope to receive if they got a judgement against you-so they don't bother and pass the details on to this bottom feeding company who will try anything 'just' this side of the law to get their pay day.

 

RLP will also say that as you are under 18, they can wait until that time then chase again. well, they can chase but it still won't get them anywhere.

 

Please upload the letter minus your personal details. RLP have updated their website and I would like to see if their letters have changed too.

 

Other than that. Ignore them.


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

wont even be that, just one bloke talking to his mate pretending to be the police (if they even spoke that is. I can pick up my phone and pretend to call the White House but that doesnt mean that Donny boy has actually answered)

they would NEVER have access to the police tetra system.

more like townlink handsets.

mickey mouse walkie talkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing,

the police do not turn out for shoplifting at certain stores because the stores themselves do not invest enough in security.

 

 

Lidl are certainly one of these and you can bet that all of the budget and discount chains fall into that bracket.

Doesn't give people carte blanche to run riot, touch a member of staff and you will be in the back of a van very sharpish but for ordinary small scale pilfering they wont attend as they know that there wont be the necessary level of proof to secure a conviction with the lack of staff to deal with all of the necessaries.

 

So back to your case.

No, dont email RLP or anyone else,

email just gives them a free route to harass you.

 

 

If they have anything to say they can write on paper and pay for stamps themselves.

Also, they know that you cannot sue someone under the age of 18 and if they were ever to try waiting a year or so just to make sure you were of the age of majority they will still lose the claim for abuse of the civil (court) procedures.

 

You will get some more begging letters and they may well write to your parents.

They have no right to do this so if they do you may want to consider a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office about this breach of the DPA.

 

 

they know it is wrong but they rely on people's remorse and feelings of guilt to get to them and their wallets (or even their parents wallets).

 

You know what you did was stupid and wrong so learn from this episode but do not believe that RLP have any part in the legal system.

 

 

they dont even give any of the money they demand to the store concerned,

they actualy charge the store for telling you a pile of piffle.

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...