Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

quarina1120

18 First time shoplifting tkmaxx - is the RLP a joke or should I pay?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 874 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 everyone

yesterday out of stupidity and mostly boredom if i'm completely honest

I attempted to shoplift a pair of £15 headphones from Tkmaxx,

this is my first time ever shoplifting.

 

 

Once being caught I was asked to come back into the store halfway down the street,

upon entering some little room in side the shop I was searched and my bag and proof of my age,

 

 

i showed him my provisional , being a bit nervous and realized how silly it was of me to do this

I said to the man sorry etc and for wasting his time.

 

 

Until he goes on to tell me i'm going to be getting a fine from the so called "RLP" and would have to pay 'debt' for losses , administrative costs ,investigation costs and time wasting which I believe is an absolute joke, especially after doing a bit of research these fines can be up to £190!

 

 

The headphones were returned to the shop in pristine condition,

i'm not bothered if they get the police involved all they will do is give me a caution for such a petty mistake.

 

Does the RLP have any sort of legal right,

or are they just preying on the vulnerable to make a profit,

as I am certainly not going to pay that fine,

 

 

is there any way I can get around it or send them a letter back to end this.

Although this happened just yesterday I will keep everyone updated when I get the letter from the RLP

Thanks for reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT IS NOT A FINE. Neither the Police or Courts will become involved.

 

RLP is just a civil request and there is no further action if you did not pay.

I believe there have been a few occasions where they tried to gain a CCJ and they failed.

The amount they ask for could not be justified.

There was no loss, just staff time dealing with you.

 

BUT you must not do this again.

Stores do keep temporary records for a period and if you are caught again trying to steal from TKMaxx or other stores in the area, the Police will be called and there could be consequences e.g criminal conviction or Police caution.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for swift reply, its definitley something I will not be doing again, would you suggest ignoring the letters completely or writing back to them saying I am not going to pay.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long will they keep this up the letters etc for?

 

If you search on CAG using the search bar for TKMaxx or RLP, you can read threads, so can see what other people have experienced.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done thanks but I haven't found a thread in which their situation has been completely solved if you know what I mean , does anyone else have any other advice?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because it is never resolved. RLP will write for a few months and then give up.

 

In many cases you won't find a complete beginning to end story online, as people ask for advice about an issue and that is all they needed.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Other members have given you excellent advice so I will try and flesh out a bit.

 

Firstly, nearly every shoplifting case is never shown as resolved as once people realise that RLP are full of bovine excrement, they don't bother updating us which is frustrating but also good news. If RLP followed through with their puerile threats, the threads would be much longer. Remember, RLP can do nothing. TKMaxx could take action if they chose to but they would fall foul of the law should they try and claim in the courts.

TKMaxx got the headphones back= no loss there. Security are paid whether or not they catch a shoplifter= no loss there either so how do they come up with these figures? RLP state that each case costs between £300 and £500 but never show how this figure comes about. They also state that all they are chasing for is a proportionate sum as a deterrent. Total BS.

 

In 2012, a retailer with the assistance of RLP took action against two teenage girls and they tried to justify the amount claimed. They failed! Since that time and as far as I am aware no further actions have been taken. Why? Simple, they know that the sums claimed are fictitious.

 

So, you will get the first letter quite soon and it looks like they have a case. No! Once you ignore them, they will send a few more letters and they will state that they will consider further action. What further action bearing in mind that RLP can do nothing to you, ever. More letters of course. Once they have run out of their template letters, they pass the 'Undisputed Sum' to a debt collector who will send some more letters. The debt collector has as much power over you that I have.None!

 

Treat it like a game because that is how RLP treat it. A numbers game. For every case we see here I would suspect that another 3-4 cases that don't research RLP and pay up.

 

You shoplifted. You got caught. No police involvement. That is is. Finished. Obviously don't do this again as it makes us look silly giving out advice which has no effect.


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

how to deal with RLP letters = flush after use!


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% haha I'm quite excited to get my first one if i'm honest see what it says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do not be so flamboyant - situations can change against you! at the end of the day you should be learning a lesson, as another time attitudes could back fire on you, we may make comments but just to liven up some depression some people get in some situations, but we do condone theft, it is just the method some companies try to take unfair advantage of persons no knowledge of real situation!


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% aware and have learnt my lesson and regret my stupid action heavily, however I strongly disagree the idea of private companies trying to suck money out of people especially when the amounts are so extortionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how to deal with RLP letters = flush after use!

 

NOOO! That image fills me with dread. Think 'Paper Cut' :lol:

 

100% haha I'm quite excited to get my first one if i'm honest see what it says

 

Tut Tut. Wrong attitude I'm afraid but I see where you are coming from so no harm no foul.

 

I am 100% aware and have learnt my lesson and regret my stupid action heavily, however I strongly disagree the idea of private companies trying to suck money out of people especially when the amounts are so extortionate.

 

This is good. no one is allowed to profit from crime and if your case got to a court hearing (Won't Happen) the rules of betterment will come into play. All a retailer can claim is the losses to put themselves back into the position they were in before the offence and as the goods were recovered, they can't claim that aspect.


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

I completely agree with what you are all saying,however upon realizing how nonsense the RLP is and how unnecessary their position is in this situation, any sort of fee for them would be completely unnecessary as TKMAXX got their product back in the condition they were selling it in. Its like someone randomly posting you a letter asking money which they are not entitled to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason why their claims for money dont hold water is because they are claiming for things that are already paid for as part of running a business so under the rules of "betterment" cannot be charged for again.

 

 

Also,

RLP is a third party so they cannot make decisions or take action for themselves.

 

 

They have made some rather outrageous claims of authority in the past but beware,

one day the shops and RLP will realise where it as all going wrong and start going about thing in a different way so that you are obliged to pay up.

(no I wont post up how they shoudl do it because they will again get a bunch of bandits involved in a sound idea and it will all go horribly wrong)

 

So, if you feel tempted to swat away this warning and dont learn from it you may come unstuck the next time.

 

 

You may see it as petty and in cash terms it is but as a cumulative thing it is massive.

 

 

One of the supermarkets reckoned they could halve the price of the own brand tinned food if it wasnt for shoplifting and staff pilfering across the store and they would get a lot of sympathy from the powers that be by selling this fact as a way of helping the poor and clobbering the criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'preying on the vulnerable' Unbelievable, if you were not stealing someone elses private property then this would never have happened. The sense of entitlement is truly amazing. If some street filth attempted to relieve me of my property they would be getting a bit more than a letter. It would be more RIP than RLP. Its amazing when one goes through these shoplifting threads that it was all their 'first time' stealing from a store because they were bored or had 'a moment of madness'. It sounds more like career criminals looking for a way out than genuine remorse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'preying on the vulnerable' Unbelievable, if you were not stealing someone elses private property then this would never have happened. The sense of entitlement is truly amazing. If some street filth attempted to relieve me of my property they would be getting a bit more than a letter. It would be more RIP than RLP. Its amazing when one goes through these shoplifting threads that it was all their 'first time' stealing from a store because they were bored or had 'a moment of madness'. It sounds more like career criminals looking for a way out than genuine remorse.

 

I see from other threads that you have your flag nailed firmly to the wall. The RLP forum is not a place to 'have a go'. You may have noticed that on this forum we firmly say that ALL cases of theft should be dealt with by the only people that have the power to do so. The Police.

 

Let us be clear, career shoplifters are not going to come here for advice as we do spot them quite quickly as they brag about what they have done and are likely to give a false name and address to security. These are the ones that get very little help.

 

By referring each case to the Police, they are the in the best position to decide what to do. A simple caution all the way up to full arrest and charge. We don't know the background to the threads on here so we go with what we have. Career shoplifters don't pour out their hearts on this forum. These are the reasons why we are here. Giving them a place to talk anonymously and to give them the advice they need about what RLP and to a lesser extent DWF do in their efforts to recoup alleged losses however, they charge fixed sums so this cannot be a true figure.

 

While I'm not perfect at spotting mental health issues, I tend to be able to spot some where the advice is to go and see a GP. I have yet to see where you state a 'sense of entitlement'. All I see are desperate people in need of help.

Having said all this, I do find your post rather disingenuous to people that need help. You have obviously led a perfect life and never even stole a pen from work.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...