Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes when you get your N180 from the court. on the sols copy omit phone/sog/email.
    • you dont need a copy of the letter. just proof. it might pay you to sar SLC as if they had your correct address on record before loan sales to erudio , that will add another very strong string to your bow toward setting aside this backdoor CCJ and the arrows you'll fire at Arrows (Erudio are arrows DCA in sheeps clothing)   you also might like many others find that you still have access to the online SLC portal. that could be useful with info. like deferral dates etc and address and what they knew and when.   at present you are in the info gathering stage, the more of that you can get the better.
    • IMHO i would never have a DD setup for any consumer credit debt. they are not a priority, like mortgage/rent/CTAX/Gas/Electric.   this gives you a bit more work to do, but it ensures there is always money for the priority things that can threaten the roof over your head or it's the necessary home utils needed with one.   it's also worthy to note that somethings that are unconscious priorities (though NOT!) like mobiles/phone/digital tv and broadband etc DD's often contribute to the real priorities not being paid. careful management of those needs to be exercised, like moving their payment dates to after the priorities are deal with in your calendar, or vice versa move the priorities to before those come out.   it is stunningly amazing how many families fall into priority bill debts by blindly pay these 'mentally essential luxury gadget' bills and are in total ignorance of the effect they have upon their available funds as 'they can't live without them'.
    • Just as UB says, he bailiff does not need to be invited in, but he certainly should have announced himself. i dont suppose he said what the enforcement was for?   The bailiff has to have a "reasonable belief" that the debtor resides at your address, if he is permitted to enter.   In the first post you say the Warrant was addressed to next door, is this your daughters property and did this Richard live at that address or your address.?   We should find out what the bailiff may say to try and justify his actions.    
    • Still valid?   For completion once a defence has been submitted and the claimant wishes to proceed.   Yes to mediation No if its statute barred or a parking claim. Yes to Small Claims Track State your local County Court  1 witness = yourself   The rest is self explanatory   Run 3 copies..Court/Solicitor/File
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 506 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

I have received a letter from RLP asking for the collection of £1,654.00.

 

Over a number of months I shoplifted from Waitrose following a number of miscarriages.

I stole items which I passed on to charities.

I was completely stupid, got arrested, admitted to it, they have the relevant evidence,  and luckily no charges were given.

 

To pay the fine, I am hoping that they will allow me to pay in installments as I can not afford to pay all in one go.

 

I am concerned though that this is not a proper company and that they will be taking it for themselves.

What should I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By "arrested, admitted to it, .... and luckily no charges were given", was this arrested by the police or detained by the store staff?.

 

The advice is don't pay RLP. Why I ask is that sometimes people worry that if they don't pay RLP the police will become involved (they won't, but people still worry about it). If the lpolice have already ∫een involved, that is further reassurance that no further criminal action will follow.

 

RLP may threaten civil action, but since they got defeated in a landmark civil case, they are just empty threats (providing this wasn't theft by a member of staff, but shoplifting by a member of the public)

 

I don't condone shoplifting (before someone says that saying not to pay RLP is somehow condoning shoplifting!), but I condone RLP even less!. Have you been to see your GP about the issues that might have brought this about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They called the police, I was taken to the station, and I admitted to it all which they recorded on tape. They had a list of all the items, dates, etc. They were concerned about my mental state and I also talked to the therapist in the station which helped massively. I went to the doctors the next day and have since been put on antidepressants, and attend CBT therapy.

 

The last thing i want to do is get in trouble again. I am back on track with working full time, children, etc. This feels like a risk in not doing anything!

Link to post
Share on other sites

all good then

 

simply ignore RLP totally

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, ignore RLP.

The police have been involved already: even if RLP hint at involving them (which they shouldn’t hint!) it is an idle threat, as the police have already been involved and the matter is closed as far as they are concerned.

 

That just leaves RLP (and their threats!), which are a paper tiger. They won’t take you to court, after the Oxford case, where their claims for a variety of costs fell flat. I haven’t heard of them taking a single shoplifting case to court since.

 

If you need further reassurance; just check all the threads on here.

 

So, ignore RLP. The only thing you shouldn’t ignore is an actual court claim form (which isn’t going to happen, but even if they were daft enough to try : just come back here and it can be batted away!)

 

Good for you for seeking help from your GP and getting yourself back on track. Don’t worry about RLP impacting on that : not going to happen.

Edited by BazzaS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, congratulations on seeing your GP and also on coming here for some practical support.

Do you feel that the amount of money which is being claimed reflects the amount of items which you took and which have not been returned? Do you feel that there is an over value or an undervalue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The store wont see a penny of the money even if you do pay up, RLP sell snake oil and part of that is peddling the idea that you giving them money makes the world change its behaviour.

It is not a fine and if waitrose want to recover their losses they can do so directly via their legal dept but even then they cant just ask for the retail value of the missing stuff, just what it has cost them.

Ignore RLP, the police have made a decision not to prepare a prosecution and in my view under the circumstances this is a correct decision. Waitrose may not be overjoyed at that but they dotn gte a say in the matter and the reality is that they wont chase you themselves because it will cost them  than they are likely to recover so they have washed their hands of the matter and will let RLP tell you their porkies because they have bought into the idea that somehow Jackie has a panacea

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...