The Case Rlp Dropped ****a Must Read*****

[mrmarmite]

now after reading that post cabot spring to mind, no idea why

[cerberusalert]

Hi, I thought the 'vexatious litigant' bit sounded great so I've done some digging about and it looks like a non-starter for us, I think.

 

 

 

AFAIK you can apply to a Judge (in chambers) for a ruling, particularly if the 'Litigant' is 'known' to the Court...but the Court Manager would advise.

 

 

So it would seem they can threaten court action to their hearts content so long as they don't ever take it that far. Unfortunately for them they know that taking a well informed cagger to court is not a route they are likely to actually take.

 

This opens another 'can of worms'...Harassment springs to mind:D

[Shanks]

This opens another 'can of worms'...Harassment springs to mind:D

 

Oh absolutely, just because one door isn't wide open doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other ways to deal with these people.

 

Cheers

[ScarletPimpernel]

Any update on this one?

[Shanks]

Hi ScarletPimpernel, yes there has been an update, but I was waiting to see what exactly it was before posting the details. A letter has been sent which apparently concludes with the statement that they are no longer going to pursue this matter.

 

I know it's a bit vague but I got a message left for me on my voicemail saying the above and telling me that a copy would be posted down to me. I am waiting for the copy to arrive and I will post up exactly what was written. I think the end result is good but I don't know what else was said.

 

I am trying to organise a fax/email copy, and will post up the details as soon as I get them. I wouldn't have left the thread without closing it properly

 

Thanks for your concern though - it is much appreciated.

[Shanks]

OK then here is their response...

 

 

Now this raise a number of points for me. I guess we could just say OK they have dropped it so let's not poke it.

 

But... all they are in effect saying is that they were instructed that my neice was a thief and that they should attempt to recover monies from her. Now having been presented with the facts surrounding the case they have advised their client not to pursue the matter any further. There is no apology, no retraction of the accusation of theft and through all this not a single word from Debenhams.

 

What do you think? Should we just let it go or are we justified in wanting something more? I'm not after any financial gain from pushing this but I do think she is due an apology.

 

Cheers

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP's weaselly letter is very similar in tone to the ones sent out by banks and DCAs who realise that they've been caught out - they usually blather about being confident of their case, but in view of the cost aren't proceeding. It's not really good enough. However, they seem to be placing the blame squarely upon Debenhams, who they claim instructed them that your niece had been involved in some sort of wrongdoing. The tone of the letter makes me think that this sort of thing happens quite often. You may be confident that you have beaten RLP.

 

Now that the DCA has been called off, it seems to me that there are two options:

 

1. Leave it as it is, or

2. Pursue JB for breaching the OFT guidelines and Debenhams for their action.

 

If it were me, I'd pursue them. As far as Debenhams is concerned, I'd be inclined to demand:

 

a. that they formally retract the untrue, libellous (and therefore actionable) allegations they made.

b. that they write to both RLP and JB retracting the allegations, and provide copies of the letters to your niece.

c. that they make a full apology in writing.

d. that they compensate your niece for the stress and anxiety they have caused, and for the time and expense incurred in resolving the matter.

 

With JB, I'd make a formal complaint, then escalate it to FOS. FOS will only deal with a complaint after you have exhausted the DCA's complaint procedure, so make sure you ask for their final response. They continued collection activity whilst the alleged debt was disputed, which is a breach of the OFT guidelines, and more seriously, they attempted to collect a debt which simply did not exist. I'd mention the Malicious Communications Act, s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act, and the Protection from Harassment Act for good measure. FOS can order them to make a payment in respect of stress, anxiety and wasted time too, so why not go for it?

 

Do let me know if you'd like me to draft something; I'd relish it.

 

Of course, you could always SAR RLP (and claim the tenner back from Debenhams), then you'll know exactly what they alleged.

 

This kind of thing really irritates me (perhaps it shows...).

[Shanks]

Wow ScarletPimpernel - thanks for the fantastic response I was laughing out load by the end of it and I agree, I don't think this is really acceptable.

 

As I said financial repayment was not the end objective for us here. The way my neice was treated was outrageous and I don't think she could be tempted to enter their store ever again. But I think she is owed at least a formal apology and an absolute assurance that this isn't simply something they have decided not to pursue, but rather something for which they had no right to pursue in the first place.

 

I love your style and would really appreciate it if you have the time to draft something together for us. I am happy in the meantime to send a SAR to RLP and see what that gets for us if you think that would be good.

 

This kind of thing really irritates me (perhaps it shows...).

 

No not all :lol: has a company really pi***ed you off in the past over something like this?

 

Cheers for the help

[mrmarmite]

yes i personally would take this futher they have done wrong and at last admitted they done wrong, give em a taste of their own medicine

[ScarletPimpernel]

Here's my suggested basis for a letter to Debenhams:

 

I have now heard from Retail Loss Prevention. They have stated that Debenhams, as their client, instructed them that I was "involved in an act of taking goods from their store".

 

You are aware that I have always maintained that I was not involved in any such activity, a position clearly established by the police. I am sure you will agree that wrongly accusing someone of a criminal offence, even after the statutory authorities have established their innocence, is an extremely serious matter. I am advised that your allegation is libellous and actionable.

 

The false accusation made by Debenhams has caused me substantial distress and anxiety, and dealing with the unfounded demands for payment and subsequent threats from RPL and their debt collection agency has taken a great deal of time and effort.

Whilst reserving my rights, I am keen to conclude the matter. I now require from Debenhams plc the following, by way of resolution:

1. A formal retraction of the untrue allegation (that I was involved in an act of taking goods from Debenhams)
   
2. An undertaking that the untrue allegations will not be repeated
   
3. Debenhams to write to RPL and JB making clear that the allegations were untrue, and provide copies of the letters to me
   
4. A full and unconditional apology
   
5. Debenhams’ proposals to compensate me for the distress and anxiety caused by their actions, and for the time and costs incurred in resolving the matter

[pelham9]

What is wrong with taking goods from Debenhams? If people did not do that very frequently they would be out of business. It is not even a false accusation because your daughter did just that.

 

Surely you shoud seek an apology for the allegation that she stole the goods which is obviously untrue or that she knowingly took unbought goods out of the store also untrue.

[fbnts]

Only just seen this thread.

 

How did you get on? Did Debenhams reply to your letter?

 

Tom

[Consumer9999]

Well spotted - I hadn't read the list, but every reference I looked up gave the impression that a vexatious litigant was an individual. I stand corrected.

 

Splendid. There's hope for RPL yet!

 

RLP :o

[mrmarmite]

so while yes i agree to follow up. it not on what they done and they know it,

 

who bets you never get a response ?

[Consumer9999]

It isn't clear to me whether who the DCA's client is; your draft letter mentions 'Retail Loss Prevention vs...'

 

There are a number of firms who seem to specialise in this. One of them describes it as "Civil recovery a process whereby a business can recover costs and losses from a thief via the civil courts."

 

This is rather more serious than just a DCA trying it on; in fact, Debenhams (or whoever the DCA's client is), are actually maintaining the accusation that OP's neice is a thief, even though she was never charged or convicted of any offence.

 

I'd suggest taking an extremely robust line; first of all, however, it would be useful to know who the DCA's clients are. JB Debt Recovery apparently specialise in 'difficult' cases, and second and third line recovery, which suggests that they are acting for another DCA.

 

As a first move, I'd write to JB explaining that no debt is acknowledged, and asking them to provide evidence that any debt is owed, together with evidence of the 'many previous requests'. Make clear that the debt is disputed under the OFT guidance (which means they can't do anything until the debt is resolved), and that any action they may take will be vigourously defended and a counterclaim made.

 

If the ultimate client is Debenhams, send a letter in the strongest possible terms explaining that your niece was detained in error, and that since she was neither charged nor convicted of any offence, you find that their accusing her now of a criminal offence for which they have no evidence whatever both outrageous and disgraceful. Tell them you require a retraction of the accusation, a full apology, and a written undertaking that they will stop all action immediately, take no further action in the future, and their proposals to compensate your niece for the distress they have caused. Invite them, in the alternative, to proceed straight to court, where you will put them to strict proof of the alleged criminal activity, and will counterclaim for damages.

 

 

JB Debt Recovery (DCA) are acting on behalf of RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION, who in turn are acting on behalf of the retailer, in this case; Debenhams.

 

Debenhams security have come to the conclusion that this person was shoplifting or attempting to conceal the items, on this occasion they probably believe that this person was aware that her friend was shoplifting, Debehams would have then passed the case on to RLP to seek civil compensation for things like security costs, admin costs & time costs that the store incur in detaining the offender. RLP would have sent you letters to the address that was given to the store at the time, after a set time limit, after receiving no response or payment, they will pass the case on to there debt recovery tem, in this case it is JB DEBT RECOVERY, to recover the debt owed to RLP.

 

Snr security manager.

[Consumer9999]

I cant believe what I have just read.

 

These big companys think they can do what they want!!!

 

Charging for security guards, next they will be charging you to enter the store

 

They work on the basis that if it wasnt for shoplifters in the uk, then they wouldnt have to employ security measures, eg; security guards, security barriers, cctv ect, employing these measures cost extra money for the retailer, and through the civil law, the retailer is legally allowed to claim back a portion of that money spent, back.

 

Snr security guard.

[Consumer9999]

The DCA in all likelyhood are acting as Debenhams agent in this matter. They will do whatever Debenhams tell them to do.

 

Incorrect. . .

[Consumer9999]

shoplifter legal definition of shoplifter. shoplifter synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

[ScarletPimpernel]

JB Debt Recovery (DCA) are acting on behalf of RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION, who in turn are acting on behalf of the retailer, in this case; Debenhams.

 

Debenhams security have come to the conclusion that this person was shoplifting or attempting to conceal the items, on this occasion they probably believe that this person was aware that her friend was shoplifting, Debehams would have then passed the case on to RLP to seek civil compensation for things like security costs, admin costs & time costs that the store incur in detaining the offender. RLP would have sent you letters to the address that was given to the store at the time, after a set time limit, after receiving no response or payment, they will pass the case on to there debt recovery tem, in this case it is JB DEBT RECOVERY, to recover the debt owed to RLP.

 

Snr security manager.

 

Debenhams security may have come to that conclusion, but if you read the entire thread you will see that the police did not. In this country, it is for the courts to decide whether an individual is guilty of a crime - not a security guard, a retailer, dubious companies like RLP or a DCA.

 

They work on the basis that if it wasnt for shoplifters in the uk, then they wouldnt have to employ security measures, eg; security guards, security barriers, cctv ect, employing these measures cost extra money for the retailer, and through the civil law, the retailer is legally allowed to claim back a portion of that money spent, back.

 

It would be a foolish retailer that did not build the cost of security into the price of their goods. They also need to be aware of the effect that heavy-handed security measures and wrongly accusing people of crime have on reputation and retention of business.

 

I have no difficulty at all with any victim of crime pursuing a convicted criminal for damages in the civil courts - I've done it myself.

 

 

Oh, and thanks for the definition of a shoplifter; I'm sure it'll be useful when I'm next in the US...

[Consumer9999]

Debenhams security may have come to that conclusion, but if you read the entire thread you will see that the police did not. In this country, it is for the courts to decide whether an individual is guilty of a crime - not a security guard, a retailer, dubious companies like RLP or a DCA.

 

 

 

It would be a foolish retailer that did not build the cost of security into the price of their goods. They also need to be aware of the effect that heavy-handed security measures and wrongly accusing people of crime have on reputation and retention of business.

 

I have no difficulty at all with any victim of crime pursuing a convicted criminal for damages in the civil courts - I've done it myself.

 

 

Oh, and thanks for the definition of a shoplifter; I'm sure it'll be useful when I'm next in the US...

 

The Police work under a different law altogether (Criminal) Where as this is a civil claim, the 2 laws work under different guidelines, and rules, so regardless if the police charge the offender or not, the retailer can still claim compensation back through the civil law.

 

The security costs are not included in the price of goods that they charge, if it was the store would never make a profit from the cost price that they buy the items at, it is common sense more than anything ;-)

 

The "definition of shoplifter" is applicable in any country, not just the U.S.

 

I suggest you look into the civil law, and its guidelines before you start moaning about another company, and the civil law itself, i have 35 years experience in security & loss prevention, where as you are just querying the company which you have got no link to what so ever.

 

Snr Security Guard.

[mrmarmite]

The Police work under a different law altogether (Criminal) Where as this is a civil claim, the 2 laws work under different guidelines, and rules, so regardless if the police charge the offender or not, the retailer can still claim compensation back through the civil law.

 

The security costs are not included in the price of goods that they charge, if it was the store would never make a profit from the cost price that they buy the items at, it is common sense more than anything ;-)

 

The "definition of shoplifter" is applicable in any country, not just the U.S.

 

I suggest you look into the civil law, and its guidelines before you start moaning about another company, and the civil law itself, i have 35 years experience in security & loss prevention, where as you are just querying the company which you have got no link to what so ever.

 

Snr Security Guard.

 

Sorry (in agreement with scarlet) but i think you barking up the wrong tree. police ARE the law nd th police found this person NOT guilty of theft and discontinued action. if they done that what hope do you really think that the security costs can be claimed back of this person found not guilty, remember that there is video evidence to proove this,

 

if i was in this situation and i got taken to court i would file a counter claim for a serious amount of money. it has been PROOVED by video EVIDENCE that the person being persued here is NOT guilty. there is no way security costs will be awarded in a British Court of law when it has been CONFIRMED by the police.

[mrmarmite]

as you are in the US please stop trying to help/advise on laws from a different country we have the english law and scottish law here and they ARE different. some of us here DO know the British law and what you are saying is wrong, you are inexperienced on this CAG site and some comments are being made that in fact can do more harm than good.

[Consumer9999]

as you are in the US please stop trying to help/advise on laws from a different country we have the english law and scottish law here and they ARE different. some of us here DO know the British law and what you are saying is wrong, you are inexperienced on this CAG site and some comments are being made that in fact can do more harm than good.

 

How did you work out i was from the U.S?

 

I am from the uk, (EDIT)

[mrmarmite]

my mistake and I apologise.

 

95% of major companys employ thier own security guards (PC Wolrd for an example), the other 5% that are not are usually the ones that do walk rounds out of hours to make sure the premises are secure.

[tomterm8]

Well, firstly, my understanding is that under english Law, the police do not find someone not guilty of a crime; they make a decision whether to refer the case to the crown prosecution service based on a number of factors, and the CPS decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Only the court may rule on matters of guilt or innocence.

 

Secondly, under English law, because it is clear from what the OP said that there is sufficient evidence to prove no wrongdoing, the shop itself must bear its costs.

 

The shop may also be guilty of a Tort of false imprisonment, and by passing false allegations to a DCA, is also likely to be guilty of defamation and offences under the protection from Harassment act, Administration of Justice act, and unfair practices in debt collection under various legal requirements set up as part of the consumer credit licensing scheme.

 

Further, they may have commited a contravention of the Data Processing principals of the Data Protection Act 1998 insofar as they have clearly continued processing data after there is a legitimate interest in doing so.