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

[MARTIN3030]

Very strange.RLP say they are acting as a go between and state they cannot pass on details under the dpa without consent.

So WHO brought in JB ? I bet it wasnt the store.

More intriguing how come JB was pursuing the debt if they didnt have personal details ?

And why didnt JB issue the notice themselves ?

 

It does not add up at all.

[juliusceasor]

Very strange.RLP say they are acting as a go between and state they cannot pass on details under the dpa without consent.

So WHO brought in JB ? I bet it wasnt the store.

More intriguing how come JB was pursuing the debt if they didnt have personal details ?

And why didnt JB issue the notice themselves ?

 

It does not add up at all.

 

I was thinking that very same thought!

 

RLP were pursuing a claim and referring to the statute of limitations on a debt originally being pursued by JB. Yet they are now trying to pursue that same debt as a debt collecting firm. In all other guises this company purportes to be a recovery company that then instructs a debt collector..

 

I thnk some security guard somewhere cottened on to the fact that police weren't pursuing anyone, the stores were unhappy and he had mates in debt collection. They all got together over a game of poker and came up with a scheme to install more security in lots of stores earning from the client then pursue via civil recovery vulnerable persons they targeted in the store. with a commission paid to the client under some blanket arrangement that the client didn't really (hopefully ) understand...

[MARTIN3030]

I have also been doing a search of the public Consumer Credit licence register for JB Debt collection.Inputting their name brings up nothing,neither does their postcode.I am not saying they havent got one,just that it does not show under those search criteria which is a little strange.Am going to carry on looking today.

[MARTIN3030]

Ah...found it.

 

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

Application / Licence Details

 

 

 

Licence Number:0596203

Licence Status:Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration Number JB Ventures Limited163682

 

Categories:

 

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No

 

 

Trading Name(s) (Current):

 

ATI (Asset Trace and Investigation) J.B.D.R JB Debt Recovery McDonald Rankin

 

Issued Date: 08-May-2007

Expiry Date: 08-May-2012

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

NamePosition Ann NevilleOFFICER Mr James BrownOFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

 

Debt Collection

 

Current Address(es):

 

Address TypeAddress Principal Place Of Business176, Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4HG Registered Office., Faith Avenue, Bridge of Weir, PS11 3SX

[MARTIN3030]

And their ICO entry.

 

Registration Number: Z7075075

Date Registered: 05 September 2002 Registration Expires: 04 September 2009

 

Data Controller: JB VENTURES LIMITED

 

Address:

176 BATH STREET

GLASGOW

G2 4HG

Other Names:

JB DEBT RECOVERY

This register entry describes, in very general terms, the personal data being processed by:

JB VENTURES LIMITED

This register entry contains personal data held for 2 purpose(s)

Purpose 1

 

Staff Administration

Purpose Description:

Appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation, work management or other personnel matters in relation to the staff of the data controller.

Data subjects are:

Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers

Relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances

Education and Training Details

Employment Details

Financial Details

Racial or Ethnic Origin

Religious or Other Beliefs Of A Similar Nature

Physical or Mental Health or Condition

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Relatives, guardians or other persons associated with the data subject

Current, past or prospective employers of the data subject

Education, training establishments and examining bodies

Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Financial organisations and advisers

Central Government

Employment and recruitment agencies

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

Purpose 2

 

Debt Administration and Factoring

Purpose Description:

The tracing of consumer and commercial debtors and the collection on behalf of creditors. The purchasing of trade debts, including rentals and instalment credit payments, from business.

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients

Relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Financial Details

Goods or Services Provided

Offences (Including Alleged Offences)

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Relatives, guardians or other persons associated with the data subject

Current, past or prospective employers of the data subject

Business associates and other professional advisers

Other companies in the same group as the data controller

Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Credit reference agencies

Debt collection and tracing agencies

Traders in personal data

Central Government

Courts / Tribunals

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

[shanty]

I was thinking that very same thought!

 

RLP were pursuing a claim and referring to the statute of limitations on a debt originally being pursued by JB. Yet they are now trying to pursue that same debt as a debt collecting firm. In all other guises this company purportes to be a recovery company that then instructs a debt collector..

 

I thnk some security guard somewhere cottened on to the fact that police weren't pursuing anyone, the stores were unhappy and he had mates in debt collection. They all got together over a game of poker and came up with a scheme to install more security in lots of stores earning from the client then pursue via civil recovery vulnerable persons they targeted in the store. with a commission paid to the client under some blanket arrangement that the client didn't really (hopefully ) understand...

 

Why would they only pursue vulnerable persons,and how could they tell by looking?

[juliusceasor]

Why would they only pursue vulnerable persons,and how could they tell by looking?

 

Oh please It was tongue in cheek. But running with your thought; vulnerable persons such as.. under 14 year olds, foreigners who don't have access to help as easily as not native speakers perhaps, new staff members, mums or dads out with toddlers pushchairs bags of shopping trying to shop and keep everyone under control, distracted harassed stressed and tired.

Anyway they're security guards trained astute educated professionals adept in the method of discreet surveillance and people watching, there to protect and serve in times of fire terrorism and danger and pickpockets.

ahem.

[shanty]

Oh please It was tongue in cheek. But running with your thought; vulnerable persons such as.. under 14 year olds, foreigners who don't have access to help as easily as not native speakers perhaps, new staff members, mums or dads out with toddlers pushchairs bags of shopping trying to shop and keep everyone under control, distracted harassed stressed and tired.

Anyway they're security guards trained astute educated professionals adept in the method of discreet surveillance and people watching, there to protect and serve in times of fire terrorism and danger and pickpockets.

ahem.

 

None of those categories strike me as vulnerable.

[JonCris]

Watch out folks I think you'll easily spot that we have a suspect RLP employee/supporter on the boards who's visiting every RLP thread determined to defend the indefensible

 

Please don't forget DON'T FEED THE TROLL................... stick to the matter in hand

[shanty]

Really,and would you like to point out what I have defended that is indefensible?

 

Unfairness is indefensible,from ALL parties on this board.Your response is unworthy . You will not do this cause any good by attacking because someones view does not agree with yours.Several of these cases are appalling,but MY opinion is that some are questionable in some ways,Your opinion may be different.

 

No doubt one needs to apologise for posting on several threads on this site,I think you are gathering evidence in the same way RLP do,shame on you joncris.

Edited March 29, 2009 by shanty

[Rooster-UK]

Please refrain fom name-calling and sniping at each other.

 

After all, Sunday is supposed to be MY day of rest, as well !

 

Rooster-UK.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Rooster-UK

[shanty]

Thank you for responding to the complaint I made,Rooster.Accordingly I have removed the word Paranoid from my post.It's only fair.

[juliusceasor]

None of those categories strike me as vulnerable.

 

If you have never experienced things from a vulnerable persons point of view then I can see why you would think so.

Anyway your posts are designed to be provocative rather than helpful, and I remind you the original post was tongue in cheek. Something you fail to appreciate. I will refrain from replying further to your posts on this matter.

[JonCris]

Really,and would you like to point out what I have defended that is indefensible?

 

Unfairness is indefensible,from ALL parties on this board.Your response is unworthy . You will not do this cause any good by attacking because someones view does not agree with yours.Several of these cases are appalling,but MY opinion is that some are questionable in some ways,Your opinion may be different.

 

No doubt one needs to apologise for posting on several threads on this site,I think you are gathering evidence in the same way RLP do,shame on you joncris.

 

In case you hadn't noticed these threads are NOT about 'views' they are about helping victims of this appalling outfit & why if your not involved or don't wish to help why are you posting on these threads at all.

[jonni2bad]

JonCris - people don't need any reason to post and they don't have to be either interested or concerned.

 

These forums are for all to use so long as they remain within the rules of the forum. Having views outside the norm is not against our rules.

 

Please don't post in that manner again.

[JonCris]

I see that rather than send a PM you wish to conduct this discussion in public sobeit

 

The RLP threads are NOT for seeking opinions as you put it but are for helping those who have become victims of this firm who I doubt care about such posters. However if you would rather allow some to obstruct that help for no other reason than to feed their own ego......or distract from the matters at hand then sobeit.

 

Should you censor this post then I find I will no longer be able to offer assistance to other members........other than those who have direct contact

[jonni2bad]

You had already been warned by another team member to stop this silly behaviour, without success.

 

It is not for you to decide who may input into any thread on CAG or for what purpose. That would be the censorship that you have just highlighted - the one where you feel as though it would hinder your work if your post was censored. How you feel is precisely how you are making another user feel and it needs to stop.

[juliusceasor]

I think it was unnecessary to have started the situation in the first place I do think that was poorly handled. However I do not think it is professional or necessarily helpful to do the laundry in public. This matter could have been easily resolved by PM to each member and then both could have agreed to disagree politely in Public.

 

What's done is done but next time perhaps lessons can be learned.

[JonCris]

I agree but there are those who appear to be prepared to allow others to disrupt any campaign against RLP on the most spurious of grounds.........claiming they have a right to their opinion.....which of course they do but the 'opinions' being expressed made absolutely no contribution.

 

CAG is a campaigning website it is not for some to express opinions that do nothing to help. The time when different opinions do matter is when its' about strategy some suggest doing it one way & others an other then the OP decides which way to go............ that is how it works

 

If someone wants to discuss the arguments then they are free to start their own thread otherwise they should leave alone those who want to actually do something constructive

 

Anyway lets back to deciding how to screw RLP

[shomi43]

Hi Shanks, I see your blog was posted in March 2009, are you still involved in this? My wife bought articles in Boots, but absented minded forgot to pay for one of them. She is in a responsible well paid job and has no record. She was treated badly by staff who took her photograph and took away ID to be photocopied. They refused to call the police or allow her to pay for the item. Then a week later she was sent a bill for £137.50 by RLP. We queued for hours over a two day period to see Citizens Advice who were useless.

[JonCris]

shomi PM me please

[shomi43]

Dear JonCris, Please forgive my ignorance, I'm totally new to this. What is PM?

[JonCris]

shomi43 Have sent you a PM

[Shanks]

Hi Shomi,

 

Sorry to hear about your wife's experience I can only wish you well with it and hope you achieve the right and fair result. In my case my niece's family decided to leave it with the response from RPL saying they would not take any further action. I may have pursued it further but they didn't want to so it was left. It looks like JonCris, a very experienced Cagger, has now contacted you and I would take any advice given there very seriously.

 

Happy to help further if I can but pretty much all the dealings I have are detailed in this thread already. Good luck.

 

Cheers

[shomi43]

Hi Shanks, Thanks a lot for your reply and good wishes. best, Shomi