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

[Shanks]

That's great - thank you mrmarmite

 

Unless anyone else chips in with any other edits or additions I am good to go with this one and will enjoy the weekend knowing that it should be with them safely on Monday morning.

 

Cheers

[mrmarmite]

good luck and post back a responce (IF you get 1 that is). if it were me now after you sent this letter and they still bugging you i would take them both to court at the same time, you want compensation and damages,

have you checked out daughters credit file yet? might be worth a look JUST incase they put anything onit, not that they should of course it just to be safe should u start court action against them

 

it look like they not gonna give up so soon will be the time to rock the boat, we will not be screwed with

[Shanks]

Great sentiments mrmarmite and I will certainly post back with any reponse we get. If nothing else it may help someone else down the line.

 

The letter should be with them on Monday and they can have a week to ponder it and come back. If they do not roll over, ehem I mean, respond appropriately after this then I think you are right and some sort of legal approach may be in order.

 

Cheers

[mrmarmite]

ok i guess u given them 7 days i hope u stated that u given them 7 days, if you havent wait 2 weeks. (DCA's a bit slow) if you receive another demand for payment lets say in between the 7th and 14th day area( you must give them time to acknoledge it's better defence in your case) once the 14th day is up (and they do send another demand) issue them with a "Letter Before Action" and give them 7 days to respond. if they fail then take court action (£30 court fee(refundable)) they do not have a legal leg to stand on. I'll leave meself a note and should it come to it i'll make you an LBA letter up and post on here for you to use. on something like this it peeves me off that these jerks can think they can get away with it,

 

I will warn you that they could/WILL ignore the LBA letter, you must stick to it and instigate court action, then imagine their faces when they get court letter though their post box we CAGer's stick together when WE know we are right.

 

this country sucks now, it deffo Guilty until prooven innocent. just remember you need to give them "Time" (yes we all hate it) but then they have no excuse if they "Choose" to ignore it

[mrmarmite]

the overall point is there is no "proof" that your daughter stole anything and you have the police to verify this "FACT"

[Shanks]

I see your point and to be fair, in both my first letter and the one above which you edited I was clear about the 7 days notice. In reality because I am in South England and my neice is in the North by the time she has sent any corrsepondance to me, and I have prepared letters here and then posted them up for her to sign and send on it is always nearer 14 days before the letters get sent so I can very easily demonstate that we gave clear time limits and then allowed some time over before taking to the next stage.

 

Cheers

[ScarletPimpernel]

Good luck.

 

If you don't get a satisfactory answer, I would be inclined to call RPL's bluff and suggest that they instigate Court action, as your niece is keen to bring their libellous accusation before a Judge. They then have a simple choice - put up or shut up.

[Shanks]

Thanks SP, I will post back with any response as and when it comes in.

[mrmarmite]

yup as i said beat em to it. take action agasinst them. we are here for us not for the idiots

[Shanks]

Hi mrmarmite, I agree with you both but feel that we should give them this opportunity to sort it out amicably. I am more than happy and know with the support of this forum and people like yourselves we would have a very good chance of success in the courst if they don't come good now.

 

We will wait for a response to this last letter and then go to the next stage if necessary. Is it wrong that I am almost looking forward to it?

 

Cheers

[Shanks]

Ok so we received another letter today. This came from the 'Pre-Litigation Section' of the DCA saying "as they have not had a response from us that they may now pass this debt to a third party". Clearly in their book litigation means give up and pass on to the next bloodsucker.

 

So this debt has gone from - Debenhams to RLP then to DCA and now to another third party!. Given that the alledged amount is less than £140 how much do you figure this mystical turd (sorry third) party has paid for it?

 

I reckon the DCA has realised that they are not going to get the money - so are trying to sell it on to some other unfortunate bunch in the hope of getting something. Either that or this is just another scare tactic and we will soon get the next letter on different headed paper written by the clown at the other end of the office from the same DCA

 

I gave them 7 days to respond and that runs out next Tuesday so I figure we will let that deadline pass and then see what happens.

 

Cheers

[Curlyben]

LOL, I'm willing to bet that this perceived other DCA is merely another desk in the same office

 

As ever WAIT and see what they do next.

This isn't Lowells passing it to Hamptons ilLegal by any chance ?

[ScarletPimpernel]

This is an utterly absurd situation.

 

The more the DCA threatens, the clearer it becomes that they have no intention or desire to go to Court.

[Shanks]

Hi Curlyben, the 'scare' tactics are laughable really. I wonder how long it took them to think that one up.

 

As to the company involved it is JB Debt based in Glasgow, stangely the signatures are unreadable so I cannot give the name of any individual there. As to the third party they don't say who it is, no doubt the postman will let us know soon.

 

Cheers

[Shanks]

Hi ScarletPimpernel, I couldn't agree more. This is what makes me even more determined. Should we not get a satisfactory result direct from Debenhams my next suggestion to family will be that we call their bluff and instigate court action against them. I will need some help on the technicalities but I am confident in the principle, what do you think?

 

Cheers

[mrmarmite]

yes shanks court looks only way, this is gonna keep going round in circles. skip all dca's and go straight for deb, they are the root cause and only they can stop it, this is pure harassement and nothing else.

 

time for you & your family's sake to put this to bed now. they cannot do what they are doing (even tho they think they can)

 

as for help we will be more than happy to help you on your way,

[mrmarmite]

i would probably aslo think about making a complaint against them aswell to ICO (but will take long time to reply) but it will add to your quest as you can say in court that you have made an official complaint against debs.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm not certain that Debenhams should be the primary target. Whilst they are undoubtedly to blame for the whole business starting, it seems to me that it is RPL who are responsible for what is happening now.

 

Debenhams' relationship with RPL is, I suspect, based upon them (D'hams) passing on the names of anyone detained for shoplifting to RPL, who then try to recover money from that individual; if they are successful, Debenhams get a cut, but RPL retain most of the money.

 

I suspect that Debenhams may claim not to be aware of what happened after the police became involved, and so passed on your niece's name in the usual way. I suspect that RPL are actually behind the current action; it is they who are JB's client.

 

Therefore, I think you should go after RPL.

 

I would write to RPL asking them to explain why, since your niece was, after investigation by police, released without caution or charge (i.e. entirely innocent), they are pursuing her for this money. Tell them that you consider their action amounts to harassment contrary to the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (which covers harassment by mail and telephone), and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which makes it an an offence to send a letter or other article which conveys an indecent or grossly offensive message or a threat, or which contains information known to be false and the purpose of the letter is to cause distress or anxiety. If their reply refers to your niece as an 'offender' or similar term, they they've also libelled her.

 

Before that, however, (and if you have not already done so), write to JB disputing the alleged debt on the grounds that no money is owed (don't tell them anything else), and remind them that under the OFT guidelines they may not continue collection activity until a dispute is resolved. Suggest they may like to take further instruction from their client.

[Shanks]

ScarletPimpernel, that's excellent thank you.

 

My last letter was to Deb's as my view was that any action taken by third parties must have been initated, at least in the first instance, after instruction by them.

 

I take your point about their distance from the current proceedings but will wait to see what reaction we get from my letter before taking it further. In the meantime I will write to JB and quote your bit about disputed debt etc.

 

Thanks again for all the help.

[cerberusalert]

It seems as if RPL are 'vexatious litigants' who habitually commence legal proceedings for an ulterior purpose or without reasonable grounds. As such, they can be prevented from commencing further proceedings without the leave of the court.

 

see; History of vexatious litigant statutes in the UK

[ScarletPimpernel]

It seems as if RPL are 'vexatious litigants' who habitually commence legal proceedings for an ulterior purpose or without reasonable grounds. As such, they can be prevented from commencing further proceedings without the leave of the court.

 

 

Sadly, only individuals can be named and banned as vexatious litigants.

 

There's a list of them here:

Vexatious litigants

 

That doesn't prevent a company's litigation being vexatious, and a defendant could ask for the case to be struck out on those grounds.

 

Were it possible to check, I think we'd find that RPL has probably not taken many cases to Court. Indeed, I go so far as to suggest that their business is based upon not going to court. I don't imagine that career or regular shoplifters would be too much bothered by the threat of a CCJ; I suspect RPL rely upon the embarrassment factor in other cases.

[cerberusalert]

Thanks for the info....but I find it odd that 'DAISYSTAR LTD - 1 December 1997' are listed or is it just the MD/SEO?

[ScarletPimpernel]

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!

[Shanks]

So "there is hope" and there is certainly the will here to see this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

I have sent off the letter to JB stating that this is disputed and as such they cannot take further action (thanks ScarletPimpernel).

 

I'm happy to leave it, the ball is certainly in their court. If nothing cames back after Tuesday next week then RLP are next in my sights.

 

cerberusalert - is this similar to the defence put towards the banks when they kept pulling out just before the court date was due? Seems to me that was a successful arguement for us then

 

Cheers all, I will keep this post updated.

[Shanks]

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.

 

Taken from "THE TREASURY SOLICITOR AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS" it would seem that this status can only be levied once they have actually commenced court action and it is unfounded...

 

the Attorney is unlikely to intervene unless at least 6 separate claims have been commenced by a litigant which have been unsuccessful or stuck out. This figure is not cast in stone, however, and each case will be judged on its own particular merits

 

The Court will find that a litigant is a “vexatious litigant” according to Section 42 if they have “habitually, persistently and without reasonable ground” instituted civil or criminal or all types of proceedings. In particular, the Court will consider the entire history of the litigant’s activities of Court proceedings. In the past Courts have held that the hallmarks of vexatious proceedings are that they have little or no basis in law. Furthermore, the effect of the proceedings is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant, as well as involving an abuse of process of the Court.

 

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.

 

I would welcome anyone more qualified than me to correct this or provide more recent reference that might mean we could use this. tbh it would be very saitisfying to threaten this in a letter to one of these DCAs

 

Cheers