RLP Civil recovery shoplifting

[Henry118]

Hi All,


I’d appreciate the help. I CANT ATTACH THE LETTER, IT SAYS I DONT HAVE PERMISSION, VERY IMPORTANT TO SEE THE LETTER. HOW DO I SHARE? THANK YOU



PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED LETTER. THEY ARE NOT STANDARD LETTER

I stupidly took some items from Waitrose and got stopped, been a very difficult time the last 2 years but, no excuse and my fault. I didn’t admit anything, and the staff were polite. Went into the back room, and they took some items from the bag in the trolley, gave me the items I’d paid for and asked me to sign a one page form stating that I’m banned and they may pass my details on. If I didn’t show them proof of address for the form they said they would have to call the police, the policy is to confirm the address or they have to call the police. I supplied the address as didn’t want the police involved so had little choice.
The above happened on 22nd November and the letter attached is dated 16^th December but, arrived today 7^TH February.

This is not a standard letter, or doesn’t seems so, and they are asking me for £6,741.27 as they state the cost of goods is £67 and 80 odd visits to shop over x period means I took this amount every time so £7k. They refer to other items they say I have stolen on visits following extensive review. Please read letter.


I am very worried the reasons that this is not the standard copy letter (has been written) plus the amount.
Can’t see any up-to-date posts regarding this company (RLP) so would appreciate some current advice.

Thank you all.

[Henry118]

I hope the letter is attached now.

[islandgirl]

whatever the position re the letter (and others will be along to advise) there is no way the goods added up to £5k! Something fishy here...

[JMcG]

Is this still applicable?

[atticus]

the letter explains how they get to the £5k figure. They reckon the OP stole £60-odd of goods on each of about 80 visitsSee page 3 of the scan, which appears to be page 2 of the letter.

As to the Oxford case, this claim appears to be different in that it includes a claim for the value of goods alleged to have been stolen and not recovered.

[des8]

I would be challenging their valuations.
I doubt a judge would agree with their broad brush stroke estimation for all 81 visits as many of those they list are nowhere near the £60 estimate.
Their additional damages cost also can be challenged.

i believe the defendants lawyers in the Oxford case were acting pro bono and In view of the amount being claimed here it might be worth seeing if they would act here

[Henry118]

Hi all. Thanks for your input. What I was hoping was that RLP have had some previous threads on here and I understand some of the legal position ie they can’t fine me, needs to be supermarket to go via civil court, don’t ignor LBAs or court papers. It seems RLP have poor reputation and everyone here used to say, don’t respond, don’t don anything as they or the DCA rhey may send have no authority but the threads which are here are old and mine seems more complex so hoped for some feed back on RLP or what I should consider/do. Thank you

[atticus]

There are numerous RLP threads on here. You are welcome to read them.

[Henry118]

Yes indeed, I have read them all but, all old and wanted to find out if anyone had more up to date experiences

[Henry118]

Apologies Atticus, I have found a lot more threads than I knew existed. Thank you

[R0b]

Responding on request of the OP.

I can see the letter is dated December 22nd and they are claiming you have 21 days to respond, has there been any further letters from RLP since? Have you responded at all or kept silent?

At the end of the day, it has to be Waitrose that would need to sue you, not RLP and if there's been no legal proceedings issued then you may want to treat it like any other RLP letter and ignore it.

It has already been stated by others that you could challenge their valuations and I'm not sure that because you simply shopped in Waitrose with a transactional average value of £17 that must mean you have stolen items equivalent to £67 each time - that's on Waitrose to prove and simply applying a broad brush approach may not be good enough and I think that may be a stretch at best.

The letter appears to be a letter before action but isn't quite clear, but given the detail I would take it as one. If you wanted to respond, you could request that before you are able to consider your position and provide a full response, you need the evidence they are seeking to rely on. That includes:

- the CCTV the transactional till data

- the two cases they are relying on to support their client's claim

- a breakdown of the costs being claimed for personnel dealing with the matter together with how much time they claim to have spent and each of the staff job titles. If it was security personnel then they can't claim costs because that was their job but maybe if it were store assistants if they can show they were diverted away from usual activities to deal with your theft.

- a full explanation and itemisation of the admin costs for travelling to the store. That's far too vague and doesn't explain anything. Who is travelling to the store and are they an employee of Waitrose, what is their job title? Again, security staff or similar shouldn't be claiming costs since that is their job.

- a full explanation and itemisation of the security contribution costs. What does the cost relate to and who does it come from? I assume this is RLP costs but it's not clear how they have arrived at that amount.

If you do write back then you might expect a barrage of letters after that but I would think if Waitrose intended to go to court, they would have done something by now. Alternatively, you can ignore it like everyone else does and see what happens next although given the sums involved, I might be inclined to respond at least and see whether they can actually produce the evidence they claim to have in their possession - I'm wondering whether some of the data is still retained or if they have a retention policy the data may no longer be available, especially the CCTV in which case they have a harder case to make.

[Henry118]

Dear Rob

I apologise for my tardy response. Thank you so much for taking the time to review and comment.

The letter is dated 22^nd December but, the postmark is 3^rd Feb, sent by second class so, unsure if this is a deliberate tactic to make you worried you’ve missed the deadline when you receive the letter (I have kept the envelope) I have received nothing further from RLP since this letter and I have not replied or responded.

I agree with the points made about average values, it’s a little far-fetched at best and in no way accurate.

I appreciate the comments regarding the evidence declaration and I make the presumption that they would have to acknowledge what they have and not bluff.

I believe that the normal data retention policy is 30 days which is why they’ve gone back to 22^nd October in the initial comments and not further as I don’t believe they have CCT to go further.

I’m caught between ignoring RLP and seeing what develops and providing a response based on your comments.I believe if I respond it will just create a barrage of letters and incorrect information, whereas if I wait and I deal with each letter as appropriate I’ll only have to engage with fact and the law and not RLP demands. This is on the basis that if court papers arrive, I still have time to agree however, it may not be the best time to negotiate?

I wouldn’t ignore an LBA or court papers and assume that if, and I say if, court papers arrived, I would still have time to take legal advice/challenge or agree on something before it went to court.

Thank you for your input and comments.

Kind regards

[R0b]

I'm afraid it's not something we can tell you what to do. Given that the contents of the letter which takes this outside the standard RLP type letters, I think you have to take it seriously and I personally would send a robust response to them to show them that you are prepared to defend this, if they should issue a claim.

However, others may suggest you ignore it and take the chance on a claim being issued but if you do, you lose the opportunity to challenge them on the evidence before a claim is issued and would more than likely have to wait until the late stages of proceedings to view their evidence and any relevant witness statements, usually 14 days before the hearing takes place.

As for the CCTV, I'm wondering whether they have simply viewed the CCTV at the time or downloaded it and kept it on file. If the former, it may be that the CCTV has been overwritten or deleted and so they have no evidence to prove much other than transactional till information and the time they have physically stopped you.

As I said, the decision is yours to make but happy to help where I can.

[Henry118]

Dear Rob et al

just by way of update. I had to instruct a solicitor and they wrote to RLP requesting the breakdown of all the costs, which they supplied the same day as they received email, very detailed giving full breakdown,

My legal councils letter was very firm (I did question at the time) and RLP have responded in detail stating that they reject my initial offer ( I was advised to offer a small sum £250 in the first instance, which they have rejected out of hand and have asked if were ready to accept service of proceedings.


Im trying to get a plan of action from my legal council as the advice so far has been a little vague from my perspective. it seems RLP will require a substantial settlement to NOT issue proceedings, and I get issuing proceedings may just be a way of forcing my hand to pay.

I'll see what my legal advisor says but, I'm starting to think that they may not be the best partner to deal with this but, it is early days. whats concerning is their not giving me some sort of plan of how we'll deal with this, which I was sort of expecting. Im wondering if I might need to swap council to someone who can negotiate with RLP to ascertain their bottom line as I get the impression im going to have to pay.

[DE DOGS]

Rock and a Hard Place. Me I would not accept any sort of settlement. I think to follow the comments, and reply that you now wish to attend Court for the Judge to make his/her decision, just my thoughts. what they are doing is making you give in.