Civil Recovery RLP

[Cheshian]

Re Civil Recovery (RLP).
A friend asked me to research what to do re letter from RLP. I found all the posts on here very helpful.
The current recommendation is to ignore letters. I wish to challenge the practice.
I am not asking for help apart from one crucial area and that is application of the Companies Act 2006 on a memorandum 2004. To date no one on here has raised the subject that the RLP Ltd Objects were not seemingly updated to reflect Companies Act 2006. Research refers to a company being bound by restrictions in 1985 Companies Act. Anyone any views as to the implications.
I will update with progress but this will be slow.
Thanks.

[Amethyst]

Have you read the Oxford judgment and transcripts ? http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...h-and-the-lies

This is RLP https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...filing-history
There's no requirement to update articles/memorandum

[des8]

From a pragmatic and practical point of view it is unlikely that anyone being hassled by RLP would want to open a challenge on the basis that RLP have not amended their articles and memorandum to take advantage of the 2009 changes to Companies Act 2006

[Cheshian]

Thanks for response. I looked at info recorded at Companies House as Memo shown as filed 2004. I have looked at Judgment 2012 and Consumer Protection Amendment Regulations 2014 plus Guidance, also SRA Code of Conduct and will be taking up concerns with RLP before deciding what to do .

[Cheshian]

Update re Retail Loss Prevention Limited. I advised RLP Ltd I considered they were operating a 'banned practice' as defined by the BEIS guidance to the 2014 Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations and that they were in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 as their letters refer to legal terms such as 'letter before claim' when they are not authorised by the SRA. The SRA are still considering the complaint. RLP have stated that the BEIS Guidance has not been tested in court. BEIS have advised me that have no enforcement function and to complain to the Competition and Markets Authority or local trading standards.My impression is that after all the CAB effort and liaison with the Law Commission, the drafting of the 2014 Regulations left a lot to be desired regarding civil recovery. I am assisting an individual. It is up to those receiving letters to decide what to do but please read the BEIS Guidance https://assets.publishing.service.go...s-guidance.pdf

Consumer payments and “civil recovery” 16. The Regulations amend the definition of a “transactional decision” to expressly cover demands for payment from a consumer in full or partial settlement of the consumer’s liabilities or purported liabilities to the trader (see reg 2(1A) of the 2008 Regulations). This means that misleading and aggressive practices in respect of such demands would now clearly lead to both criminal sanctions (under the 2008 Regulations), as well as private redress (under the Regulations).

17. For example, so-called “civil recovery” where a consumer is accused of shoplifting, and is asked to pay a standard fixed fee to avoid prosecution, can fall in this category, is now clearly covered. The amended definition would also cover consumer payments associated with wheel-clamping, or demands for payment in respect of purported illegal downloads of digital content.

[ostell]

I'm interested in this and it's application to the issue of parking notices to keepers in car parks that are subject to byelaws and therefore cannot be held liable for the action of the driver but are being threatened with prosecution under the byelaw unless they pay the parking company £100 as a bribe.