Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

[Guest]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

i have had a read of Direct measures (DM's) applied by police liek discretion to isue FAW FPN PSD etc

Accepting a DM is not an admission of guilt. DMs are not a conviction, but fiscal DMs are retained on the criminal history system for twenty years or until the age of 40, whichever is longer. They may be disclosed in court only for the first two years, although they may be disclosed in an enhanced Disclosure or to help inform future police or prosecution decisions during the longer period. Police DMs are retained on the system for only two years, however. If a person does not challenge a DM within 28 days to seek a court hearing, the penalty is deemed accepted.

Justices of the Peace felt that the 'leap' from accepting to challenging a DM was a barrier for some accused persons to making representation concerning mitigating or other circumstances. The survey of persons offered DMs provided isolated examples of such cases but was not large enough to be representative. On a related point there was some concern from JPs that fiscals, particularly, might issue DMs without having access to sufficient information or social enquiry reports about an accused person who might need to have underlying issues (for example, drug or alcohol dependence) addressed.

Other professionals, notably the police and fiscals, felt that the option to request a court hearing was fair. They pointed to low levels of challenges for DMs (around 0.5% for police DMs, data not yet available for fiscal DMs). Generally, the vast majority of professionals welcomed the lack of a full criminal record for what might be a minor, one-off offence and therefore saw DMs as fair and proportionate.

There are some concerns about whether the consequences of accepting a DM are being made sufficiently clear to those accepting DMs in terms of jobs requiring an enhanced Disclosure and travel visas, and retention beyond the two year period

Such issues were considered during the bill's passage and by the SG when considering the consultation responses it received following the McInnes summary justice review report. The SG considered that since an accused person was under no obligation to accept an offer of a DM and could opt for a determination by a court, the conclusions of the Stewart Committee, on whose recommendations FFs were originally introduced in 1987, held good.

No confusion

see above in read

They will only be shown on an enhanced search it seems.
The point was that no matter what the response to the civil charge is by RLP, it will have no effect on this.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

To clarify further

There seems to be some concern that admiting or denying liability will have some negative effect on the criminal record(if any) of the OP.
It will not of course, it is a civil action.
I just dont think that this has been made plain.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

To clarify further

There seems to be some concern that admiting or denying liability will have some negative effect on the criminal record(if any) of the OP.
It will not of course, it is a civil action.
I just dont think that this has been made plain.

If I recall correctly, one of the threats made by the turds at Really Loathesome Pustules is that the name of the alleged offender will be put on some sort of offenders' blacklist if they do not pay up.

If they do make such a threat, it should be reported to the police as that would be blackmail - even if the purported blacklist does not actually exist.

[bluebottle]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

If I recall correctly, one of the threats made by the turds at Really Loathesome Pustules is that the name of the alleged offender will be put on some sort of offenders' blacklist if they do not pay up.

If they do make such a threat, it should be reported to the police as that would be blackmail - even if the purported blacklist does not actually exist.

You are 100% correct on that point, CC. It is also likely the demands RLP make in 99.9% of cases amount to Blackmail, also. Their clients can be targeted, too, as it is an offence to incite another to commit an offence of Blackmail and to conspire with another to commit Blackmail. The onus is on the Defendants to prove they have a right in law to make the demands and that using menances/threats is a proper means of enforcing their demands.

[depressed2011]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

thank you for ur posts.

i m wondering should i write to rlp?


there thrid letter says that this 'is teh final attempt from them to resolve teh issue and now they will report to there client' understood but now does it means that rlp cannot write me any further? also saying that it wud be teh store who wud send me legal paper not rlp (if that drags to those limits i mean)

can rlp send me any legal paper work on behalf of their clients? i mean they r not a legal firm of solicitors/lawyers, are they?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

No.

Nor, for that matter, are they an illegal firm of lawyers.

[Guest]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

thank you for ur posts.

i m wondering should i write to rlp?


there thrid letter says that this 'is teh final attempt from them to resolve teh issue and now they will report to there client' understood but now does it means that rlp cannot write me any further? also saying that it wud be teh store who wud send me legal paper not rlp (if that drags to those limits i mean)

can rlp send me any legal paper work on behalf of their clients? i mean they r not a legal firm of solicitors/lawyers, are they?

If it were me i would file it in the bin

They are not really telling you anything new are they, it is just a silly attempt to intimidate in my opinion.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

If it were me i would file it in the bin

Lack of evidence is one reason why blackmailers escape justice.

[depressed2011]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

well if thats an (another) attempt to intimidate me, nicce try m not even bothered. i dun think court wud ever take that case up i was given a formal warning by police and i m NOT being cocky here i have apologised for what happend and i had circumsatnces for that mishappening,

i have spoken to MET police and Scottish police tooo about that warning, m confident about its status and rest f anything else happens its my destiny.

i just want to know shud i write to them as suggested in many threads here liek a one line letter or not

also as mentioned in there previous letter about 'last attempt' if they write to me again what is my position on that?

[Guest]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

well if thats an (another) attempt to intimidate me, nicce try m not even bothered. i dun think court wud ever take that case up i was given a formal warning by police and i m being cocky here i have apologised for what happend and i had circumsatnces for that mishappening,

i have spoken to MET police and Scottish police tooo about that warning, m confident about its status and rest f anything else happens its my destiny.

i just want to know shud i write to them as suggested in many threads here liek a one line letter or not

also as mentioned in there previous letter about 'last attempt' if they write to me again what is my position on that?

I am sure you iwll recieve many," last attempt" and "final notices" from these people, as i said i would ignore them ( ok keep them in a draw).

Purely my opinion of course.
Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: Dreaded by the letter from retail loss prevention (RLP) HELP

I agree with you, Peter, about putting the letters from RLP in File 13, aka waste-paper bin. The reason many Blackmail cases don't get to court, CC, is because the victims are, all too often, terrified to give evidence. Blackmailers are regarded as the scum of the earth, by police and juries, and the penalties, usually 3-4 years' imprisonment for a first-time offender, are usually well-deserved. More serious cases normally attract 5-6 years' imprisonment. I have yet to hear of a case where a blackmailer has gone down for the maximum or as near as damn it.

I am of the opinion that if RLP's clients were made aware of the consequences of RLP's conduct, they would break all ties with them, as B & Q did. I have in mind the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It will be interesting to learn of the outcome of the complaints against RLP's in-house solicitors (one has left RLP's employment) to the SRA. As soon as I hear from Richard Dunstan at CAB, I will try and post details.