wrongful Act

[fitzy123]

Re: wrongful Act

A big thankyou to CleverClogs for taking the time to
post these up for me'not to sure where to go from hear
maybe a 4th letter on its way'but the letters they think
im liable. thanks

[CleverClogs]

Re: wrongful Act

You're not.

The case those spivs cite - Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water - was quite different. In that case, the claimant's premises were flooded and considerable damage was done to a collection of photographic images. The claimant's staff had to be diverted from revenue generating activities to assessing the damage caused, then commissioning replacement images to be made. The claimant won compensation for loss of revenue due to damage caused by the flooding and due to having staff being diverted to mitigation of losses.

In the case of alleged theft from a store, the shop assistant(s) would not be diverted from their usual, revenue generating activities for more than a very few minutes. The store manager is employed in a supervisory role, which (by definition) does not directly generate any revenue, so no compensation is due to him/her having to deal with the alleged incident. The security goon is not employed in any activity that could be described as generating revenue; at best, he could be claimed to be protecting revenue whilst, depending on how pompous, officious and truculent he might be, he could be said to be deterring customers from shopping there. None of his wages could justly be claimed in compensation.

RLP are all mouth and shop-soiled tracksuit bottoms from the TK Maxx bargain bin.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: wrongful Act

These people are in more trouble than you know folks
Here is their CCA licence.

Sparkie

Licence Number:0628437
Licence Status:Withdrawn on 09/08/2010

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business NameCompany Registration NumberRetail Loss Prevention Limited4802733

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No


Trading Name(s) (Current):

Lewis, Burroughs and Barnes

Current Organisations that run the organisation:

NameCompany Registration NumberPosition

[bluebottle]

Re: wrongful Act

Blue Bottle here is one line of thinking that i have been stewing over in regards to retailers and RLP speculative invoicing and was wonder what you thoughts would be on it.

Basically as we all know RLP are in their letters demanding amounts way over the actual loss incurred by the retailer (in most cases no loss was incurred). Yet they according to most posters (and without actually seeing a copy of their letters personally) it would seem they are wording their letters to the effect that the amount they are asking for is to cover or is equal to the loss the retailer incurred. The second point is they are then threatening legal action based on the above point of amount of loss incurred in order to recover it.

Now to me, because the actual loss is significantly less than what is demanded and in most cases no actual loss has been incurred by the retailer as most victims seem to be caught as a result of honest mistake or false accusations (grounds for claim of defamation, if made in public like in the OP's case), then the letter itself is misleading as to actual loss and jusitification from the amount being demanded and false threat of legal action. Therefore i am off the view that their may be a case for fraud by misrepresentation against RLP.

What are your thoughts on that Blue bottle?

If others want to join in on this debate on my thoughts, then let the site team know so this post and any replies can be moved to their own thread in working groups section.

The simple answer, Teaboy, is that RLP's speculative invoicing is, in cases where there is no evidence of theft or incompetent retail security staff are being driven by corporate paranoia, Fraud by False Misrepresentation, or Attempted Blackmail, or both.

I have emailed Richard Dunstan at CAB about RLP and he has suggested the SRA are the best to complain to about RLP, it's solitary in-house solicitor, who is currently the subject of an active complaint, and RLP's MD Jackie Lambert who, incidentally, is not registered as the owner or manager of a business required to register under the Legal Services Act 2007.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

You're not.

The case those spivs cite - Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water - was quite different. In that case, the claimant's premises were flooded and considerable damage was done to a collection of photographic images. The claimant's staff had to be diverted from revenue generating activities to assessing the damage caused, then commissioning replacement images to be made. The claimant won compensation for loss of revenue due to damage caused by the flooding and due to having staff being diverted to mitigation of losses.

In the case of alleged theft from a store, the shop assistant(s) would not be diverted from their usual, revenue generating activities for more than a very few minutes. The store manager is employed in a supervisory role, which (by definition) does not directly generate any revenue, so no compensation is due to him/her having to deal with the alleged incident. The security goon is not employed in any activity that could be described as generating revenue; at best, he could be claimed to be protecting revenue whilst, depending on how pompous, officious and truculent he might be, he could be said to be deterring customers from shopping there. None of his wages could justly be claimed in compensation.

RLP are all mouth and shop-soiled tracksuit bottoms from the TK Maxx bargain bin.

Well put!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

These people are in more trouble than you know folks
Here is their CCA licence.

Sparkie

Licence Number:0628437
Licence Status:Withdrawn on 09/08/2010

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business NameCompany Registration NumberRetail Loss Prevention Limited4802733

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No


Trading Name(s) (Current):

Lewis, Burroughs and Barnes

Current Organisations that run the organisation:

NameCompany Registration NumberPosition

Somehow, RLP managed to persuade the OFT they didn't need a CCA licence and claimed they had taken independent legal advice to that effect. Yeah.

[CleverClogs]

Re: wrongful Act

These people are in more trouble than you know folks
Here is their CCA licence.

It would certainly be nice to hope that they're in the poo right up to their necks or that they might be prosecuted by the largely ornamental Office of Faffing and Twaddling, but I do not believe that either is true.

I understand that - incredible as it may seem - the Office of Farting and Timewasting has somehow allowed itself to be convinced that RLP are not, despite appearances to the contrary, Really Lousy People and hence they do not need a Consumer Credit Licence. :mad2:

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: wrongful Act

the little bleeders!!!

I would send a photocopy with Please Explain on it...

Bluebottle, is it fraud to send the sort of letters they are sending to Fitzu when your license has been withdrawn?!

[teaboy2]

Re: wrongful Act

The simple answer, Teaboy, is that RLP's speculative invoicing is, in cases where there is no evidence of theft or incompetent retail security staff are being driven by corporate paranoia, Fraud by False Misrepresentation, or Attempted Blackmail, or both.

I have emailed Richard Dunstan at CAB about RLP and he has suggested the SRA are the best to complain to about RLP, it's solitary in-house solicitor, who is currently the subject of an active complaint, and RLP's MD Jackie Lambert who, incidentally, is not registered as the owner or manager of a business required to register under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Now that is interesting about the MD, is she registered as MD/Director with companies house? If not then thats an offence. But unfortunately she does appear to be - Free company financial check on RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION LIMITED. Free company accounts. Companies House information Though more interesting is that another company is registered as a director too, that being CIRECO LIMITED

And guess who is the single director or Cireco Limited - Free company financial check on CIRECO LIMITED. Free company accounts. Companies House information Yep the one and only Mrs Jacqueline Ann Lambert - Now i find that very interesting and am not certain wether its legal to register a company as a director where the director of said company is the same director of the company in which the other company name is registered as being a director off. So it certainly warrants some investigation.

If anyone has any input on the legalities of this, the please post up for us to review.

[bluebottle]

Re: wrongful Act

the little bleeders!!!

I would send a photocopy with Please Explain on it...

Bluebottle, is it fraud to send the sort of letters they are sending to Fitzu when your license has been withdrawn?!

Somehow, RLP managed to convince OFT they didn't need a CCA licence. My gut-feeling says they do and they lied to the OFT. However, it will need a judge to decide whether they are required to hold a CCA licence or not.

In my considered judgement, it is fraud to send the sort of letters RLP send to people. The fact they do not hold a CCA licence is irrelevant.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
It is perfectly legal to be registered as a director of more than one company. However, I think that Jackie Lambert's business activities do warrant investigation by the regulatory agencies in view of the nature of RLP's legally-questionable business activities.

[teaboy2]

Re: wrongful Act

It is perfectly legal to be registered as a director of more than one company. However, I think that Jackie Lambert's business activities do warrant investigation by the regulatory agencies in view of the nature of RLP's legally-questionable business activities.

Yes that is true, but why the need to register her other company as a director? After all as the sole director or Cireco, only her will make profit from doing so. Why did she even need to register the other company as a director in the first place when she her self is already a director of the same company. It purely does not make sense. But i suspect she may have used the other company funds to buy out a previous directors shares, rather than use her own personal funds, and therefore avoid income tax from any profit/funds paid to Cireco.

Its even weirder when both companies share the same registered busniess address. It says to me that she maybe using the other company as a tool to evade tax and use its accounts as a personal bank account. Though i haven't looked into what services cireco provide yet, if any so i can only speculate at the moment.

[teaboy2]

Re: wrongful Act

ah ha talk about storing data of alleged shoplifters Integrity Screening from Cireco now thats evidence if we ever needed it that they maybe storing and processing peoples data without consent. And also possible breaches by retail companies for passing job applicants data on to a third party without consent.

On top off that i can not find a registered data controller for cireco, i searched by company name, number and postcode and nothing. as i searched the postcode then it likely means RLP may not have a data controller too. Though am going to do a bit more checking before i say for certain.

Below is a list of 44 companies that appeared in the results page on the ICO data controllor database. Those are the only companies coming up as results under searches for the Post code that RLP and Cireco limited have for their registered business address. Off course this does not mean, they are not registered with the ICO by different address, but it does give course for complaint to the ICO against both companies:

Total Records found 44

12BOXES LIMITED
ABACROFT INVESTERMENTS PLC
BEBHINN O'LOINGSIGH
BEEPI LIMITED
BILDER LTD
BODOR LIMITED
CLARITUS WEALTH LTD
CONSTELLIA LIMITED
DESI DATE LTD
DISCOVERY FORENSICS LIMITED
DOCTORS FOR BUSINESS LIMITED
EMERGING WORLD YOUTH GOLF TOUR CIC
ENKIDO LIMITED
ETEAMUPS LTD
EUROPHEALTH LIMITED
FRUDOO MOBILE MEDIA AND COMMERCE LIMITED
GOLDFIELD PARTNERS LTD
GROCHOLA LTD
HATTON GARDEN SAFE DEPOSIT LIMITED
HAVE A HOBBY LIMITED
I-CONSULTANCY LIMITED
IMPLICITLY LONDON LTD
KAIZEN MEDICAL RECRUITMENT LTD
KIND HEARTS INTERNATIONAL LTD
LETMATCH LTD
MASONS DO IT LTD
MORWOOD-LEYLAND & CO
NEW LIFE TASTERS LTD
OVERSEA MORTAGE BROKER LTD
OVERSEAS MORTGAGE BROKER LTD
PAUL LESLIE BURT
QUANTUM LEGAL SOLUTIONS LTD
RELOCATION ADVISORY SERVICES LTD
RESTAURANTVOUCHERS4U LTD
SEMTELLIGENCE LIMITED
SHOPITIZE LTD
SHORT TERM BUSINESS FINANCE LTD
STERLING MORTGAGES & PROTECTION LTD
SUMMIT NEXUS LTD
THE WEB SCHOOL LTD
THE WEBMART NETWORK LTD
THECLAIM ROOM.COM LIMITED
VITALITY 360 LIMITED
VOUCHEDFOR LTD

As you can see neither RLP or Cireco appear in the results above connected to the post code of their registered business address.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: wrongful Act

Hi teaboy
Its appears that a Limited companies Registration with the ICO MUST be the companies registered address any other business,company, partnership the address must be of their Principle place of business

Sparkie

[CleverClogs]

Re: wrongful Act

Hadn't it already been established that Rip-offs, Loonies and Pillocks are registered under the Data Protection Act, Registration Number: Z8131406 ?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: wrongful Act

Hadn't it already been established that Rip-offs, Loonies and Pillocks are registered under the Data Protection Act, Registration Number: Z8131406 ?

Mornin Clever Clogs
But that's not their registered address. They haven't notified the ICO of change of registered address .......which according to the DPA is an offence thats just as bad as not registering at all..........NIce one
Sparkie

Name & Registered Office:
RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION LIMITED
UNIT/OFFICE 36
88-90 HATTON GARDEN
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
EC1N 8PN

Company No. 04802733


ICO Address
Data Controller: RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION LIMITED


Address:

RLP LIMITED

SUITE T5 LENTON BUSINESS CENTRE
LENTON BOULEVARD
NOTTINGHAM
NG7 2BY

[teaboy2]

Re: wrongful Act

Also just because their registered (which is invalid due different address) it doesn't give them the right to process data based on accusations as all data must be accurate. Therefore they can use the fact an accusation was made in order to deem the person dishonest as that would be libel.

If such a libel case happened they would have too prove that the data subject committed the act with the intent to do so.

Also as the database is ran by cireco limited, then the more important question is are they themselves registered?

[CleverClogs]

Re: wrongful Act

Mornin Clever Clogs
But that's not their registered address. They haven't notified the ICO of change of registered address .......which according to the DPA is an offence thats just as bad as not registering at all..........NIce one

Oh dear.

How unfortunate. :rofl: