Rlp help please :)

[littlemiss]

Hi everyone im new to this site and wondered if I can have your help or advice with RLP, its a similiar matter but with Primark.

however on the 24th september 2013, i acted stupidly yesterday and took something, that was worth £10.00 i was caught and then taking to the back room where they informed the police and gave me a "notice of intended civil recovery RLP" to read.

the police came and they did a record of if im known to the police and i wasnt.

the police officer then said i dont have a criminal record but stays on their system on what happened and what date it was, i then was to pay a fine of £80 and which i did and the officer wrote down something on the lines of "i .... have been read out my tems and have paid the fine of £80" and i was banned from all primarks but the manager didnt state how long i was banned for. they took the £80 and i was taking out of the shop.

what i wanted to know was seeing i paid this fine of £80, will i get a letter from the RLP, demanding money or what, as i know its only been a day? and how long is anyone banned for? even i live in the city itself and theres only one primark here and one in cheltenham but rarely go into primark myself.

I then got a letter from RLP saying " Wednesday 23rd October 2013



Miss Kay (funny how thats not not name lol)

Amount outstanding:£130.00

Miss ***

We note that we have received no response to our letter of 1st October 2013. If you have already responded, it may be our correspondence has crossed, please make contact on number to check if this is the case.

Please be aware, our clients reserves the right to pursue the full value of the claim rather than the contribution currently sought, if this matter cannot be resolved.

Our client exercises it civil rights of redress mainly as a deterrent to future incidents, you have not sought to deny your actions nor have you sought to demonstrate any remorse or offer any reasonable explanation for your conduct. Our client appreciates there are many reasons why incidents o of this nature occur,. If you believe you have a defence, or if you have a compelling reason for your behaviour, it is important that they are given due consideration. Could you please therefore advise if there is any information you wish to be taken into account.

Whilst there is no legal obligation to consider mitigating circumstances in civil proceedings, our client adheres to core principles originally agreed with ACPO and abides by its own ethical codes. This ensures a degree of protection to those who may be considered vulnerable, or those in the long term severe financial hardship. If you consider this may apply to you, it is important that you notify us of your circumstances, so that they can be given due consideration and the appropriate action taken on you case.

Without any additional information by way of a Defence, or mitigating factors, the case will proceed based solely upon the information and evidence provided by our client. If the case proceeds to Court, our correspondence will be placed before Court. The issue of proceedings must however be a measure of last resort, In the absence of any DEFENCE, remorse or other information, this potion must be considered,It is therefore in both parties interest to confirm your position. This is what PROTOCOL for Pre-action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides for as means to allow every opportunity to achieve an appropriate result for both parties, without the need for Court action.

Our client appreciates that your lack of contact may be a result of embarrassment or shame or perceived fear. Please be assured that our staff are professional and non-judgement and will deal with any communication sensitively, compassionately and with complete discretion. If you wish somebody to contact us on your behalf, you may do so, but will require your consent pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998.

We summarise the option open to you:
1. settle the claim by paying the amount stated £130.00
2. if you wish to settle the claim but cannot to do so within 14 days, contact us to discuss payment.
3. negotiate an alternative settlement.
4. submit a written defence with a full account of your version.
5. advise us of any relevant circumstances.
6. advise that you require more time to take advice and consider your position.

We require a response or payment from you 14 DAYS of the date of this letter in order to prevent further action be taken.

Yours Sincerely

RLP"

But i didnt reply to this letter at all, as i got told from advice to ignore their silly threats.


then a second letter which said

"RLP

REF: *******
CASE REFERNECE: *********
Amount Outstanding: £130.00 Wednesday 6th Novemember 2013.


Dear Miss ***

Our Client: Primark
Incident: Gloucester on 24th September 2013

We refer to our previous correspondence and note that you have not yet responded. Ignoring this matter will not make it go away, and is not in your interest , as it could result in additional liability if the matter proceeds in COURT, by way of the additional court fees, legal cost and interest which would be sought at the rate of 8% per annum.

You have failed to comply with the Practice Direction relating to Pre Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which encourage negotiation and settlement of claims, without the requirement to issue court proceedings. Regrettably, we must therefore advise our client it is now in a position to issue proceedings against you and for the full value of the claim if it chooses. You are again urged to seek some independent legal advice.

We take this opportunity of confirming the position regrading your data. As previously advised, our client has passed us your information, the information regrading this incident and any supporting evidence, in order to pursue a civil claim. There is sufficient evidence to establish liability. We rely upon our client's description as an accurate account of the incident, as you not provided any information to the contrary. It is therefore important that if there any facts which you wish to dispute, or any circumstances which you may consider relevant to the incident which you have not yet made us aware of, you must contact us to advise without any further delay, in order to ensure that an accurate record is retained.

The information we hold may now be passed to the Police or other crime initiatives in the interest of preventing and detecting crime and may be available to member of a closed user group for employment screening. Please note, employment screening may only be conducted with your prior consent.

If you do not dispute the claim, and there are no other circumstances relevant to the incident, you need to settle the claim. You may do by contacting our Collections Department which can take payment by credit or debit card on ***********, or by paying online at *************. Other payment options are detailed on the back of this letter including the facility to your damages by way of instalment or agreeing a deferred time period.

W e look forward to hearing from you withing 14 days from the date of this letter, in order to avoid any further action being taken against you, or incurring additional cost.

Yours Sincerely

RLP "


questions:

1. can they really give this the police or any other crime people?
2. what would their reply be if i sent them one line message?
3. again with the court?
4. what is employment screening?
5. Hold on to this information?

Any help would be grateful

Many thanks
littlemiss

[labman]

Re: Rlp help please

My understanding of this issue is that the 'demand' from RLP is nothing more than a speculative invoice which you are under no obligation to pay.

The reasoning behind this follows the lines of those in a defining law case known as the Oxford Case. The store would have been employing all the staff involved in your case anyway, so they suffered no loss as such. You paid for the item I assume, and you paid the police fine (I thought it had now gone up to £90 for these offences, but understand the police have discretion over the level of penalty they impose).

It is hard therefore to see how RLP justify their demand for that amount. They are not allowed to profit from the situatioin, and so anything invoiced to you must be a genuine pre-estimate of real loss to the business. This is not.

If I were you I would continue to ignore. Be aware their threats may get worse though, and occasionally they do take people to court in which case you MUST defend.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rlp help please

My understanding of this issue is that the 'demand' from RLP is nothing more than a speculative invoice which you are under no obligation to pay.

The reasoning behind this follows the lines of those in a defining law case known as the Oxford Case. The store would have been employing all the staff involved in your case anyway, so they suffered no loss as such. You paid for the item I assume, and you paid the police fine (I thought it had now gone up to £90 for these offences, but understand the police have discretion over the level of penalty they impose).

It is hard therefore to see how RLP justify their demand for that amount. They are not allowed to profit from the situatioin, and so anything invoiced to you must be a genuine pre-estimate of real loss to the business. This is not.

If I were you I would continue to ignore. Be aware their threats may get worse though, and occasionally they do take people to court in which case you MUST defend.

If I may add something to your already excellent advice, Labman, RLP never ceases to amaze me with the tactics they employ to extract money from people which a court has ruled neither they or their clients are entitled to demand, no matter how justified they may feel they are in making such demands.

Looking through their latest effort, I do note that one passage within it raises the question as to whether they and their client have a right in law to make the demands they are making and to use the threats they are employing to enforce it. As you quite rightly say, their demands are no more than speculative invoices,

I do note that, once again, RLP are making references to ACPO. I have contacted ACPO about this in the past and I do know that they are not at all happy about RLP using ACPO's name in any way. I shall be bringing this to the attention of the appropriate lead within ACPO and advise of the response I receive.

As to RLP's actions, figuratively speaking, things like this have a habit of coming back and biting people and companies on the backside and it is only going to be a matter of time before karma sinks its teeth into RLP's corporate backside.

[bizzybob]

Re: Rlp help please

"We take this opportunity of confirming the position regrading your data. As previously advised, our client has passed us your information, the information regrading this incident and any supporting evidence, in order to pursue a civil claim. There is sufficient evidence to establish liability. We rely upon our client's description as an accurate account of the incident, as you not provided any information to the contrary. It is therefore important that if there any facts which you wish to dispute, or any circumstances which you may consider relevant to the incident which you have not yet made us aware of, you must contact us to advise without any further delay, in order to ensure that an accurate record is retained.

The information we hold may now be passed to the Police or other crime initiatives in the interest of preventing and detecting crime and may be available to member of a closed user group for employment screening. Please note, employment screening may only be conducted with your prior consent."

Ah the reference to their infamous "Dishonesty Database"

I wonder quite how legally under DPA this list of alleged offenders is operated?

Labman and BB have summed it up nicely, there is no more compulsion or lawful compulsion to deal with these parasites any more than you have to deal with the Microsoft remote access scrammers from India.


This is from their website:

"We provide free training sessions on civil recovery, legal principles, case information requirements and legal surgeries for one-to-one advice on assessing case evidence and evaluating losses to ensure civil recovery is undertaken correctly."

There used to be a Barristers opinion on the site, but that vanished after the Oxford Case.

The court cases page was last updated in April 2012, that of itself tells a tale. Is it that the claims are in truth spurious and may fail in court?

[charitynjw]

Re: Rlp help please

Ah the reference to their infamous "Dishonesty Database"

I wonder quite how legally under DPA this list of alleged offenders is operated?

Is there a 'read-across' here?

Construction firms to compensate unlawfully blacklisted workers

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...kers-blacklist

[bizzybob]

Re: Rlp help please

Is there a 'read-across' here?

Construction firms to compensate unlawfully blacklisted workers

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...kers-blacklist

I consider that if challenged RLP would find themselves in the same boat. Think I will phone and ask them and record the call.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Rlp help please

"The information we hold may now be passed to the Police or other crime initiatives in the interest of preventing and detecting crime and may be available to member of a closed user group for employment screening. Please note, employment screening may only be conducted with your prior consent."

Please note that final sentence.

Ah the reference to their infamous "Dishonesty Database"

I wonder quite how legally under DPA this list of alleged offenders is operated?

It isn't. Cireco Limited isn't a subsidiary of Retail Loss Prevention Limited - RLP is a subsidiary of Cireco Limited - link.

This means that the ICO registration for RLP does not cover the "parent" company and hence Cireco Limited does not seem to have notified the ICO.

Labman and BB have summed it up nicely, there is no more compulsion or lawful compulsion to deal with these parasites any more than you have to deal with the Microsoft remote access scammers from India.

I really cannot agree.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that both RLP and the scammers prey on the vulnerable and on the ignorant, at least the scammers do not advise their clients to use (or misuse or abuse) the County Courts to reinforce their demands.

RLP are, however, essentially bullies at heart and there's one thing that's certain to deter a bully - the risk of being hurt again and again.

This is from their website:

From the Cireco website?

"We provide free training sessions on civil recovery, legal principles, case information requirements and legal surgeries for one-to-one advice on assessing case evidence and evaluating losses to ensure civil recovery is undertaken correctly."

Hmm.

Remember that statement that "employment screening" may only be carried out with the prior consent of their victims?

Where do you suppose it has gone?

There used to be a Barristers opinion on the site, but that vanished after the Oxford Case.

The court cases page was last updated in April 2012, that of itself tells a tale. Is it that the claims are in truth spurious and may fail in court?

If their claims are defended effectively and subjected to strict proof, they will quickly be shewn to be fatuous and ill-founded.

RLP may claim that the staff in the Oxford case - see attachment - were "confused" but, if you read the Approved Judgement, you will see that their only "confusion" derived from the staff members being unable to dissemble consistently or convincingly.

[bizzybob]

Re: Rlp help please

@ CC above

" I really cannot agree.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that both RLP and the scammers prey on the vulnerable and on the ignorant, at least the scammers do not advise their clients to use (or misuse or abuse) the County Courts to reinforce their demands.

RLP are, however, essentially bullies at heart and there's one thing that's certain to deter a bully - the risk of being hurt again and again."

Yes an excellent point RLP rely on fear, intimidation and lack of knowledge on the part of their victim.


I feel I was being too kind to the muppets at RLP

[CleverClogs]

Re: Rlp help please

I do note that, once again, RLP are making references to ACPO. I have contacted ACPO about this in the past and I do know that they are not at all happy about RLP using ACPO's name in any way. I shall be bringing this to the attention of the appropriate lead within ACPO and advise of the response I receive.

Wouldn't it be amusing if the company officers of RLP were to be nicked by the woodentops for speeding, every day for a month?

[bluebottle]

Re: Rlp help please

Good idea, BB.

Charity,

The Economic League and, latterly, The Consulting Association operated illegal databases through which individuals were prevented from securing employment, often as a result of inaccurate information, or supposition or conjecture. RLP's "Dishonesty Database", like those of the Economic League and Consulting Association, is totally illegal, if you want my honest opinion. The only lawful and legal database that comes anywhere near it is the Criminal Records Office (CRO) which is operated by the Home Office and is subject to continuous updating. After all, it serves the whole of England and Wales. Sooner or later, someone is going to challenge the accuracy and legality of RLP/Cireco's database and I believe it will be then that we will then see just how lawful RLP/Cireco's activities in this respect actually are.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rlp help please

Wouldn't it be amusing if the company officers of RLP were to be nicked by the woodentops for speeding, every day for a month?

When you are talking ACPO, Cloggy, you are talking police officers of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable (Commander in the Metropolitan & City of London Police Forces) and above. They are more likely to liaise with their counterparts in other law enforcement agencies and deal with RLP/Cireco in other ways than nicking the company officers of RLP/Cireco for speeding every day for a month.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Rlp help please

When you are talking ACPO, Cloggy, you are talking police officers of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable (Commander in the Metropolitan & City of London Police Forces) and above. They are more likely to liaise with their counterparts in other law enforcement agencies and deal with RLP/Cireco in other ways than nicking the company officers of RLP/Cireco for speeding every day for a month.

I know.

It's a pity, though.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rlp help please

Please note that final sentence.


It isn't. Cireco Limited isn't a subsidiary of Retail Loss Prevention Limited - RLP is a subsidiary of Cireco Limited - link.

This means that the ICO registration for RLP does not cover the "parent" company and hence Cireco Limited does not seem to have notified the ICO.


I really cannot agree.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that both RLP and the scammers prey on the vulnerable and on the ignorant, at least the scammers do not advise their clients to use (or misuse or abuse) the County Courts to reinforce their demands.

RLP are, however, essentially bullies at heart and there's one thing that's certain to deter a bully - the risk of being hurt again and again.


From the Cireco website?

Hmm.

Remember that statement that "employment screening" may only be carried out with the prior consent of their victims?

Where do you suppose it has gone?


If their claims are defended effectively and subjected to strict proof, they will quickly be shewn to be fatuous and ill-founded.

RLP may claim that the staff in the Oxford case - see attachment - were "confused" but, if you read the Approved Judgement, you will see that their only "confusion" derived from the staff members being unable to dissemble consistently or convincingly.

If you ask me, Cloggy, the two security "officers", A Retailer and RLP should consider themselves very fortunate indeed HHJ Charles Harris only struck the claim out and refused A Retailer leave to appeal. If HHJ Harris had chosen to take a hard line, which he would have been perfectly entitled and within his power to do so, he could have referred the matter to the DPP. If you want my honest opinion, the two security "officers", A Retailer and RLP had a very lucky escape where the Oxford Case is concerned. A very lucky escape indeed.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rlp help please

I know.

It's a pity, though.

Oh, I don't know, Cloggy. An unexpected visit from a VAT inspector called Barsteward wouldn't go amiss. Who knows who might pay them a visit after that? HMRC's "Ghost Squad", maybe?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Rlp help please

Oh, I don't know, Cloggy. An unexpected visit from a VAT inspector called Barsteward wouldn't go amiss.

So you reckon that VAT should be paid on their speculative invoices, eh?

I've never heard of RLP ever issuing a VAT invoice...

How long have they been running their racket?