3rd letter from RLP

[bizzybob]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

I'm waiting to see if they bill that confused old lady whose bag was searched in Tesco, and the receipt was found at the bottom, for the security guards time. RLP are that dodgy that they would do just that they don't care about guilt or innocence just money.

[Amethyst]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Still mentioning ACPO then. Did Bluebottle get any further with ACPO stopping RLP bandying their name about ?

[Guest]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

As said personally I would bin this, or frame it and throw darts at it.#

Unless the sent a property formatted LBA, stating a demand for a sum and saying that they will commence court action if not paid within xxx

or unless it was a N1 with the court stamp on it I would not bother myself any further.

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

I'm waiting to see if they bill that confused old lady whose bag was searched in Tesco, and the receipt was found at the bottom, for the security guards time. RLP are that dodgy that they would do just that they don't care about guilt or innocence just money.

Not unless Tesco and RLP want to end up being taken to court themselves. You're talking unlawful detention under the circumstances you describe, Cloggy.

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Still mentioning ACPO then. Did Bluebottle get any further with ACPO stopping RLP bandying their name about ?

When I contacted ACPO on a previous occasion and drew their attention to references to them on RLP's website, the response I received was that they would be contacting RLP to request the removal of all and any references to ACPO.

It is possible the reason I have yet to hear from ACPO on this most recent occasion is that they may be looking into how to ensure RLP is prevented from using ACPO's name to further its commercial interests. If I don't hear from ACPO within the next four weeks, I will contact them again and provide them with a link to this thread.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

It is possible the reason I have yet to hear from ACPO on this most recent occasion is that they may be looking into how to ensure RLP is prevented from using ACPO's name to further its commercial interests. If I don't hear from ACPO within the next four weeks, I will contact them again and provide them with a link to this thread.

Perhaps you could suggest that one way to concentrate the (alleged) "minds" behind RLP would be to nick them for any possible offences committed contrary to section 1 (a)(iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ? (link)

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Perhaps you could suggest that one way to concentrate the (alleged) "minds" behind RLP would be to nick them for any possible offences committed contrary to section 1 (a)(iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ? (link)

The provision you mention, Cloggy, isn't worth the effort, due to the maximum penalty being less than five years' imprisonment. If you're going to nick them, at least make it worth the effort by nicking them for something that falls under the meaning of an Indictable Offence. I can think of a number of offences that could be cited that fall within the meaning of an Indictable Offence.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

No - that is the maximum penalty per offence.

Now consider how many letters they send every week...

If the offences were proved for each letter, they should be in chokey for a few hundred years. :grin:

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

No - that is the maximum penalty per offence.

Now consider how many letters they send every week...

If the offences were proved for each letter, they should be in chokey for a few hundred years. :grin:

Where there are multiple offences, a number of specimen charges will be laid with the remainder TIC (Taken Into Consideration). A court would have to take into consideration the nature of offences committed, the gravity of each offence and the effect each offence had on the victims. I would not like to speculate as to how harshly a Circuit Judge would treat a CR company and its management over its treatment of consumers. Also, don't forget that the retailers are involved, too, and would be liable to be held to account as they would have put the CR operator up to the shenanigans in the first place.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

What I had in mind was one prosecution every three months. :rofl:

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

I think a trophy prosecution of one of the CR operators and their clients, resulting in a conviction of company and management, would, in all probability, send a chill through the CR industry.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

I think a trophy prosecution of one of the CR operators and their clients, resulting in a conviction of company and management, would, in all probability, send a chill through the CR industry.

Putting the boot into Boots, as it were?

[bizzybob]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

What I had in mind was one prosecution every three months. :rofl:

For each individual transgression or a bulk claim lik ea TVL Crapita situation where RLP get convicted for their muppetry nodded through abd the directors go directly to jail without collecting £130, and passing go

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

The Oxford Case showed the premise upon which retail CR is based is not to compensate for legitimate losses, but to unjustifiably enrich, resorting to somewhat questionable tactics in order to do so.

HHJ Harris was, IMHO, somewhat merciful to the claimant and their "agent" in that case by striking out the claim and refusing leave to appeal. Given what the two security staff involved did whilst under oath, the outcome could have been somewhat different.

Cloggy,

You are spot-on with your analysis of sticking the boot in Boots. However, you would need to stick the boot in all the retailers who use CR, not just Boots.

BB,

Probably, the most effective way of dealing with the likes of RLP and their clients is to turn their tactics on them, but using fact to defeat them, not the fiction they spout.

[bizzybob]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

The Oxford Case showed the premise upon which retail CR is based is not to compensate for legitimate losses, but to unjustifiably enrich, resorting to somewhat questionable tactics in order to do so.

HHJ Harris was, IMHO, somewhat merciful to the claimant and their "agent" in that case by striking out the claim and refusing leave to appeal. Given what the two security staff involved did whilst under oath, the outcome could have been somewhat different.

Cloggy,

You are spot-on with your analysis of sticking the boot in Boots. However, you would need to stick the boot in all the retailers who use CR, not just Boots.

BB,

Probably, the most effective way of dealing with the likes of RLP and their clients is to turn their tactics on them, but using fact to defeat them, not the fiction they spout.

I'm up for kicking them and my pet scenario of the bully security goon stopping the confused elderly person when the cashier forgot to remove a tag, the door alarm bleeped, and they took the pperson to a room and searched the bag, found the receipt, let them go, then RLP invoice for the time.

I now purposely don't bag anything at Tescda, or Asco, i wheel the trolley out with the shopping as it was as I went around the store, I have the receipt clutched folded in my greasy paw. God help them if they accost me, I will let them spout shout and enquire before I show the receipt, having provided my details. If I keep schtum and they get police, I would show the receipt to the copper and ask WTF these muppets are playing at. What are the odds on getting a RLP invoice for the time wasted?


Kane again post up EXACTLY how you were treated and what level of force was used to get you to the room. You could also point your parents to this thread, as Beagles will help them to understand what chancers and how unethical RLP actually are.

BB if someone is under 18 no matter if they llok older, is it not still a LEGAL requirement that a Responsible Adult MUST be present before a goon or police can question? If so Primark are definitely in the soup and RLP possibly by proxy.