Tweet
So, earlier today I googled 'cputr criminal case rlp' to see if anyone had brought a case against them under "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" or "Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014" on the basis that "both the civil recovery agent and their retailer client will now be liable to criminal sanctions and private redress under the 2008 and 2014 Regulations respectively." http://thejusticegap.com/2014/08/end...ivil-recovery/ (it doesn't seem that there have, which is surprising because the regulations & organisations like CAB exist to stop the type of business practices fundamental to RLP's entire operation).
However I did make a rather interesting discovery though on the site of an Icelandic business advocacy group (attached & here: http://svth.is/wp-content/uploads/20...ation_-_jl.pdf).
The document seems to be a legit handout from a Retail Loss Prevention conference presentation from Feb 2009 (based on the branding & the same language, tone & similar amateurish presentation to their current website).
Of particular note is page 4: "Case Output" and "Litigation" workflows describing their approach & timeliness for issuing letters, consistent with what's generally been documented here (apart from the early settlement discount on the first letter, I've not seen that anywhere recently - they must've realised they still get paid without offering a "discount" first!).
The final steps in their business-process workflow are "Live not Active – liability outstanding" and "put case on hold" i.e. "we have probably scared the individually into paying by now - if not & all letters are completely ignored and no voluntary payment is made, give up & move onto the next target".
Also worth noting that while they reference court proceedings, this is included as a comment box and NOT as regular expected step routinely following issuing any of their letters/invoices/recovery referrals... which might be because they had then, as they have now, NEVER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED A FULLY CONTESTED CASE IN COURT (just in case anyone reading this still isn't aware).
Another important thing to note supporting the approach recommended by esteemed Beagles of IGNORING ALL RLP's CORRESPONDENCE is that you will not make them stop writing to you by engaging with them, no matter how tempting it may be to put them in their place. They have a standard response process for dealing with a correspondence, including where the legal basis for their case is disputed (they automatically reject such claims, regardless of the specific content of your correspondence) or where mitigating factors are presented (they automatically offer a reduced settlement, regardless of the details of your specific situation).
I understand the workflows, combined with all the cases on this fine site, to be proof that:
However I did make a rather interesting discovery though on the site of an Icelandic business advocacy group (attached & here: http://svth.is/wp-content/uploads/20...ation_-_jl.pdf).
The document seems to be a legit handout from a Retail Loss Prevention conference presentation from Feb 2009 (based on the branding & the same language, tone & similar amateurish presentation to their current website).
Of particular note is page 4: "Case Output" and "Litigation" workflows describing their approach & timeliness for issuing letters, consistent with what's generally been documented here (apart from the early settlement discount on the first letter, I've not seen that anywhere recently - they must've realised they still get paid without offering a "discount" first!).
The final steps in their business-process workflow are "Live not Active – liability outstanding" and "put case on hold" i.e. "we have probably scared the individually into paying by now - if not & all letters are completely ignored and no voluntary payment is made, give up & move onto the next target".
Also worth noting that while they reference court proceedings, this is included as a comment box and NOT as regular expected step routinely following issuing any of their letters/invoices/recovery referrals... which might be because they had then, as they have now, NEVER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED A FULLY CONTESTED CASE IN COURT (just in case anyone reading this still isn't aware).
Another important thing to note supporting the approach recommended by esteemed Beagles of IGNORING ALL RLP's CORRESPONDENCE is that you will not make them stop writing to you by engaging with them, no matter how tempting it may be to put them in their place. They have a standard response process for dealing with a correspondence, including where the legal basis for their case is disputed (they automatically reject such claims, regardless of the specific content of your correspondence) or where mitigating factors are presented (they automatically offer a reduced settlement, regardless of the details of your specific situation).
I understand the workflows, combined with all the cases on this fine site, to be proof that:
- anyone you correspond with at RLP appears to be contractually obliged to ignore whatever you write to them & simply issue one of a selection of template letters lightly tailored to your specific "case"
- RLP's (internally stated) business model is to send 10-15 demands for payment over a period of months and then cut their losses & drop the case
Comment