Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

[robkeleuk]

Hi Everyone,

After reading quite a few informative posts I could not stop myself joining this forums to dig for further valuable information and also get anyone assistance in case it would be needed.

At the moment I was bit pushy (as timescale on the letter was pressing) and Pm'ed Righty asking for his personal opinion of what step should my friend take in dealing with RLP.

My friend was involved in an unfortunate one-off genuine mistake at TKMaxx store and was banned from it for life. Police was called as he left his vallet at car and was taken away to the police station but was released few hours later with no cahrges against him. The friend is of a good character, has no criminal history and it was a one-off embarrassing moment in his life.

Few weeks later RLP struck with a first letter of Without Prejudice Save as to Costs and mysteriously demanding the same amount of £137.50 as in other cases. As my friend has a limited knowledge of English language he did not reply waiting for me to come back from holidays and asking for assistance in the matter. As it took some time for me to come back a second letter was issued asking to respond within 14 days which will be 20th May.

I've looked through these forums and found a very helpful post at
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=19243 . I'm thinking of advising my friend to use option three and reply with similar letter to RLP and wait for their next step.

However would this be the wisest choice or anything else could be done from our side?

Apologies for jumping straight into hot waters and asking for help when this was meant to be a simple Hi topic

Kindest Regards

Rob

[TUTTSI]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Did Righty respond to you?

Do you meant Wallet left in car?

Hi Everyone,

After reading quite a few informative posts I could not stop myself joining this forums to dig for further valuable information and also get anyone assistance in case it would be needed.

At the moment I was bit pushy (as timescale on the letter was pressing) and Pm'ed Righty asking for his personal opinion of what step should my friend take in dealing with RLP.

My friend was involved in an unfortunate one-off genuine mistake at TKMaxx store and was banned from it for life. Police was called as he left his vallet at car and was taken away to the police station but was released few hours later with no cahrges against him. The friend is of a good character, has no criminal history and it was a one-off embarrassing moment in his life.

Few weeks later RLP struck with a first letter of Without Prejudice Save as to Costs and mysteriously demanding the same amount of £137.50 as in other cases. As my friend has a limited knowledge of English language he did not reply waiting for me to come back from holidays and asking for assistance in the matter. As it took some time for me to come back a second letter was issued asking to respond within 14 days which will be 20th May.

I've looked through these forums and found a very helpful post at
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=19243 . I'm thinking of advising my friend to use option three and reply with similar letter to RLP and wait for their next step.

However would this be the wisest choice or anything else could be done from our side?

Apologies for jumping straight into hot waters and asking for help when this was meant to be a simple Hi topic

Kindest Regards

Rob

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

At the moment I was bit pushy (as timescale on the letter was pressing) and Pm'ed Righty asking for his personal opinion of what step should my friend take in dealing with RLP.

I believe I would tell them to "get bent" or something of the sort, as they are utterly unable to prove that any loss actually occurred and English law precludes penal or exemplary damages except in very rare cases. That nonsense was started in the American colonies and it should have remained there along with the "right to bear arms", no doubt with which to shoot any security goon who needlessly impedes the honest shopper.

My friend was involved in an unfortunate one-off genuine mistake at TKMaxx store and was banned from it for life.

Having seen their overpriced stuff on their website, how would such a "ban" - which is probably unenforceable - be any detriment or penalty to him?

Police was called as he left his vallet at car

What did his valet have to say about that?

and was taken away to the police station but was released few hours later with no cahrges against him. The friend is of a good character, has no criminal history and it was a one-off embarrassing moment in his life.

In my opinion, he should now seek damages from the plods and/or the store for wrongful arrest and/or false imprisonment.

Few weeks later RLP struck with a first letter of Without Prejudice Save as to Costs and mysteriously demanding the same amount of £137.50 as in other cases. As my friend has a limited knowledge of English language he did not reply waiting for me to come back from holidays and asking for assistance in the matter. As it took some time for me to come back a second letter was issued asking to respond within 14 days which will be 20th May.

I believe that it is sometimes customary to refer the sender of such letters to the celebrated retort in the (unreported) case of Arkell v Pressdram.

I've looked through these forums and found a very helpful post at
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=19243. I'm thinking of advising my friend to use option three and reply with similar letter to RLP and wait for their next step.

It's not a bad idea, as it clearly shews those idiots that he will not cave in meekly and pay the money they demanded; I do not believe there is a single case in all the years they have been running this scheme where they have taken the case to court and won even 1p in damages. They're all mouth and trousers or, in the case of chavs such as them, all mouth and shell-suit bottoms.

[robkeleuk]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Thanks Tuttsi and CleverClogs for your response so far and noticing my silly mistake - made me laugh

Righty hasn't responded yet to the private message - will wait till tomorrow before sending any other response. RLP second letter was issued on 5th May and was given 14 days to respond - if my friend would send email with attached letter tomorrow would it be acceptable or better send a letter via recorded mail?

Thanks again for your quick responses.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Personally, I would send any correspondence to those shonks by Special Delivery, as it is more efficiently tracked by the Royal Mail; Recorded Delivery is only actually "recorded" at the point of delivery - if then - whereas Special Delivery is recorded at every change over. It is also guaranteed to be delivered before noon on the next working day.

[robkeleuk]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Hi All,

It’s me again and would appreciate your opinion guys. We wrote to RLP with the following text taken from step c in the following link: What should you do if you are contacted by a civil recovery firm ? - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum .

Our response was dated 18th May but unfortunately was sent out by special delivery only the following day (19th May) which would have ensured RLP have received the letter on 20th May. Their second letter was dated 5th May and RLP informed that my friend is required, under the Practise Direction relating to Prie Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, to respond to them to advise whether he wishes to settle the claim, whether he wishes to defend the claim, or whether he requires more time to respond. RLP said in the letter that they require a response or payment from my friend within 14 days of the date of that letter, in order to prevent further action being taken.

However this Monday 23rd May we have received a third letter from RLP which said it does refer. to their previous correspondence and notes that my friend has not responded. They say that failure to respond is a breach of the Practise Direction relating to Prie Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Regrettably, RLP must advise their client they are now in a position to issue proceedings against my friend. Yet again they are encouraging my friend to pay up the amount or yet again to respond within 14 days to avoid any further action being taken against him.

Looking at the above I wonder if our response which was dated on 18th May but sent the following day does fall into the time frame of responding within 14 days or no? Should we respond to their third letter with the same wording as our previous letter sent to them or should we write to them informing that response was submitted to them which they have failed to address?

Also I did notice that their first letter was issued on 14th April and they asked for the response within 21 day from the date of that letter. Clearly dating the second letter on 5th May they failed to wait for full 21 day to pass before responding – even though it may be irrelevant to this case. However it seems that third letter was dated already past the requested time limit issued on the second letter.

I do also looked at their wordings in the second letter and noted RLP referring to the claim even though they failed to comply with civil procedure by providing a heading "Letter of Claim".

I do have all their letters and our response scanned and saved as pdf file but do not know how to attach them.

Any ideas / opinions of the following step would be appreciated. According to the last third letter dated 19th May we have 14 days to respond.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

RLP are clearly full of stercus bovi if they suppose that failing to respond to their silly, bullying letters breaches the Civil Procedure Rules, as they are claiming money from the defendant and not vice versa..

It may be interesting to check the Consumer Credit Licence search page - link - as I cannot find any trace of a current licence for that company.

This is the most recent:

Application / Licence Details
Licence Number:0628437
Licence Status:Withdrawn on 09/08/2010
Current Applicant / Licensee:
Business Name Company Registration Number
Retail Loss Prevention Limited 4802733
Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No
Trading Name(s) (Current):
Lewis, Burroughs and Barnes
Current Organisations that run the organisation:
Name Company Registration Number Position
Actons Solicitors .
Current Address(es):
Address Type Address
Correspondence Lenton Business Centre, Unit T5, Lenton Boulevard, NOTTINGHAM, NG7 2BY, United Kingdom
Principal Place Of Business Lenton Business Centre, Unit T5, Lenton Boulevard, NOTTINGHAM, NG7 2BY, United Kingdom
Registered Office C/O Actons Solicitors, 16, Regent Street, NOTTINGHAM, NG1 5BQ, United Kingdom

[robkeleuk]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Thanks CleverClogs, as always quick to reply.

I wonder if any steps I should take now or wait for further response from RLP to the letter it was sent to them.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

I'm sorry I've taken so long to reply - I've spent the weekend looking at woodworking videos, spotting Norm Abram's possible mistakes. To quote from "House": "A complete moron working with power tools - how more suspenseful can you get?".

I'd wait to see what further brag and bounce twaddle those jerks send. If they threaten to "take it to the next stage", that usually means that they'll do nothing more themselves. They may assign the alleged debt a month or two hence to a Glasgow debt collecting firm whose silly letters can also be ignored or, if you prefer, replied to by your local CAB.

Do not talk to them on the 'phone and don't pay them anything.

[charitynjw]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

For further info, their letter stating 'without prejudice' etc is known as a Part 36 offer.
But as Part 36 offers have to remain open for at least 21 days, and then must be expressly withdrawn by the offerer, it is not a valid Part 36, & court cost consequences will not apply

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

For further info, their letter stating 'without prejudice' etc is known as a Part 36 offer.
But as Part 36 offers have to remain open for at least 21 days, and then must be expressly withdrawn by the offerer, it is not a valid Part 36, & court cost consequences will not apply

As any attempted case would be assigned to the Small Claims track, there'd be no consequences for costs anyway.

RLP do not appear to be at all accurate in their interpretation of the law.

[robkeleuk]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Thanks for your replies guys.

We have received another letter dated 24th May just few days ago. It does not state that it is the answer to our previously sent letter to them nor it does state that it is a letter of claim. They did however disclose partial evidence they currently have on my friend and they said to be asking for further evidence from their client so it could be sent to my friend.

They did also mention that CPR requires them to provide my friend with requisite information in order for him to understand and investigate the issue. Then the letter goes on with following information what is required and that they did to comply with it.

Looking at the above I would think it is an answer to the letter sent to them but it looks a rough draft letter used to reply to everyone.

RLP did also state in the letter that the claim for compensation is not a debt or demand.
They did say that my friend’s attention should be brought to the torts concerning wrongful interference with goods, trespass to land and conversion. My friend’s actions according to the letter raised a liability as follows: trespass to goods; Conversion; Trespass to land.
RLP state that their client is therefore entitled to damages in order to be compensated for it for its losses being the cost of disruption to their client’s business, in investigating the matter.
RLP state that given the value of the items (? it was only one item) my friend removed from the store, their client are seeking contribution to their actual losses, a figure which they consider proportionate, but sufficient to act as a deterrent to any future incident of this nature. In addition to this it was asked to note that their client is lawfully entitled to seek the full extent of its losses and is not legally required to consider proportionality. Damages in tort are compensatory they state.

Further to the above they referred to the leading authority which provides that their client may seek to recover losses for disruption to business. In Aerospace Publishing v Thames water utilities (2007) EWCA Civ 3 it was held that, unless a Defendant can establish to the contrary, it is reasonable for a Court to infer from the disruption that, had the staff time not been diverted, the staff would have applied their time to activities which would, directly or indirectly, have generated revenue for the Claimant in an amount at least equal to the costs of their employment during the diverted time.

RLP finally respond to my previous letter stating that my friend was not threatened by them or their client in any way….

RLP conclude the letter with the following:
‘’Your options now are to:
• Pay the amount outstanding by one of the methods detailed overleaf.
• Set up a Pre-Action Settlement to enable you to pay by instalments, please see overleaf.
• Write a detailed letter of response clearly showing the specific areas of dispute and providing a defence.
• Our client does not regard Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a suitable option given the value of the claim. They are however willing to negotiate a settlement if you contact our Collections Department, please see overleaf.

Funny how RLP find these £137.50 amounts equal to everyone who they have to deal with and claim amount would be much higher in case this would go to court.

I do have pdf copies of all letters but don’t know how to attach them if needed.

Any ideas of the following step should we take? Should my friend write to RLP stating that last letter still was not provided with a heading ‘’letter of claim’’ and I am not enable to fully respond? They did disclose information on which they intend to rely and disclose their case so should I respond to them taking this into consideration?

Also if I respond to them should I ask them to fully describe how this amount of £137.50 was calculated or so called ‘real’ loss was calculated?

I do also would be interested to find out if my friends need to provide them any defence he will be using as requested by RLP or should he respond with detailed letter clearly showing specific areas of dispute?

There was no time scale given to respond in their last letter at all.

Any tips, ideas would be greatly appreciated.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

They did also mention that CPR requires them to provide my friend with requisite information in order for him to understand and investigate the issue. Then the letter goes on with following information what is required and that they did to comply with it.

That is certainly an interesting rationalisation for responding with a lot of flim-flam.

RLP did also state in the letter that the claim for compensation is not a debt or demand.

Capita eos in ano sunt.

They did say that my friend’s attention should be brought to the torts concerning wrongful interference with goods, trespass to land and conversion. My friend’s actions according to the letter raised a liability as follows: trespass to goods; Conversion; Trespass to land.

None of which has been proved or admitted.

RLP state that their client is therefore entitled to damages in order to be compensated for it for its losses being the cost of disruption to their client’s business, in investigating the matter.

Nor would they be able to prove that, either, as neither the security goon nor the store manager is employed in revenue generating activities.

RLP state that given the value of the items (? it was only one item) my friend removed from the store, their client are seeking contribution to their actual losses, a figure which they consider proportionate, but sufficient to act as a deterrent to any future incident of this nature.

Translated: They know they cannot prove the alleged losses but they'll try their luck anyway, apparently oblivious of the fact that the mere mention of "deterrent" in their letter clearly indicates that they are seeking to punish the defendant.

In addition to this it was asked to note that their client is lawfully entitled to seek the full extent of its losses

Correct, but I very much doubt that the combined hourly rate for the store's manager and security goon are anywhere nearly as much as £137.50 or whatever figure they choose to invent. Hence, the full extent of any alleged losses would be rather less than the amount claimed - even if those losses could themselves be proved which, as RLP has not presented any evidence that staff were diverted from revenue generating activities, they seem utterly unable to do.

and is not legally required to consider proportionality.

Wrong.

Damages in tort are compensatory they state.

Correct, which is why penal damages are so rarely awarded.

That statement does not, however, even begin to explain why they are seeking damages "sufficient to act as a deterrent to any future incident of this nature" or why those oafs have just contradicted themselves.

You may be correct in believing that it was merely a rough draft, as even a spotty YTS trainee in a hurry could spot that goof.

Further to the above they referred to the leading authority which provides that their client may seek to recover losses for disruption to business. In Aerospace Publishing v Thames water utilities (2007) EWCA Civ 3 it was held that, unless a Defendant can establish to the contrary, it is reasonable for a Court to infer from the disruption that, had the staff time not been diverted, the staff would have applied their time to activities which would, directly or indirectly, have generated revenue for the Claimant in an amount at least equal to the costs of their employment during the diverted time.

Wrong, as none of the staff whose time was allegedly diverted would have generated revenue for the claimant at any time.

RLP conclude the letter with the following:
‘• Our client does not regard Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a suitable option given the value of the claim. They are however willing to negotiate a settlement if you contact our Collections Department, please see overleaf.

I wonder how well that arrogant retort complies with the Civil Procedure Rules they are so very fond of quoting as part of their standard spiel. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that a demand to pay up or be browbeaten by one of their telephone operators doesn't even begin to comply.

Funny how RLP find these £137.50 amounts equal to everyone who they have to deal with and claim amount would be much higher in case this would go to court.

It's even funnier how they never seem to have taken to court a defended action for these pre-determined sums. I'd suggest that you and your friend toddle round to the local CAB who can send RLP a letter denying the claim and stating that, should RLP take the matter to court, the CAB will arrange for it to be defended.

That should stop them.

You might also wish to ask the CAB if RLP should hold a current Consumer Credit Licence, especially as they don't.

There was no time scale given to respond in their last letter at all.

So take as long as you like - but use the CAB in the next week or so.

[robkeleuk]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

Hi all once again. Just few days ago we have received another letter from RLP saying that due to friend’s actions and failure to respond on the matter to their client they are now in position to take the claim against in a court.

They still however request us to advise of any information, evidence, dispute or mitigating circumstances that we wish to rely on, before proceedings are issued. If we do not do this, then their client cannot take these into consideration and we may incur what is called an 'adverse costs order', in Court, which will increase the amount we have to pay.

They also reserve the right to put their correspondence before the Court to show that they tried to resolve this matter before issuing proceedings, when considering payment of costs.

Looking into this is it better to reply with relevant info or have some sort of counter-attacking letter sent out? Should we for example question them and ask for a detailed breakdown of these costs accounted for and mention this amount mysteriously to be the same as other people were hit for?

Also should we challenge actions of their security guards? My friend left the store and out of store premises was grabbed by two security guards before being challenged or questioned. I really doubt TKMaxx security guards would have rights to use any force (reasonable or not) outside of their store premises.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hi Everyone!!! (RLP strikes my friend...)

The is a perfectly good, four lettered word to denote organic rose mulch of bovine origin - and RLP are, unfortunately, quite full of it. Perhaps someone should send them some laxatives?

It may be as well to tell them that, should they be so utterly foolish as to take the matter to court, not only will their claim be robustly defended but a counter-claim will be made for damages arising from the antics of the staff at T K MAXX, namely assault, battery and false imprisonment. If you can get the local CAB to send them such a letter, telling RLP that their intended victim would be legally represented in court, RLP will probably go away as they have never won in a defended action.