Letter before claim From RLP

[Joe 23]

P.s I meant “Deny any liability and refusal to pay any sum demanded”.

[R0b]

What was the letter you sent them, can you upload what your response was?

[Joe 23]

Hi Rob
i haven’t the letter at hand as not home.

I wrote to whom it may concern at RLP.
Thank you for your letter dated XXXX.
I deny any liability in your demands. I am also refusing to make any payment they are demanding.

yours faithfully

[Joe 23]

Hi Forum
I would really appreciate some feedback and advice regarding the 2nd letter from RLP. I have stolen nothing from the company they are stating and the incident they have outlined in the 2nd letter (I have covered the address in black) was a theft that did not happen. An officer attended to view the two week old CCTV and concluded NFA although a little suspicious he stated. (but refused to let me view this).
No banning order was signed or written or given out. Regarding the other incidents of theft and fraud that they have stated took place in letter 1 from RLP are sketchy and did not take place. They say they have me on CCTV but have not shown this and have not provided a fuller explanation or breakdown of the astronomical amount they are demanding.
I will certainly not be using this company ever again. I fell like they are trying to pin all of their theft & losses on myself.

I do hope I can get some good advice on here as really need it right now

[des8]

I would just ignore them.
Their only real threat is to write to you again.

They cannot file a claim against you, only the retailer (or their legal representative as defined in CPR2.3(1) ) can do that.

Others might suggest you write a fuller rebuttal of their claim, but IMO that is just playing at letter tennis.

[R0b]

I'm firmly in the camp of responding in full especially when there is a letter before claim, and then telling them there's nothing more to say unless and until proceedings are issued, which you intend to defend in full, otherwise they can bugger off and stop harassing you.

The first letter looks awfully similar to another thread I responded to here (see post 11): RLP Civil recovery shoplifting - LegalBeagles Forum

If you did choose to respond you may want to base it around that, pointing out that the courts expect a cards on the table approach and they should have included within their LBC the evidence which they seek to support the allegations. Given the nature of the allegations, you are unable to respond without considering the evidence and have nothing further to say.

If the letter is absolute tosh and the allegations are completely false which you have no knowledge about, I would also be inclined to put them on notice that if they continue pursuing this course of action including further demand letters or other threats, then you reserve the right to counterclaim for harassment.

There's various approaches to this but the final decision rests on you.

[Joe 23]

Thank you Des
it means a-lot hearing your advice as it feels very lonely out here when you get a big organisation sending threatening demands for large sums of money. I did not want to respond to their 1st letter of demand but felt it was right to just plainly state I deny all their demands and therefore won’t be paying any sum. I have kept a copy of this so as I have proof I haven’t completely ignored RLP and responded to them. They have mentioned this pre action protocol in the 2nd letter. Can this harm me if the retailer or legal representative issue proceedings? I haven’t gone into reply detail to them also as I feel I don’t have to. In the letter they have lied that an incident happened but the truth of it is, it was not proved and it was shady as they didn’t show me the evidence or issue me with any banning order when I point blankly refused to sign anything and refused to be placed in their holding/cell room they invited me into. It was a trumped up incident and they must be doing this a lot to other unsuspecting individuals.

[des8]

As R0b has alluded, we have seen a couple of similar cases to yours, but don't recall how they panned out.

R0B's advice should not be discounted (he's more experienced than !) without good reason.

[Joe 23]

Hi Rob
Thank you so much for your advice & info. I have been thinking since I read your post and although I agree with Des I also agree with you in replying to them with what you have outlined. The problem is I am really poor with writing letters and wondered if it’s possible you can do me a template to work off & place into a letter to RLP. If you were unable or too busy to do this I would fully understand. Sending them this letter would stand good on my behalf and gather any further information of their demands. I really do feel at this early stage not to be giving them any defence information until they send proof of all cctv of alleged thefts with dates and times. Any till data including their data mining information that they are stating is connected with myself. And there is the allegations of fraud they are stating with refunding items so would need all shop staff names dates and times of each refunded transaction. Copies of all the receipts that have been damaged (purposely) proof and data of all management that have sanctioned these refunds even though the receipt has been purposely damaged. There are a lot of questions to be answered by them before I can defend myself fully.

I would be grateful if you could read the first letter above in thread and see if you can help a little further

[Joe 23]

Nice one Des & yes I fully agree with you and have just replied to Rob regarding a letter response to RLP. I think this would be the way to counter that last letter nicely and if they don’t respond to my demands in the counter letter then ignore from them on

[R0b]

Can you clear something up for us, the letter before claim says that there were fraudulent refund transactions where you were given gift cards for supposed goods you returned but presented damaged receipts.

However, the situation you have explained to us is about an incident related to the non-scanning of a pizza at the self service checkout, which is something entirely different.

Do you have any knowledge of what RLP are talking about?

[Joe 23]

The pizza incident is separate to the other alleged allegations they say I have been involved in. I have purchased goods from them on other occasions and I have returned goods that I have not used with the receipts they issued me when I purchased the goods and I do believe I have damaged receipts by way of an accident but I am being blamed for an extortionate amount by broad brush (which is RLP words) by means of them stating they have used a data mining tool and added up all the refunds they have had for items they have stated (without showing cctv or any concrete evidence of foul-play. I believe it is not an offence to purchase goods and return them in re-saleable condition with a valid receipt that matches the transaction on their till data even if the receipt is damaged. To say I have damaged the receipt purposely and committed fraud (why didn’t they call security or the police if this was the case). I have done the opposite of what they say and accidentally damaged receipts and asked for a refund on different occasions with the staff accepting the refund genuinely and the refund being sanctioned by the store manager also.

they are trying to use the pizza incident to tar me as a thief and a fraudster in the letters they have sent. The pizza incident was not theft it was NFA as the police officer stated this. I may of came across suspicious in other parts of the letter if it were me in the stores they have stated or it could be that they have added up all their refunds for that period and are accusing me of refunding all those transactions.

just a quick question. It isn’t illegal to obtain a refund on different occasions with different receipts issued by the store and it’s up to their discretion to offer the refund if the receipt is damaged or they can refuse this. (This is the store staffs own words. They have also stated I used the same receipt multiple times to obtain the same refunds Rob. How do they work this out? Because when they issue you a refund they cross the receipt out in ink with a capital R over the receipt and either bin it or offer it back with your new refunded receipt. This is what I recall in my experience as a customer to them. Their story is not adding up and they are causing me alarm & stress with their allegations.

[echat11]

Hypothetically, they are talking about approx 76 visits to stores, assuming refunds took place at 5 stores (could be more then 5 stores) in the area, each location was visited approx 15 times for a refund, it's ridiculous on so many fronts. Foremost, that customer service would refund each time given that the receipt was damaged.

[wales01man]

How were the refunds paid cash or put back on credit/debit card have to wonder how RLP obtained all this info?

[echat11]

How were the refunds paid cash or put back on credit/debit card have to wonder how RLP obtained all this info?

Retail has come a long way with the technology they have at their disposal. Although I'm not sure stores should be 'tagging' Lurpak. That's going too far.

https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2023/...-security-tag/