Cheers Joncris for the reply At the time of the offence my daughter was a minor.... but she turned 18 in June Crazy things is with the initial letter to RLP we sent my daughters written permission for us to deal on her behalf..... How should i reply .....to this letter...any pointers would be good.... Interesting article in lawyers gazette link below http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-warns-lawyers-acting-civil-recovery-claims-against-shoplifters also found another one in another legal mag which was a little pro RLP but still concluded that they dont have a leg to stand on http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/2701

a quick addendum to the above post ..... The letter that i initially sent off to RLP is on my external HDD but that has just failled so i will post it onto here as soon as i can get the data recovered....but basically stated that My daughter was a minor the offence had not resulted in a prosecution/caution or involvement with the police so was therefore legally an alleged offence. the goods had been recovered and that further correspondence would be construed as harrassement and would result in details being forwarded to OFT, office of fair trading etc...

Hi guys Just received a lengthy reply letter from RLP, after i had sent them an initial letter denying any liability on behalf of my daughter. i will include the letter body in this post ...its very long ..the upshot of which is that they are apparently not regulated by any official body, do not have to comply with any OFT guidelines, consumer acts or FSA guidelines... any ideas on how i should now proceed or answer this letter would be great.....one last thing...at the end of the letter they assure me that in no way would my credit files be affected by them holding information but in the initial letter that was one of the threats made...weird.... this is the letter received from RLP We refer to a letter we have received from your mother on your behalf. Please note that as you have not provided your written authority for us to correspond with your mother, we are not permitted to respond to her, as to do so would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA"). We are happy to correspond with your mother, if you provide your written consent. You may wish to show this letter to her. — In response to the comments made in your mother’s letter, we advise that we are not a “debt recovery agency". We act on behalf of Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited in actions for civil recovery matters. We pursue claims for damages which arise out of wrongful acts having been committed on our clients` premises. As we have no dealings with consumers, the various pieces of consumer protection legislation, to which your mother refers are irrelevant to our business activities and practices and she is therefore misguided. As consumer law is irrelevant to us, we are not subject to the Consumer Credit Act or the Consumer Credit Act Licensing Regime, or the Office of Fair Trading. _ Regarding your mother’s comment that our correspondence was inaccurate and misleading, please be advised that we took instructions from our client on 1** ****** 2010. We were instructed that on 2**** 2010 you were apprehended after you left our client’s store in Trowbridge, after having selected and concealed 2 packets of hair dye, to the value of £8.44, and left the store without making payment, and after having passed all payment points. In these circumstances, your actions gave rise to a civil claim for compensation for the losses which arose as a result of your wrongdoing. The store opted not to report you to the Police because you had ID, the value of the items was relatively low and you were calm and compliant upon apprehension. The fact that the Police were not called is not relevant to the civil claim. These proceedings are entirely separate from any criminal prosecution. Criminal proceedings are taken to convict, punish and rehabilitate. Civil proceedings are issued in order to compensate for losses. Several members of our client’s personnel were diverted from the usual business in dealing with your observation, apprehension and post apprehension work. Several hours in total was expended between them, We hope that you will appreciate that whilst security personnel are engaged dealing with such issues, they are not able to carry out their primary duty, acting as a deterrent to crime on the shop floor. Similarly, which the management and administrate staff are engaged in these matters, they are not able to continue with their employment duties which are profit making for our client’s business. such losses are recoverable as compensation known as damages, in a claim in what is called a “tort”. It is noted that you allege the goods were recovered and fit for resale. You will note however that our client is not seeking to recover the value of the goods. Our client’s claim is for a contribution towards its losses. whilst our client’s staff were diverted for several hours, due to the value of the goods you attempted to steal, considering your age, and considering the fact that this is the first incident of this type you were involved, our client took a view on proportionality and has opted to seek a low level contribution towards its losses. This is permitted in law. Our client is not permitted to seek to recover in excess of its losses, and the law provides for a Claimant to be compensated, to put it in the position it would have been in, had the wrongdoing not been committed. Your mother’s threats to report this matter to the FSA and the OFT are irrelevant as we are not regulated by these bodies. With regard to data protection issues, please note the Information Commissioner has advised that if an individual has an issue with data protection, they must first contact us directly. With regard to court action, you have no cause of action against us nor our client. Perhaps your mother could explain what is meant by this threat. With regards to your mother’s comments about the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, none of these are relevant. “Harassment” is defined in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It is where a person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against, if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions. The person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion. References to harassing a person can include causing alarm or distress. Neither this company nor our client has any intention of causing you alarm or distress. In any event, there cannot be harassment where conduct is pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, under any enactment of law or to comply with the law, or where it is reasonable for the protection of another’s property. Our client is entitled to take all reasonable steps in order to protect its legitimate business interests and to deter crime such as theft and fraud at it stores. By writing to a Defendant notifying them of a claim, and seeking to pursue it in the absence of a Defence cannot amount to harassment. With regard to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is an offence to send a letter where it conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; a threat; or information which is false and known to be false. None of this applies. No offence is committed where the correspondence is an attempt to demand something which it has reasonable grounds of making. ln these circumstances, given the instructions we received from our client, our correspondence was entirely appropriate. Together with the correspondence you received, you also received guidance as to what to do if you disputed the allegation of wrongdoing. You did not notify us any information which may amount to a Defence. Your mother`s letter does not disclose any information which may amount to a Defence either. The matter will therefore proceed, unless you advise us of a Defence, in which case, we will consider it, and respond to you. The Civil Procedure Rules l998 and the Pre—Action Protocol provide that you must advise us if you feel you have a Defence. We now refer to the position regarding the DPA, and your request to cease processing data. We advise that we process data in strict accordance with the DPA. The DPA provides for data to be passed in certain circumstances, which include for the prevention and detection of crime, pursuant to Section 29 DPA, and for the purpose of court proceedings, pursuant to Section 35 DPA. Please note however, what whilst this matter is in dispute, your data cannot be processed and passed to a third party. Please be assured that your information is held here in strict accordance with the DPA and has not been passed to any third party, and will not be passed to any third party, whilst the matter is disputed. Our system is secure and in any event, shows that the matter is in dispute. There is no question of your credit files being adversely affected by us holding this information. We hope that We have clarified matters sufficiently for you. Please advise if you require any further clarification. In the meantime, we await hearing from you further, as to why you feel you have a Defence to this matter. We can then take further instructions regarding the incident. Yours sincerely Legal Department Retail Loss Prevention Limited

Cheers for the reply... I am awaiting a final confirmation from the UNI that it has all been paid... I am just a little concermed that ACT credit passed on the debt to another agency even though they were made aware of payments being made directly to the UNI. Does that mean i am now going to be saddled with even more charges on the debt? Seems a little unfair as the matter was already being dealt with...

Hi guys I'm new here so need some advice please. A judgement was made against me in January 2009, prior to the judgement i recieved the court packkage outlining the claim made against me for £1279.96. I duly filled in the forms and informed them i disputed the amount owed, with an explanation of why: amount owed to University £1279.96 amounts owed to myself from the university Travel claim £590 Accomodation Deposit £400 Therefore amount owed to University £289.96 I heard nothing back from the court until october 2009 when i recieved an attendance order (?) to attend my local court to discuss the matter where the full amount was still outstanding. I informed the court official that i disputed the claim, but was coerced into making an agreement to pay £40 pounds per month. Straight after i got home i contacted ACT credit who where managing the debt and asked them who i should make payment to, the informed me that i could make payment to them or to the university. I informed them that i would send payments to the university. Directly after this call i contacted the university, and after several dead ends was put in touch with the Director of finance. After discussing the situation with him, he immediatley took off the £400 accomodation deposit owed to myself, agreed to look into the travel claim and informed me that he would contact ACT credit and get them to hold back. Again i contacted ACT credit and gave them a run down of the phone call. Since then i have been in constant contact with the university over this matter as well as passing on the various emails and messages between myself and the university. The university eventually last month paid me the outstanding travel claim, which i subsequently paid back to them to reduce the debt. Again i informed the ACT credit agency of this, but each time i have contacted act they claim to have never spoken to me or even received any notifications from the university. I have also sent the remaining payment to the university and am awaiting a letter of confirmation that the debt is now settled with them. The only problem is, even though i have kept ACT credit in the loop, i have received letters from another agency THE MARSTON GROUP, chasing me for the full amount. I have rung them and informed them of the situation with the university, and even played them an answerphone message from the director of finance thanking me for payment and stating the outstanding balance ( which has now been paid). Today my partner received a visit from a bailiff even though i spoke to MARSTON GROUP on friday, where i informed them of the situation again. What should i do , where do i stand help me please someone ...i feel like i am going mad.