Son sacked and now has RLP

[MARTIN3030]

You have no obligation to contact them by phone,and have made it clear to them that you do not wish to do so.

Since the issues do not relate specifically to matters under CCA,there are some elements on OFT guidance on debt collection which do not apply here.

However,there are matters under CPUTR and CSA membership codes of practice,which are certainly applicable.

Did you ask them for a copy of their complaints procedure ?

I think a reply in writing is needed that sets out the position.

[MARTIN3030]

Dear xxxx

 

Your letter of xxxx is acknowledged.

 

For absolute clarity,we I/We dispute that any amounts are legitimately due,and put you to strict proof to show otherwise.

We/I suggest that you pass this matter back to RLP.

May We/I also refer you to the case of A Retailer v Miss B and Miss K Oxford CC.

 

Please forward a copy of your complaints procedure,along with an undertaking that you will cease these demands.

 

If they continue,I /We will be making a formal complaint to the regulators and the CSA and may also take action in the Courts seeking an order for compliance.

 

Yours

 

 

Keep a copy and send recorded.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for your prompt replies.

 

honeybee13 -That was it, except for the amount owed and their reference numbers.

 

MARTIN3030 - Thanks for your advice. No I didn't think to asked for a copy of the complaints procedure. I will definitely send the letter you suggest though.

[MARTIN3030]

Good keep us posted.

[WhiteTigger]

Good keep us posted.

 

Will do

[WhiteTigger]

Hi Guys

 

It looks like JBDR have returned this back to RLP...

 

We never recieved a copy of their complaints proceedure or/& an undertaking that they

will cease the demands but now we have a letter from RLP stating that it is a final attempt to settle this case pursuant to Part 36 Civil procedure Rules.

 

They have said their client is willing to accept £..... (around a third of what they orginally demanded) in full and final settlement of the claim, including interst any set off, or counterclaim. The offer is open for 21 days from the service of the letter.

 

Because this is a case of employee theft, do you think he should pay it? And if he did would this be an end to it all, as this has been going on for over a year now!

 

Thanking you in advance for all your replies.

[andydd]

Hi.

 

Whilst both sides can send Part 36 offers to settle, as this would be allocated to a small claims track, the incentives/extra costs attached to a Part 36 offer would have no effect so it can be treated just as an offer to settle, you couldm if you wanted send one back (with perhaps a figure you thought was appropiate).

 

Yes, paying a F&F would be the end of it, whether you want to, is upto you.

 

The issue of alleged shoplifting has been bewfore the Courts in the Oxford case and RLP/Store lost.

 

However the general consensus is that in cases of employee theft, that RLP/Store may have a slightly stronger case, whether they would pursue it is doubtful but worth keeping mind.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

i think they'd comeback for more if you pay their 'discount' offer.

 

if they or the store were going to take him to court

they would have done it straight away, not leave it a year and send a begging letter first.

 

they never had any intention of doing so.

 

now if the store, not RLP wrote to you, then a diff matter p'haps.

 

but i suspect the store knows nothing about it, nor the 'speculative invoice' at all.

 

dx

 

dx

[andydd]

i think they'd comeback for more if you pay their 'discount' offer.

 

 

 

dx

 

Surely if its marked full & final that would not be possible ?

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

with whom?

 

them, wouldn't trust them to blow their nose properly.

 

i think we've see it happen before

with RLP demands.

 

you pay what they ask, and then they come back for more.

 

this is the trouble, what 'rules' are RLP working too, if any?

to say F&F?

 

just a cleaver spoof me thinks to get 'some' money or comms going.

 

dx

[andydd]

Well..it would depend on the wording, but Id make sure the F&F made clear it was between Me and both RLP & Store, if signed by all parties this would be a legally binding document and I seriously doubt whether either RLP/Store would be stupid enough to try and get more money, a court would not be happy about this.

 

Andy

[2Grumpy]

I would have thought that only you & the store should be involved. RLP are just chancers trying to make a quick buck. They always have to refer anything back to the store

[dx100uk]

pers i'd never pay them anything

 

bit like these PPC 'specuative invoices'

 

dx

[andydd]

On balance I wouldnt pay them, but I'd make it clear I would vigorously defend myself, Im sure after the Oxford fiasco RLP wouldnt want another case going against them.

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

On balance I wouldnt pay them, but I'd make it clear I would vigorously defend myself, Im sure after the Oxford fiasco RLP wouldnt want another case going against them.

 

Andy

 

 

I think RLP are very keen to have another court case, but are probably having trouble finding another retailer prepared to be humiliated (probably at great expense) in court in the same way A Retailer was.

[2Grumpy]

Yes - it is the retailer that has to take the court action, but I suspect that RLP has to agree to finance it as part of their agreement ...

[Sidewinder]

As a slight aside, since the letter states that their 'client' is willing to accept a reduced sum as a F&F settlement, and where this is acceptable to the person involved, I would love to see that amount sent directly to their 'client' with a copy of the letter, and a cover to state that that the ex-employer's offer is acceptable. Cut RLP out of the loop altogether.

 

Having said that, I tend to agree with the opinions stated above. Employee theft in theory stands a greater chance of success in court, as much greater levels of loss through investigation and staff diversion can be demonstrated over an extended period in dealing with an incident, but for the same reasons one does have to ask why they would not seek to litigate much sooner, and why indeed offer a reduced settlement, where there would be grounds to sue for a much higher amount?

[2Grumpy]

Because of the employment law aspects - they did not pay for his last week & there was accrued holiday pay.

 

In addition the amount of goods taken was inflated from £200 to £1200 when their actual loss was less than the £200.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for all your replies. You are all so very helpful.

 

If it was the store offering a full and final settlement then I think we would consider paying this, to put an end to this matter. But reading all the threads and all your comments about RLP I am not sure that they wouldn't come back for more, so we have decided not pay this amount to them.

 

Do you think we should just ignore the letter, or should we reply declining their offer?

[andydd]

 

Do you think we should just ignore the letter, or should we reply declining their offer?

 

Either is good but perhaps a strong reply will let them know you wont be a pushover and will defend any action, they wont then start action hoping to win by default.

 

Its worth remembering that on small claims track, it would cost them far more than they could ever recover, even if they won.

 

Andy

[2Grumpy]

RLP CANNOT take any court action - that would be up to the retailer.

 

Although RLP are acting for the retailer in getting trying to get some money out of you and keeping a large proportion for their trouble, they can't take any action other than write letters in fake legalese, try debt collectors (although that's a bit iffy) and generally throw their toys out of the pram.

 

In your case, I would ignore RLP but be firm with debt collectors (ie there is no debt so **** off or we will take action against you if you continue) and generally let them get bored

 

In any case, keep copies of letters, use a second class stamp, get a (free) certificate of posting for any that you send (don't send recorded because that shows a hint of giving a damn)

[mrabody]

Lets look at the facts of the case.

 

1. Tesco has a valid claim against your son for the loss of goods valued at around £200. However, you mentioned at the beginning of the thread that Tesco tried to implicate your son for losses that occurred on days he did not work. If these losses have been included, they may erronously contribute

 

2. Tesco may have a claim for the trouble caused to the staff having to deal with the matters but they will have to show losses atributable to the disruption caused in dealing with the matter, which they have not to date. In any event they have not provided any breakdown of the costs for you to assess the validity of their claim.

 

3. At least some of the correspondence you have received from RLP gives an incorrect date on which the losses were incurred (5th of Feb), a date which is after the date your son was sacked.

 

 

While Tesco may have a case against your son, they will have to substantiate their case with evidence of the nature of the losses and scale of the losses that they have incurred. If they can't then you have a strong case.

 

If I were you I would have your son write to RLP. In the letter your son should state that he is writing under the Pre-Action direction, that at present he denies the claim RLP has made against him as they have failed to provide particulars of the losses suffered. The letter should then ask for disclosure of the following information.

 

1. Any documents that pertain to the creation/existence of a debt owed by your son to Tesco, including particulars of how the debt arose, and the date the debt was incurred.

 

2. A detailed breakdown of how the debt has been calculated

 

The letter should note that this is your second request for pre-action disclosure and that it has been necessitated by RLP's failure to provide disclosure when previously requested. You should also state that should the matter come to court you reserve the right to show this letter to the judge.

 

You may or may not wish to copy the letter to Tesco. This could prove a double-edge sword. On the one had, it will alert RLP and Tesco to the fact that you know what their game is and perhaps push them to drop the matter. On the other other hand, it may prompt Tesco to take the file back and actually institute proceedings. That said, even if they did, I would have thought it would be easier to achieve a negotiated settlement with Tesco than RLP.

[WhiteTigger]

Thanks for all your help.

 

We have decided to ignore RLP as we have already written to them twice (in June and July 2011) asking for a breakdown and they have ignored our request.

 

Will keep you updated with what happens next.

[andydd]

Thanks for all your help.

 

We have decided to ignore RLP as we have already written to them twice (in June and July 2011) asking for a breakdown and they have ignored our request.

 

Will keep you updated with what happens next.

 

You could send a final letter adding that it is in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocols (which RLP vaguely claim to follow, although their letters are a bit all over the place), and list what you expect them to provide (a breakdown of costs being an obvious one), this prob wouldnt achieve much but could always be used if court IF it went that far and the issue of costs arose.

 

Andy