RLP Letter help?

[JoeBudden]

Where do I start?

 

on 7/7/2012 I was stopped on the way out of Tesco because I was observed shoplifting.

(The items had a value of literally around £4 and I hadn't damaged them or anything

- they were still in perfect condition and could be placed back on the shelf for resale I was told)

 

I was taken into the back room and asked to produce the items, which I did, and asked all my details and ****, which again I did. This was recorded I was told.

 

because the items were of such small value and in normal condition still, they did not phone the police (or even inform them, as far as I'm aware),

I was just given a 6 month ban from Tesco and made to sign a sheet of paper saying if I do enter within those 6 months I could be charged with trespassing.

I was let on my way out of the back door after about 20 or so minutes.

 

Now, fast forward a week and I get a random letter through the door

from RLP Civil Recovery Specialists asking for £87.50 to be paid within 21 days or face the claim possibly being issued to the Scottish Sheriff

(I'm in England so **** knows what that means)

 

and that if the proceedings are issued I will be charged for court costs, legal fees and interest.

 

It then goes on to say "In the absence of a valid defense, a County Court Judgement may be ordered

(again, **** knows what this means).

 

After that though, it says "this is not a criminal penalty" It then says a few things about credit ratings and ****.

 

my question is, what will happen if I don't pay this?

Is it best to completely ignore it or get in touch with them and tell them I'm not paying?

What's the WORST that could happen if I don't pay?

 

I can't really afford it at the moment to be honest even if I did wanna pay (I recently lost my job so I'm currently on JSA unfortunately).

 

I have been in trouble with the police before, a few years ago when I was a stupid teenager I got done for assault and burglary (maybe a couple of other minor things too)

 

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated guys.

 

 

Oh, also, the Tesco manager told me about this RLP scheme thing but told me it wouldn't happen due to the small amount of goods taken

 

and the fact it was like 3am so the store wasn't busy.

[ravinwayne]

I don't believe you can be charged with "trespass"

 

If Tescos ask you to leave and you refuse or they tell you your not welcome and your on the premises that is trespass

 

Basically they then have the right to remove you (physically!)

 

You cant be arrested for it

[JoeBudden]

I don't believe you can be charged with "trespass"

 

If Tescos ask you to leave and you refuse or they tell you your not welcome and your on the premises that is trespass

 

Basically they then have the right to remove you (physically!)

 

You cant be arrested for it

Thanks for your reply but that wasn't really my issue here, I don't mind being banned from Tesco, I want to know about the RLP letter and what would be best for me to do etc..

[dx100uk]

totally ignore RLP

 

see the threads in this forum.

 

esp the cab ones

 

dx

[JoeBudden]

totally ignore RLP

 

see the threads in this forum.

 

esp the cab ones

 

dx

I've read through some mate. What's the WORST that could happen if I ignore them? Would be having a criminal record and me admitting the shoplifting on camera/tape make any difference?

[dx100uk]

nope

 

what for £4!

 

they are a spoof and can ignored.

 

dx

[JoeBudden]

nope

 

what for £4!

 

they are a spoof and can ignored.

 

dx

 

How sure are you though that nothing will come of it? I don't want debt collectors or anything stupid like that knocking at my house, I still live with my mum and she'd kill me. And I also don't want to end up having to pay silly amounts of money for court costs and stuff.

[dx100uk]

i would suspect after oxford no rlp will go near a court

 

dx

[JoeBudden]

i would suspect after oxford no rlp will go near a court

 

dx

 

I don't know what you mean by oxford, I'm assuming it was a case or something? I literally googled the company after the letter came and stumbled upon this forum, never heard of the company before. So should I just ignore EVERY letter they send or what?

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer-Judgment(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[ScarletPimpernel]

You have two options; the first is to ignore everything RLP send you. The second is to send a short letter as follows:

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxxx.

 

Any liability to you or any company you claim to represent is denied. No further correspondence will be entered into.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Don't go into any detail - just the denial of liability, and then ignore everything RLP send you.

[JoeBudden]

You have two options; the first is to ignore everything RLP send you. The second is to send a short letter as follows:

 

 

 

Don't go into any detail - just the denial of liability, and then ignore everything RLP send you.

Appreciate it mate. How confident are you guys that nothing will happen though?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Appreciate it mate. How confident are you guys that nothing will happen though?

 

Points to note:

 

RLP can't take anyone to court - they rely upon persuading retailers to do it, and it's extremely uncommon

 

The cost of bringing a court action in a case like yours is likely to be prohibitive - and if properly defended, they'll lose

 

RLP rely upon trying to intimidate people into paying by sending letters which appear to be designed to make RLP look like a legal firm, which they aren't, or that they have some sort of authority, which they haven't

 

 

RLP will send you a series of increasingly demanding (and ever sillier) letters. You may hear from JB Debt Recovery, too, but they have the same legal status as RLP, i.e. none. Do not be tempted to respond. If, and it's a huge if, you get a court claim, come back here and we will help you.

 

CAG doesn't condone stealing, but we also don't judge (that's for the courts).

[andydd]

It appears that CAG is being increasingly asked to predict the future especially in civil recovery and parking charge cases, we do not know whether court action will follow a demand for payment and cant really offer anything further than 'its unlikely'.

 

So lets deal with scenarios:-

 

1. Ignore, this is clearly very cheap and easy and as court action is unlikely, it is quite a good option.

 

2. Reply with simple denial, this takes a bit of effort and in my opinion does 'flag' up that you might well be 'trouble' and put up a defence if they did indeed start court action.

 

3. Further to 2., try to follow the CPR Pre-action protocol as best you can (RLP appear to kind of follow this but not IMO very accurately), this is a chance to ask what evidence RLp have and also which case law they will be relying upon, there is aslso the possibilty that you could chase further court costs if you could show you followed the protoclols but RLP/Tesco didnt.

 

The outcomes are very likeley that RLP will not start court action, If they did, you could well win (especially considering the outcome in Oxford ), worst possible scenario is you lose and have to pay the £87.50 and some other limited costs (prob not exceeding £150 or so), the current opinion is that it is unlikley that RLP/Tesco would start court action and even less likely that they would win.

 

Andy

[JoeBudden]

It appears that CAG is being increasingly asked to predict the future especially in civil recovery and parking charge cases, we do not know whether court action will follow a demand for payment and cant really offer anything further than 'its unlikely'.

 

So lets deal with scenarios:-

 

1. Ignore, this is clearly very cheap and easy and as court action is unlikely, it is quite a good option.

 

2. Reply with simple denial, this takes a bit of effort and in my opinion does 'flag' up that you might well be 'trouble' and put up a defence if they did indeed start court action.

 

3. Further to 2., try to follow the CPR Pre-action protocol as best you can (RLP appear to kind of follow this but not IMO very accurately), this is a chance to ask what evidence RLp have and also which case law they will be relying upon, there is aslso the possibilty that you could chase further court costs if you could show you followed the protoclols but RLP/Tesco didnt.

 

The outcomes are very likeley that RLP will not start court action, If they did, you could well win (especially considering the outcome in Oxford ), worst possible scenario is you lose and have to pay the £87.50 and some other limited costs (prob not exceeding £150 or so), the current opinion is that it is unlikley that RLP/Tesco would start court action and even less likely that they would win.

 

Andy

 

Thanks mate, appreciate it! If I phoned them and told them I'm not really in a position to be able to pay them as I'm currently unemployed, is there any way they'd quash the fine or lower it? If not, how much would the installments be, do you know?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thanks mate, appreciate it! If I phoned them and told them I'm not really in a position to be able to pay them as I'm currently unemployed, is there any way they'd quash the fine or lower it? If not, how much would the installments be, do you know?

 

We've advised you what the best course of action is already; it doesn't include phoning RLP, ever.

 

It's not a fine. Only a court can issue a fine.

 

Don't phone them; they aren't interested in your circumstances, just your money.

[andydd]

You are asking questions that we could not possibly know the answer too, the advice you have been given here is quite clear. It is recommended that you either ignore the demands or reply with a simple denial.

 

I do not recommend phoning them/admitting guilt and to start discussing 'installments'.

 

It is not a 'fine', it is a civil matter (that anyone can start), they are claiming you should pay them £xx, but the basis in law for this appear rather shaky, hence the outcome in the Oxford case.

 

Andy

[JoeBudden]

Cheers everyone. I've told my mum I'm not paying as I've researched the company and they have no legal authority but she's worried about bailiffs and something about getting our address blacklisted (I assume she's talking out of her arse about the latter though as I thought only individuals could get bad credit ratings, not addresses?)

[JoeBudden]

Also, for those saying it's not going/highly unlikely to go to court, I found a page on their website about recent cases going to court?

 

Hmmmmmm

[dx100uk]

mostly rubbish sadly

 

we;ve taken that apart several times now.

 

and no you are correct

 

it s NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANY CRA file

 

and NO ADDRESSES are not blacklisted

 

its a person.

 

dx

[Sidewinder]

Cheers everyone. I've told my mum I'm not paying as I've researched the company and they have no legal authority but she's worried about bailiffs and something about getting our address blacklisted (I assume she's talking out of her arse about the latter though as I thought only individuals could get bad credit ratings, not addresses?)

 

Correct. An address cannot be blacklisted. IF a court claim were issued and IF they were successful and IF you did not pay the Judgment within 28 days then YOU would receive a CCJ marker on YOUR credit file. This could only affect YOU and anybody financially linked on the credit file (eg a joint bank account holder) not parents with no financial link. Only IF you did not pay the Judgment or arrange to pay by instalments could Bailiffs be instructed.

 

Also, for those saying it's not going/highly unlikely to go to court, I found a page on their website about recent cases going to court?

 

Hmmmmmm

[/Quote]

 

Precisely why they have put that on their website - to further worry anybody in your position that they should pay up! If you delve a little deeper into their court successes, you will note that there is a mix of employee thefts (easier to persue in Court due to being able to demonstrate losses and proof of guilt through surveillance over a period), Judgments by default, where no defence was put forward, and cases where there was Police involvement - and invariably a successful prosecution. There are also details of the Oxford case, where a robust defence was offered to destroy the Claimant's assertion that what was being claimed was a genuine schedule of loss, and the Judge dismissed the case. RLP's website seems a little light on cases where there was no Police involvement, no prosecution, the goods were recovered and actual losses were non-existent.

 

Don't be persuaded solely by the fact that they advertise their 'successes' - they don't list the cases where they have written to an individual and have ceased recovery attempts after no response was received - there are a far greater number of those than there have been court cases!

[JoeBudden]

Correct. An address cannot be blacklisted. IF a court claim were issued and IF they were successful and IF you did not pay the Judgment within 28 days then YOU would receive a CCJ marker on YOUR credit file. This could only affect YOU and anybody financially linked on the credit file (eg a joint bank account holder) not parents with no financial link. Only IF you did not pay the Judgment or arrange to pay by instalments could Bailiffs be instructed.

 

 

 

Precisely why they have put that on their website - to further worry anybody in your position that they should pay up! If you delve a little deeper into their court successes, you will note that there is a mix of employee thefts (easier to persue in Court due to being able to demonstrate losses and proof of guilt through surveillance over a period), Judgments by default, where no defence was put forward, and cases where there was Police involvement - and invariably a successful prosecution. There are also details of the Oxford case, where a robust defence was offered to destroy the Claimant's assertion that what was being claimed was a genuine schedule of loss, and the Judge dismissed the case. RLP's website seems a little light on cases where there was no Police involvement, no prosecution, the goods were recovered and actual losses were non-existent.

 

Don't be persuaded solely by the fact that they advertise their 'successes' - they don't list the cases where they have written to an individual and have ceased recovery attempts after no response was received - there are a far greater number of those than there have been court cases!

 

Thanks for the reply! Yeah, they got their goods back in perfect condition and tthere was no police involvement in my case but they do have it on CCTV, would that affect it possibly going to court, in that they can 100% prove I done wrong?

[dx100uk]

ask yourself the question...........

 

if there is CCTV why have not the courts / police done so...........

 

THEY are the LAW ................ NOT RLP

 

 

dx

[JoeBudden]

ask yourself the question...........

 

if there is CCTV why have not the courts / police done so...........

 

THEY are the LAW ................ NOT RLP

 

 

dx

True. Sorry for all the questions you guys must get sick of answering them. I just can't be arsed with the hassle of them sending more letters and bailiffs coming round and stuff, even though technically I own nothing in this house as my mum has bought me everything.

[dx100uk]

ok lets blow something else out the water

in case you were thinking otherwise

or

just believe what you read on these spoofing websites inc those about DCA's.

 

there s only one sets of scenario's whereby a bailiffs comes a knocking....

 

thats when you DONT pay a CCJ/penalty charge notice/magistrates fine or your CTAX.tv license etc etc

 

the COURT send then..............

 

NO DCA is a bailiff & NEVER WILL BE,

they have NO LEGAL powers whatsoever - end of!!

 

dx