RLP Letter help?

[JoeBudden]

Sorry I'm just a bit worried. I'll send them the one liner and report back when they reply. Thanks for all your help everyone!

[JoeBudden]

Decided to not even send them any sort of letter and just ignore them completely, for the time being. Expecting a letter soon as the 3 week limit they gave me to reply or pay is almost up

[JoeBudden]

Just received this letter:

 

"Dear Mr ******* (Spelled my surname wrong again)

 

Our Client: Tesco

Incident: ****** on 7th July

 

We write further to our letter of 11th July 2012. Our records indicate that you have not contacted us to settle the claim, or to dispute liability. Our clients offer of a contribution of £87.50 to settle this matter is still on offer. In the absence of any response, our client is entitled to pursue the full value of the claim rather than the contribution you have been offered.

 

Our client is determined to make full use of civil law remedies including Court action if necessary, to recover its losses caused by your wrongful actions. You are required, under the Practice Direction relating to Pre Action Conduct under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, to respond to us to advise whether you wish to settle the claim, whether you wish to defend the claim, or whether you require more time to respond. As failure to respond may result in costs sanctions if yo later seek to rely upon a Defense which is not notified to us prior to the issue of proceedings, we again urge you to seek some independent legal advice.

 

Should you wish to settle the claim, our collections department can take payment b credit or debit card on 0844 245 1145. Other payment options are detailed on the back of this letter.

 

If you are unable to settle the claim in one payment, you may contact us to request an assessment of your financial circumstances, our collections department can advise you whether it is appropriate for you to settle the claim by way of installments.

 

We require a response or payment from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, in order to prevent further action being taken.

 

Yours sincerely

(unidentifiable signature)

Retail Loss Prevention Limited."

 

 

Any advice guys? Am I actually REQUIRED to reply by law or is this more gobbledegook they've made up?

[ScarletPimpernel]

We've already told you how to deal with RLP; the advice hasn't changed. Of course they can't force you to reply, but if you had followed our advice and sent the 'liability denied' letter you'd have cut that avenue off for them.

 

Up to you, though.

[JoeBudden]

We've already told you how to deal with RLP; the advice hasn't changed. Of course they can't force you to reply, but if you had followed our advice and sent the 'liability denied' letter you'd have cut that avenue off for them.

 

Up to you, though.

 

Is it too late to do that now or what?

[ScarletPimpernel]

No, you can send it now. Just copy the wording provided on page 1 of this thread and send it by recorded delivery. You will get more of their silly letters, but you should ignore them.

[JoeBudden]

Decided to ignore the last letter, but this came in the post just now:

 

Dear Mr ********

 

Our Client: Tesco

Incident: ****** on 7th July 2012

 

We not you have no responded to our previous correspondence in relation to the above incident.

 

If you do not contact us we can only proceed on the information we have and we can reasonably assume that this is an accurate account of the incident.

 

Our client did not request police attendance at the time of the incident given the value of the goods, it being the first incident of this nature, and your admission of liability. Our client retains its right to contact the police if you continue to refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. Please not civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can be taken concurrently with regards to the same incident.

 

Our client does not use civil recovery solely as a means to recover a proportion of it's losses caused by incidents of this nature but also as a deterrent to future incidents.

 

Where there is no response to our correspondence, statistically, it is indicative of a lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility for wrongful actions, and a higher likelihood or a repeat incident. Ignoring our correspondence therefor leads to increased risk of proceedings being issued. Please be advised that commercial viability is not the first consideration of out client in taking the decision to issue. The deterrent to crime is the primary aim.

 

If you continue to ignore correspondence and proceedings are issued, you will be served with the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim. By this stage, further additional court fees, legal costs and interest will have been added to the claim. If you continue to ignore the matter, our client may request a Judgement in Default. Once Judgement is obtained, if it remains unsatisfied, it will be registered as on the Register of CCJs. Our client will also be able to enforce the Judgement by instructing bailiffs to attend your address recover the sum claim, together with the additional court fees, legal costs, interest and enforcement fees.

 

We are therefor giving you a final opportunity to address this matter before advising our client that it is appropriate in this case to issue proceedings.

 

We note that the items you took were low value food items. If you are suffering from extreme financial hardship, whilst this would not render you any less liable for your actions, our client is an ethical company and would not with to compound your difficulties. You may recall from our original correspondence that our client would be willing to take this into account. You may wish to refer to our website for further guidance on these issues.

 

Regrettably, if we do not hear from you within the next 21 days, the only remaining option is to issue proceedings, or to pass this matter to a debt recovery company to persue as an undefended claim.

 

Yours sincerely

Legal Department

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd

 

I know the aim is to intimidate their clients but it's working. Can they still issue the matter to police, over a month after it happened? + the bit about bailiffs to my address doesn't sound too appealing to be quite honest. Any help greatly appreciated guys

[dx100uk]

ttal rbbish

 

read the oxford case where they got trounced in court by the judege

 

ignore!!

 

dx

[JoeBudden]

ttal rbbish

 

read the oxford case where they got trounced in court by the judege

 

ignore!!

 

dx

 

I had a look over it a few weeks ago mate. What happens when/if they pass it on to a DCA? Do they just do the same thing, send threatening letters but have no legal grounds whatsoever?

[dx100uk]

correct

no DCA has ANY legal powers

 

sit tight

 

dx

[ScarletPimpernel]

Did you send the denial of liability letter?

[JoeBudden]

Did you send the denial of liability letter?

 

No, to be honest I COMPLETELY forgot about RLP the day after I received their 2nd letter, until I got another one today. Any suggestions?

[andydd]

Upto you. We seem to be going in circles with RLP advice.

 

Some time ago most of us here and at other sites and CAB reached a general consensus that the RLP letters had no basis in law,

 

RLP of course huffed and puffed that they did and proudly posted 'advice' from QC Mawrey

 

who wrote two long letters on the situation

 

which did waffle on a bit and clearly did contain good stuff but it didnt really relate to the situation in hand,

 

can paid security staff be said to be diverted from their normal course of work when dealing with a shoplifter,

most of us said no,

and the only really properly defended case that we know of (Oxford) came to the same conclusion.

 

The advice reamins the same,

if the letter from RLP is a genuine attempt at a pre-action protcol along the lines that the CPR suggests

then perhaps it is the 'right' thing to do to respond,

 

however IMO the letters from RLP dont really follow the CPR guidelines

and after a simple denial I probably wouldnt respond any further.

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

We've given you the best advice we can. If you choose not to follow it that is entirely a matter for you.

 

As Andydd says, it's unlikely that RLP's letters follow the CPR guidelines, not least because their status in any litigation isn't clear, but the purpose of the denial of liability letter is that it shuts down the 'you haven't responded' avenue. Of course RLP will still send silly letters, but in the extremely unlikely event of a court case, you can show that you responded and made you position clear at the outset - or, as in this case, when the OP can be bothered.

[andydd]

Lets not forget that RLP's responses have become rather bizarre, with mentions of the Magna Carta and also copying entire threads from here along with their 'answers' to questions rasied by forum members.

 

Andy

[JoeBudden]

copying entire threads from here along with their 'answers' to questions rasied by forum members.

 

Andy

Really? I'll send a letter of denial on monday and see what happens from there. Thanks everyone

[andydd]

Really? I'll send a letter of denial on monday and see what happens from there. Thanks everyone

 

Oh yes..their spies were hard at work.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Oh yes..their spies were hard at work.

 

I was going to say that they shouldn't give up their day job, but in RLP's case that would be an excellent outcome.

[chingola]

Decided to ignore the last letter, but this came in the post just now:

 

 

 

I know the aim is to intimidate their clients but it's working. Can they still issue the matter to police, over a month after it happened? + the bit about bailiffs to my address doesn't sound too appealing to be quite honest. Any help greatly appreciated guys

 

I think JB is concerned that the retailer can refer this to the police after all this time. Can they do that in view of the fact that they did not call them in the first place?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Anyone can make an allegation to the police at any time; whether the police do anything about it, especially when their involvement was not sought at the time because the retailer thought it not worthwhile because the value of goods was so low, is another matter.

 

Another RLP scare tactic, which they use because they realise they are utterly impotent.

 

Given that they've put the threat in a letter, I suspect that the police would be distinctly unimpressed if they discovered that they were being used to as a lever to bully people into paying RLP - as indeed might the retailer concerned.

[2Grumpy]

I think JB is concerned that the retailer can refer this to the police after all this time. Can they do that in view of the fact that they did not call them in the first place?

 

I think it particularly unlikely when they have sent letters saying that they will call the police if they aren't paid, no matter how they shroud those threats or offer specific reasons why the police weren't called at the time on on this occasion. Quite simply it looks like blackmail.

[lucyyy]

are you still ignoring rlp JoeBudden? have they sent you anymore letters since? if you move away from the address that rlp have, will that be the end? or will they hunt you down..

[renegadeimp]

Why would you be concerned about them trying to trace you? They have absolutely no legal powers at all. They are simply trying the latest in con tricks to make some quick cash.

[JoeBudden]

Got another letter just now:

 

We refer you to your letter received 20th september 2012.

 

In compliance with the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct and The Civil Procedures Rules 1998, our letter dated 11th July 2012 served as a preliminary notice of our client's civil claim.

 

You were therefore required to provide either a written acknowledgement or a full written response to this claim within 14 days of the date of that letter.

 

Put simply, you have failed to provide us with with a valid Defense or Dispute to Liability. We are unclear on the exact nature of your dispute and whether it is in full or in part, and are therefore unable to fully consider your representations at this point and make any determination.

 

The Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 requires parties to exchange information in order to promote the settlement of a claim, to prevent court proceedings from being necessary.

 

It is not sufficient to merely advise us that you dispute liability. You are required to provide us with sufficient details and information to investigate your dispute, and to advise our client accordingly. You are therefore required to submit a written defence, giving a full account of your version of events, regarding the above incident.

 

You are also required to advise us, as is proportionate to do so at this stage, of the evidence on which you seek to rely, in support of your defense.

 

If we do not receive a full response and our client decided to issue the claim all correspondence shall be placed before the court to show your non compliance with the above protocol, in which case cost sanctions may be awarded.

 

Contrary to your advice our client does issue claims of this nature in the County Court and has on many occasions successfully obtained a judgement and been awarded costs. You may wish to refer to our website in particular a case heard in December 2011 originally for £137.50, however legal fees and court costs were awarded and Judgement was entered for £1,924.46.

 

If we do not receive a full response within 21 days, we will take further instructions and the claim will proceed accordingly.

 

Any advice guys? The letter they're responding to was a simple denial of any liability and refusal to enter into any more contact, as I was told to do by members of this site. Any help would be great

[2Grumpy]

RLP have no cause of action, they can't take any court action therefore CPR goes out of the window.

 

I would save this one but put in the "ignore" pile