RLP read these forums! My case returns. Help needed.

[ItsEssexRob]

I decided to make a new thread as I think this particular letter deserves urgent and strong attention.

 

This is my third thread on this matter the second being here ( it contains a link to the first)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357193-MY-RLP-case-has-returned-after-8-months.-Help-please.

 

RLP have sent me a letter that contains copied and pasted posts I have wrote herew with them answering and responding to them.

 

They begin by writing.

 

'We refer to our letter dated 4th July 2012 which we understand you have published on the consumer action forum.

 

As you will recall, we have urged you from the outset to seke legal advice in this matter. You should seek proper legal advice from an appropriate source, and from an advisor who is qualified to advise in the civil laws and the torts of trespass and conversion.

 

If you had contacted us directly with regard to many factors we may have bene able to clarify the position or assist you in so long as it was not creating a conflict of interests.

 

In light of your postings on the CAG forum we now take the opportunity to answer some of the comments and information you have posted there. It would of course be rather more contructive if you were to correspond with us directly, rather than via an internet forum.

 

On 8th July 2012 you posted.

What should I do now? Do I still ignore them? I am concerned after hearing about several cases RLP have won.

 

Should I reply to them, or even go into the tescos and speak with them?

 

The silly thing is if Tesco had simply asked me there and then pay the value of the goods even if they were lost ( which was about £30.00) then I would have. I am not however willing to pay extortionate costs to criminal companies.

 

The practice direction for pre action conduct and the civil proceedure rules 1998 requires parties to exchange information in order to promote settlement of a claim to prevent court proceedings from being necessary. We therefore urge you to contact us and engage in pre action correspondance to attempt to resolve this matter before court proceedings are necessary.

 

Where there is no responce to our correspondence statistically it is indicative of a lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility for wrongful actions. The main aim of our client in exercising its rights of civil redress in matters such as this, is to deter defendants from future incidents. Where there has been no responce it is often appropriate to issue proceedings. Commercial viability is not the first priority of our client in taking this decision. The deterrent to the crime is the primary aim. By ignoring our correspondance you are therefore at an increased risk of proceedings being issued.

 

There is no question of our clients claim being 'extortionate'. It is actually a claim for only a contribution to the losses you caused at our clients store.

 

We are of course not a criminal company. We are a legitimate company working with a large number of major and minor retailers, other businesses, carious crime partnerships and the police, with the aim of reducting business crime, of which retail crime is the biggest problem.

 

On the 10th of July 2012 you posted.

 

I just wondered, and by all means shoot me down and tell me I must NOT reply again to them if thats still the case.

 

Is it worth me sending a second letter ( my first being about 3 months after the incident denying any liability.) stating something along the lines of.

 

 

I refert to the recent oxfordshire case, where this was effectively what the judge ruled. If any further action is taken I will be filing a defence equal to that of said case. Therefore I am offering to pay £1.95 to your client for the Cheese and as a conclusion to this matter'

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Is it worth me posting them a letter saying something similar to this? ( would like caggers to re word it for me if they think it is a good idea) Or should I still reply with absolutely nothing? Just feeling they need to know I would be defending it to the hilt.

 

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. We refer you to the practise direction for pre action conduct and the civil proceedure rules 1998 with regard to what is required of you if you wish to defend this matter.

 

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

 

The case to which you refer was not a 'test case'. It was a small track case in the county court and has no precedence value or binding auithority. The decision in that case was based upon the facts and evidence and representation in that case. Being a small track claim, it was heard on limited evidence and documentation as the small track allocation dictates. It is the only claim of this nature which has ever failed for a number of reasons which were specific to that case. Other cases continue to proceed accordingly and judgements are awarded in both the small track and fast track county court proceedings. Indeed the case to which you refer was highlighted in Northampton County Court only 2 days later, and the judge in that case reached the usual decision awarding damages and costs to the claimant. Our client continues to rely upon the same authorities which have been advised to you, which remains good law.

 

Our client would not have been willing to accept your offer of £1.95, but would have bene willing to negotiaite a reasonable settlment with you.

 

On 11th July you posted.

So you reccommend I send them a letter simply stating ' I do not believe that this invoice has any valid case in law, these claims and arguements have been previously relied upon and examined and dismissed in Oxford' Should I word it exactly like that ( I am inexperienced in wording letters to state this kind of case you see so kind of need help in writing the thing word for word almost.

 

Our correspondence relates to a claim for damages and NOT AN INVOICE. We refer you to our comments above. With regard to the valid case law, you would have been advised that our client is relying upon the following cases which are of precedant value and therefore binding.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

There is then a list of random risk insurance companies followed by a list of authorities.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We note that you had a previous thread and refer to your posting dated April 2011 ( my first post).

 

They pasted that original post onto a sheet to I wont post it again here to save room.

 

In relation to your comment that the police advised that no further action would be taken. This was in relation to the criminal proceedings arising out of this incident. The FPN was a conclusion to the criminal matter.

 

The civil matter is entirely seperate from the criminal proceedings and remains outstanding.

 

There is no criminal sanction for failure to settle the civil claim. Ultimately if not resolved, our client would have the right to issue proceedings in the county court. If successful this would result in a county court judgement, which if remains unsatisfied after 30 days, will be registered and may affect your credit rating. The issue of proceedings must be a measure of last resort.

 

We note your reference to Watchdog. The Watchdog program broadcasted inaccurate and incorrent statements of fact and law, based upon misinformation provided by to the BBC by a representative of the CAB. The criticisms you refer to are totally unfounded and irresponsible to broadcast. The BBC has already removed some of its material from the internet upon our request. There is a current civil dispute with CAB in this regard, and it is also subject to a criminal investigation.

 

You state that you are a new dad, suffering from depression, and in financial hardship. Had you advised of this and not made false allegations that we are bullies, our claims are unlawful and referring to our clients claims as extortionate, our client would have been willing to indeifnitely suspend this matter upon recipt of an apology.

 

The position now.

 

In your initial posting you accepted responsbility for your actions, but expressed concern about the value of the claim. You now appear to have been convinced not to accept any responsibility, and to deny any liability for your actions, in an attempt to evade payment. You have further made false allegations, without any merit whatsoever against us. You clearly demonstrate that you have no remorse whatsoever which leads us to believe you are likely to commit further wrongful actions against our clients.

 

As a result of your involvement and taking wrongful advice from an internet forum, which has its own agenda in its campaign of harassment against us, you have unnecessarily protracted this matter, which could and indeed should have been resolved many months ago.

 

Our client is an ethical company, and understands that individuals to take advice from the internet in these current times. It is therfore willingf to give you a final chance to seek some proper legal advice and respond accordingly regarding your following options.

 

- Pay the full amount outstanding

 

- Advise of any circumstances you would like our client to take into account.

 

- Make any realistic proposals for settlement.

 

If we do not hear from you with regard to what option you wish to persue we will take further instructions from our client with regard to how they wish to proceed.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

I bolded the bit above because I was shocked to read that.

 

'our client would have been willing to indeifnitely suspend this matter upon recipt of an apology.'

 

I never received this option in any letter from RLP, so how would I have a clue to do that? I simply seeked legal advice and found my way here.

 

Of course I would have taken that option if I had been offered it, as I was remorseful and have not undetaken any such action since and never would do again.

 

I Will send them a letter doing just that and hope that will conclude the matters. I hope they mean it when they say that and aren't just saying it.

 

I showed remorse and apologised to Tescos at the time as well. There was/is no need to carry this out and bleed me dry. There is no need to make my financial situation difficult because I would never do that kind of thing again, so no deterant is needed. The FPN and risk of future conviction is deterrant enough anyway!

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Thank you for posting this up - it was a lot of typing!

 

I expect the guys will be along as soon as they can with advice for you. There's a lot to digest but I don't think you need to act in haste, please bear with us.

 

My best, HB

[ScarletPimpernel]

It would really be best to stick to one thread so we can see everything in one place.

 

We've always known that RLP read these forums; indeed, the IP addresses of some pro-RLP posters made for interesting reading.

 

Their letter shows how desperate they are becoming - and that no matter how hard they try, they can't polish a turd. Where you get advice is entirely a matter for you, no matter how much RLP try to browbeat you.

 

However, reading the text of their risible, whiny epistle carefully, it's just the same old stuff, pretending that you have to do as they say because... well, because they say so. They can't change the fact that in the Oxford case the learned judge found against the retailer, even though the defendants in that case had admitted theft too.

 

As usual, they quote 'successful' cases without enough info for them to be thoroughly checked, but they are usually default judgements or weren't properly defended. They also say that their client 'would have the right to issue proceedings'; well, yes, they would, but they haven't.

 

Their statement that what they consider your lack of remorse leads them to think you would commit further wrongdoing against their client not only appears to be incorrect as to fact, since you say that you apologised at the time, it would also be a matter for the police, not RLP. The canard that they are seeking to reduce crime is absurd - their motivation is money.

 

Remember, RLP are very much the monkey in these cases; the organ grinder is the retailer. Only the retailer can bring a claim in court, and you have to ask why they haven't done so if they are so upset about all this.

 

All of RLP's letters are circumloquacious and full of this faux legal stuff - you have to take all that out to see the real meaning, which in this case is exactly the same as their previous letters, i.e. 'pay us because we say you must'. All the stuff about your posts here are just padding intended to show you how clever they are.

 

The only thing in RLP's latest missive that makes any real sense is their claim that they aren't criminals; that is true. What they do is morally repugnant, in my opinion, but sadly it's not criminal.

 

I note that in their 'everyone's against us' blubbing they've forgotten to mention the Law Commission, Parliament and Private Eye.

 

Personally I wouldn't think that this sort of silliness warrants a reply; you've made your position clear, and if RLP haven't understood it that's their problem.

[ItsEssexRob]

Thats the thing I was remorseful, Tesco noted this as its in their report. Dont you think its a good idea I send the apology they said would suffice to suspend it indefiniteley? I mean I did apologise several times to them in store after the incident but havent by way of letter - as I wasnt aware this was an option. It wasnt the kind of thing I expected as an option either, but would obviously have taken it.

 

Also stating the notion I would reoffend is ludicrous, as though I would want to risk a second offence where the police would probably give me a criminal record and/or a FPN again. Those kind of things are the deterrant, not the amount RLP are asking for.

 

I want them to just stop now. Realise that I know i've done wrong but that i've moved on, however putting me in financial hardship is not going to help anything.

[2Grumpy]

Since RLP are aware that you are getting advice from an internet forum, shouldn't their ethics make them keep their nose out of here, that would be tantamount to eavesdropping at your solicitor's then telling you that you are getting the wrong advice.

 

I really believe that any company quoting from internet forums like this is pretty rattled

 

Whilst the Oxford case didn't create a precedent, neither do any of their uncontested wins

 

I really doubt that they would have suspended the case if they had known of your condition, I suspect that they would have piled on the pressure (actually they do know and they are choosing to pile on the pressure in your case but not others who get advice here).

 

In any case, RLP can't take you to court. Tesco could but most likely won't. Presumably their actual losses were zero, they didn't have to employ additional staff, the security personnel were doing their job ... what do they want you to pay for?

[rebel11]

If they are happy to except an 'apology', then why are they sending out 'speculative invoices' and asking for monies which they can't quantify/breakdown in front of a Judge (Oxford Case) in a county court.

 

Just one other point, companies can spout out as much as they like about being 'ethical', so can their representatives, but individuals will determine if they believe those claims. They will determine according to the company's 'deeds' not the 'talk' or because they are told that they are 'ethical'.

[2Grumpy]

They said that they would have been happy with an apology in this case had they known of the circumstances, but not now that the op has called rlp / tesco a few names.

 

But the OP did apologise at the time and they do know of his circumstances.

 

If RLP were really sincere, they would have looked at the sequence of events and accepted that apology and stopped. Their continuance shows their real sincerity ...

 

I doubt that it would be in the OP's interest to do so again. RLP/Tesco don't appear to be offering to drop this if he did now anyway.

 

If they were really concerned about the mental health of people that they were pursuing, there are an awful lot of cases that they would have dropped

[ethos360]

I didn't realise that ethical companies stalked people online!!

[rebel11]

There are laws against that.

 

I didn't realise that ethical companies stalked people online!!

[ethos360]

Then they are incriminating themselves with that letter, i thought everyone had the right to 'a private and family life'.

[andydd]

I really dont think it can be cost effective for RLP to employ staff to spend their time trawling through this website, finding people who they have sent demands to, then matching them up with their username (a rather dubious practise if you ask me) and then proceeding to 'answer' the questions/points one by one, it must be rather time consuimng and I'm puzzled as to what they hope to achieve by it, I'm not convinced that a Court would think it proper behaviour either, especially taking into account the pre-action protocols that RLP claim to follow.

 

Andy

[LaughingGirl]

Wow. I suppose that I shouldn't really be surprised that RLP are guilty of something morally questionable, but I'm definitely a little shocked.

 

I have to hope that this isn't a thinly veiled attempt at putting people off seeking advice from this forum by making it clear they can "catch you at it", because that would be really very naughty indeed.

[ScarletPimpernel]

In my opinion no purpose will be served by writing an apology. As you say, you've already apologised. RLP say that Tesco would have 'suspended' (and what does that mean - they'd start again if they felt like it?) the claim if you'd apologised. To slightly misquote Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they". In other words, it's very easy for RLP to say that x might have happened if only you'd done y.

 

The question this begs is why they didn't mention this at the outset, which could have saved everyone a lot of time. Instead, they just send demands for money.

 

In any case, since they are such avid readers of this thread, RLP could not have been unaware that you apologised to Tesco at the outset. In other words, it was never really going to make a difference.

 

In my view the whole crime deterrence thing is a crock; there is plenty of research to show that by far the majority of retail crime is committed by professional shoplifters of the sort RLP don't bother with. RLP have no evidence whatsoever as to whether you will commit an offence in the future; if they did, the correct authority to deal with it is the police.

 

However, it seems clear to me that you know that stealing is a crime and that if you did it again the criminal justice system would deal with you, since they are the appropriate authority. It seems to me that RLP are on the one hand that people must not criticise them, whilst it's perfectly alright for them to make unfounded allegations about you. However, in the real world we know that people are allowed to express opinions, and you will, I'm sure, take RLP's accusation, unpleasant as it is, as just another facet of their ridiculous business.

 

We know that you want this to stop, and RLP know it. Why do you think they bombard you with these silly letters? We can help you, but ultimately it your own fortitude and patience that is needed.

 

RLP's letters are pieces of paper, nothing more; they cannot harm you.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I really dont think it can be cost effective for RLP to employ staff to spend their time trawling through this website, finding people who they have sent demands to, then matching them up with their username (a rather dubious practise if you ask me) and then proceeding to 'answer' the questions/points one by one, it must be rather time consuimng and I'm puzzled as to what they hope to achieve by it, I'm not convinced that a Court would think it proper behaviour either, especially taking into account the pre-action protocols that RLP claim to follow.

 

Andy

 

I do not think that cost effectiveness comes into it. With RLP it's personal - the way this sort of letter is written shows that. Note the classic bully behaviour of pretending that they are the victim (though quite how a body corporate can be harassed is beyond me). No, I think that what's happening here is RLP having a dig at us and CAB through one of their targets.

 

They seem to have plenty of time to trawl these forums, as they've demonstrated in the past.

 

In any case, I'm not sure how RLP can claim their letters to be a proper part of pre-action protocols - they aren't representing retailers as solicitors and they have no cause of action themselves. I think it's the retail equivalent of private parking companies putting checkered borders and 'it is an offence to tamper with this notice' on their tickets.

[2Grumpy]

If they were following pre-action protocols, wouldn't they be going first, detailing what losses their clients were claiming for with detailed costing, what steps they had taken to mitigated their losses etc?

 

I agree that all of this does look like bullying, as well as trying to discourage the OP (and anyone following) from getting advice.

[andydd]

If they were following pre-action protocols, wouldn't they be going first, detailing what losses their clients were claiming for with detailed costing, what steps they had taken to mitigated their losses etc?

 

I agree that all of this does look like bullying, as well as trying to discourage the OP (and anyone following) from getting advice.

 

Well to be fair, they may have already done that, this step of identifying 'offenders' on here and then watching what they post is often a later step. But I agree that it could be construed as discouragement as if to say 'we are watching you'.

 

Andy

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

I still don't think that RLP's status as far as litigation is clear. They aren't solicitors and they don't have rights of audience, so I'm not clear what their authority is. After all, if a claim is issued, it isn't issued by RLP (although some may be under the impression that they are), because as I understand it impersonating a solicitor or legal when you aren't properly registered as such is a serious matter.

 

So, do they have any more legal standing than, say, a DCA or a PPC in terms of representation, because whilst they might act as agents of a retailer, they can't actually initiate any action themselves. This being the case, it seems to me quite wrong to be mentioning court action unless the retailer has indicated that this is the route they intend to go down, though of course I realise that RLP would look even more ridiculous than they do now if they had to be 100% honest in their correspondence, and reveal the miniscule percentage rate of cases that actually result in a claim.

 

Perhaps they'd be better off saying that if you don't pay they'll scream and scream until they are sick.

[ItsEssexRob]

I spoke to someone who knows a bit ( not a lot but a bit) about this sort of thing and they claim that if it carries on I could get the police involved for harassment over the internet thing as it is tantamount to stalking.

 

If they read here they will know that I was remorseful and that I apologized to their client.

 

If they read here they would also realise that a deterrant is not needed as the thought of ending up down a police station with a bigger FPN is enough to ensure I never do it again.

 

If they read here they would understand that attempting to bleed money out of me now simply regresses the situation.

 

Finally if they read here they would realise that I would defend any claim they made in the full and would be prepared to spend more money defending it than I would be to just pay off the outstanding amount as it is also about principals not just the amount.

[2Grumpy]

Well said. You realise that you did wrong, apologised at the time & been dealt with by the proper authorities.

 

Unfortunately Tesco & RLP aren't being quite that honest

 

Tesco could claim in court for their mitigated losses that I'm certain aren't anything like what RLP have been demanding.

 

It sounds like RLP are modelling themselves on the DCA who has added their charges. Lots of DCAs spout legal **** about what you have to do too. Like DCAs, some of the RLP letters that we have seen posted recently do say that their client can take action - RLP getting a little realism?

[ItsEssexRob]

Is it also worth bearing in mind that during the incident I did actually pay for the items? Just at a fraudulently reduced price ( bar the cheese) so I did actually pay an amount. Wouldnt this have to be deducted from the total amount and/or make the mitigated loss almost indeterminable? The CCTV would show me paying for the items.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I don't think you need to worry about all this; the fact is that RLP's speculative invoices are not based upon actual costs, but taken from their fixed cost matrix that failed so spectacularly before a judge.

 

The time to consider any of this is when you have an actual court claim in your hand, and RLP don't decide whether or not you get one, despite all their willy-waving letters.

[caledfwlch]

It amuses me how they think the OP is bound by the CPR, despite no court action as yet being started

[ScarletPimpernel]

It amuses me how they think the OP is bound by the CPR, despite no court action as yet being started

 

And despite them not being solicitors, having a cause of action, and not being party to any litigation.

[labrat]

to be fair if they were that bothered about posts on this forum they would have applied for a company representative position

[ScarletPimpernel]

What, and have RLP posting on the forum? Hardly novel.