daughters RLP letter 15+16yrs old - help

[ScarletPimpernel]

There is no such thing as a 'black list'.

[ScarletPimpernel]

No, it's not too late to ignore RLP, but calling them and agreeing to pay has certainly not made it easier.

I would suggest sending, by recorded delivery, a short letter:

Dear Sirs

I refer to your recent correspondence. Having now had an opportunity to seek advice, any liability to you or any company you claim to represent is denied.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours etc.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thank you for posting that, Shakilla. It is very interesting, and raises a point that I will discuss with the rest of the site team.

 

What that Pre-Action Settlement does is create a debt where none existed before.

 

My opinion is that it should not be signed.

[ScarletPimpernel]

No, you should be glad you didn't sign it or pay RLP.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP have form for picking on all of the above. Their only interest is money.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Again I am confused about the references to Claimant and Defendant at a stage where there have been no legal proceedings commenced.

 

Me too - after all, RLP aren't solicitors, but the way this stuff is set out may give people the impression that they are a legal firm.

[ScarletPimpernel]

What it means is that RLP are trying to turn a speculative demand for payment into an enforceable debt by way of this 'agreement'. We have some concerns about what they are doing, and the way they are doing it, but none of this alters the fact that the legal basis for their speculative claims remains shaky, and additionally the basis for the charges mentioned in the 'agreement' appear to be as speculative as the original demand. The consensus is that under no circumstances should the form be signed.

You can send the denial of liability letter, or you can ignore RLP. Whatever happens, and particularly because your mum offered to pay before she was in possession of the facts, you need to be aware that RLP will keep sending letters. They will appear increasingly threatening and full of legalese drivel. Remember that they are just letters, and that RLP are not solicitors, and nor can they take you to court. The key is to remain resolute, and not be tempted to answer or otherwise engage with RLP.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The new letter will indeed make interesting reading.

 

Still, while La Lambert is waffling about the police, I wonder if she's reported herself to Companies House for failing to comply with her legal obligations as a director of Cireco, who's website doesn't meet the requirements of the Companies Act?

 

It really is quite incredible that these people set themselves up to sit in judgment over others.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I wonder if RLP, in bleating about the wrong letter being sent out by their computer, have considered Ferguson v. British Gas , in which it was held that a company, and its directors, are responsible for correspondence, even when it is computer-generated. I don't think they'd like this latest shortcoming aired in court any more than the dodgy basis of their 'matrix' claims, especially if, as in Oxford, their senior people are sitting in court, like Les Tricoteuses at the foot of the guillotine. The difference, of course, is that the hags of the French Revolution were on the winning side for a while.

[ScarletPimpernel]

One can only wonder at how the SRA would view a solicitor using the excuse that a computer was responsible for sending a letter.

 

However, it's quite possible that RLP's letters haven't been anywhere near a competent lawyer.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Of course they do - they have form for it. It says a lot about the company that the directors can spend time scouring these forums and then try to use what people have written to threaten them. Pathetic, bullying behaviour and exactly what we've come to expect from RLP.

 

Do share their latest epistle with us. I'm going to make a prediction, and say it's long, circumloquacious and tedious, and full of pish and wind.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well, there you are - I was wrong about part of the letter. The latest letter is not long - but it is tedious and it is full of pish and wind.

 

We said at the beginning that your mother making a payment was likely to cause a problem, and it has - but not an insurmountable one. It seems to me that this payment was made under duress, on the back of one of RLP's letters - these letters, remember, are part of what the Law Commission called the 'oppressive and aggressive' methods used in civil recovery. However, it is clear that no formal agreement was made - because RLP sent out an agreement, using Primark's letterhead. We've looked at the agreement in detail before, and leaving aside the fact that RLP sent the wrong agreement and then sent another, it was never signed and returned. To me, it seems obvious that this means that there is no agreement. People can change their minds, especially after seeking advice or simply reading the document and deciding that they could not agree to the terms.

 

As for you answering RLP's calls and pretending to be your mother - so what? It's not an offence, unless it's done dishonestly. The party demanding money is RLP, but no-one in this case owes RLP anything at all, so where could there be any sort of dishonesty? I wonder if RLP have noticed the irony in accusing you of pretending to be someone else, when they send out documentation that is clearly from them but purports to be from Primark? Perhaps you were just acting as your mother's agent. Finally, it begs the question that if RLP suspected or knew they weren't talking to the correct person, why did they continue with the calls?

 

What someone publishes on the internet is a matter for them. It's simply not RLP's business. We know why they like to go on about it - because they dislike criticism of their morally repugnant business. We've seen their feeble attempts to stifle those who speak out against them - indeed, we've been the target of some of them, such as the spectacular own goal scored by Schillings on RLP's behalf. RLP may not like it when people express an opinion about what they do, but it's tough. I'd be interested to know what 'further wrongdoing' Shakila's sister has been encouraged to commit, but I suspect it's a figment of La Lambert's imagination, simply added to give weight to what is really no more than a begging letter. RLP giving advice to parents? I'd sooner trust Josef Fritzl.

 

There can be no administration charges because there is no agreement.

 

The simple fact is that RLP have no power whatsoever; there was police involvement and it was determined that no further action should be taken. Since that was the decision of the proper authorities for dealing with these matters, there can be no place for pseudo-legal firms like RLP demanding money, especially the way RLP go about it.

 

Bullying is invariably a sign of an inadequate character; someone who believes that they are much more important than they really are; someone who thinks they are invincible and can do what they wish without thinking about the effect on others; someone who hates it when others stand up to them, or criticise their aberrant behaviour. All of these ingredients are there in RLP's letters, with a large supply of greed added for good measure. This, I suspect, is why RLP are at such pains to persecute anyone who seeks advice on how to deal with a speculative invoice, whether it be from a web forum or the CAB.

 

In any case, as with all bullying, giving in is the worst thing that can be done. My opinion is that this latest pathetic nonsense should be ignored.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Are there no depths of desperation to which RLP will not sink? It seems not.

 

I see that Jacky's waffling about criminal investigations again; all these months, and still no sign of Insp Knacker. What an unpleasant, vindictive bully this silly woman is.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Perhaps they would like to show us "their" legal qualifications.

 

Why do stores even bother with this company, its just wasted time and paperwork.

 

Look at it from a retailer's point of view: a third party company generates some income you would otherwise not have, by exploiting people who are ignorant of their rights and the law, and who may not garner much sympathy if labelled as offenders. RLP's business model is a numbers game. For every 100 speculative invoices they send out (cost: printing and a stamp), a percentage will be scared into paying up. Another percentage may need a few more intimidatory letters, but will pay up. Another percentage won't pay up, but overall, I suspect that the number who do generate sufficient income to make RLP's existence worthwhile.

 

What you should not do is confuse any of RLP's activities with crime reduction or prevention. It is purely about generating income from speculative invoices. That is why RLP don't bother with the organised and career shoplifters who are responsible for the vast majority of retail crime, choosing instead to concentrate on those who steal once, and steal low value items, many of who are vulnerable by way of age, mental health or through language issues, and not forgetting those who have simply made an honest mistake. It doesn't matter to RLP whether the due process of the law has been followed - it's just about the money.

 

I suspect that the only reason the repellent Jacky & Vanessa blather on about court is because we've called their bluff. I suspect that their business model doesn't need to include court, because the numbers still make their despicable little operation worthwhile without it - and, of course, in a properly defended case, they lose! What I'm not sure about is why they are so keen to pursue people who come to CAG, but it can only be for one of two reasons, or a combination of both. One, that they are bullies who conform to the usual schema of bullies and have such a deluded belief in their own importance and invincibility that they can't stand being challenged and exposed, or that they are worried that exposure by CAG risks both their relationship with retailers (in terms of reputational damage), and their income, as retailers realise that they are better off without parasites like RLP and consumers see them for what they are. Another effect, of course, is that the way they do business is exposed on CAG for all to see - including regulators and legislators, so claims of admin errors and so on may not hold water.

 

What is fascinating to the student of human behaviour is the way that RLP carry on regardless. We saw the feeble, but probably (and hopefully) expensive, attempts by RLP to use libel lawyers to try to stifle criticism here and on another forum; they were comprehensively seen off. All they achieved was an excellent demonstration of the Streisand Effect. We have seen RLP make repeated claims that CAG is under criminal investigation - but since there has never been any police contact, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is untrue.

 

Andydd mentions above that RLP don't know what legal qualifications people here have; I will add to that, and say that RLP also don't know what jobs people here do or who they work for, though they might be surprised if they did!

Apologies for the usual spacing issues.

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

Maybe some one from this company could pop in and enlighten me.

 

They pop in quite often, but enlightenment doesn't feature on their agenda.

 

You are correct - retailers get a proportion of any money RLP extract from their victims, but we understand it's smaller than RLP's share.

 

You are also correct in understanding that RLP are parasites - without their host, the retail industry, they cannot survive.