Problems with Primark

[renegadeimp]

They go to court for both reasons. You also need to remember, that there is no real consistency with RLP and what their actions are. We do know however that they read these forums ( and others), and matches cases to their accounts. If they see that people are thinking of paying or are very scared, then they step up the campaign of harassment. Thats why a lot of people get more threat letters than others do, and why we say she is sure of judgement by default.

 

Those that they know will defend themselves in any court action, she throws over to the Bottom of the barrel DCA's.

 

If you want evidence of all this, and letters they send, perhaps ask scarletpimpernal, one of the site admins about them. He/she has seen pretty much all of them.

[francescakay]

have you had letters yet?

 

from rlp?

 

and stay off the phone.

 

dx

 

Ive had one letter of them which i posted saying about the £130.00 but they said i had one on the 1st october but i didnt get one from them only on the 23rd october which was my first letter i had.

Stay off phone what do you mean?

[francescakay]

To answer a few questions

A DCA is a debt collection agency

A judgement by default is where they make a claim to the court and you either do not defend or miss the time limits to do it.

 

It MAY be safe to largely ignore letters but it is safer to handle them properly. If you never communicate with RLP they may think you are just ignoring and will not bother to defend.

 

If you get letters then DX is suggesting that you remove personal data , scan them and post them on here so someone can give a response.

 

That is one example I have seen

 

Okay thankyou. Ill go home and write the letter on it as i dont have a scanner as its broken.

[francescakay]

With RLP, they are more likely to head to court, if you start playing letter tennis with them.

 

I havent written to RLP i came straight on here and this week ive been busy as my family memeber is dying

[renegadeimp]

To be honest, i would put RLP at the back of your mind for now. You have more important things to car about than some womans petty attempts to try and get money out of you.

[fletch70]

Non of this makes any sense to me , people are contradicting themselves and causing confusion. Have a read of what you have said

1) they only go for people they are sure will not defend

2) they also go for people that engage in letter ping pong ( I would suggest that this indicates a potential to defend)

3) They read these forums ...therefore if you are telling someone that nothing will happen and just to ignore everything , some may take that as meaning ignore everything including a claim

 

My opinion was and still is

Never say never, you could end up with a claim against you particularly if you totally ignore every letter

I do not advocate letter ping pong just stating your case and your intention to defend in full should they recommend any claim.

If you get letters then post on here for advice, however I would send a swift get lost letter including your intention to defend any claim and you consider the matter closed

[francescakay]

They go to court for both reasons. You also need to remember, that there is no real consistency with RLP and what their actions are. We do know however that they read these forums ( and others), and matches cases to their accounts. If they see that people are thinking of paying or are very scared, then they step up the campaign of harassment. Thats why a lot of people get more threat letters than others do, and why we say she is sure of judgement by default.

 

Those that they know will defend themselves in any court action, she throws over to the Bottom of the barrel DCA's.

 

If you want evidence of all this, and letters they send, perhaps ask scarletpimpernal, one of the site admins about them. He/she has seen pretty much all of them.

 

So what your all saying is i could go.to court? But why do i have to pay this sum of money when the fact of it i paid £80 and no more was said about it

[francescakay]

To be honest, i would put RLP at the back of your mind for now. You have more important things to car about than some womans petty attempts to try and get money out of you.

 

Ive been trying to but i have too much on my plate haha

[fletch70]

I havent written to RLP i came straight on here and this week ive been busy as my family memeber is dying

 

Frances

I am very sorry to hear that . You do indeed have bigger issues than RLP so put them on the backburner if you need to but just be aware

[dx100uk]

quite right

 

you've paid end of.

 

if your scanner is broke

us a digital camera or a mobile phone.

 

for now I would not be replying to them.

 

dx

[francescakay]

Non of this makes any sense to me , people are contradicting themselves and causing confusion. Have a read of what you have said

1) they only go for people they are sure will not defend

2) they also go for people that engage in letter ping pong ( I would suggest that this indicates a potential to defend)

3) They read these forums ...therefore if you are telling someone that nothing will happen and just to ignore everything , some may take that as meaning ignore everything including a claim

 

My opinion was and still is

Never say never, you could end up with a claim against you particularly if you totally ignore every letter

I do not advocate letter ping pong just stating your case and your intention to defend in full should they recommend any claim.

If you get letters then post on here for advice, however I would send a swift get lost letter including your intention to defend any claim and you consider the matter closed

 

So by stating "i deny any futher correspndence etc"

[francescakay]

Frances

I am very sorry to hear that . You do indeed have bigger issues than RLP so put them on the backburner if you need to but just be aware

 

Thankyou. I will post the letter on here tonight as im at work atm. Taking mind of things and see what you say.

[francescakay]

quite right

 

you've paid end of.

 

if your scanner is broke

us a digital camera or a mobile phone.

 

for now I would not be replying to them.

 

dx

 

I know i paid a pentaly in which the matter was and they said nothing will be come of it. I will do the letter after work. Taking mind off things

[fletch70]

It is extremely unlikely that court will happen and remember it is only a civil case and not a criminal one. Totally different kettle of fish. The police have dealt with it which is why I am not suggesting complaining that the police officer made you pay £80 to the store ..let sleeping dogs lie.

 

All I was trying to say, as I would in all cases, never say never...who knows i could walk under a bus later (do I hear some cheers). No one can predict the future but we can say it is unlikely

[fletch70]

So by stating "i deny any futher correspndence etc"

 

By stating that you will not enter into any further correspondence with them you are hopefully letting them know that you know they are full of sh1te and that you will not be drawn into a game of intimidation. Of course by saying that you are still free to write to them should it become essential

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP don't take anyone to court; only the retailer can.

 

The cases RLP has on its website were all brought by retailers,

and were all won either by default or because they were not properly defended.

 

There are some important points to be aware of in regard to these cases.

 

Firstly, RLP doesn't provide any case numbers so there is no way to confirm the details;

secondly, most of the cases involved employee theft, and

thirdly RLP's reporting of cases is selective - they are hardly likely to publicise cases where the retailer lost.

 

By any measure, the number of court claims is miniscule compared to the number of speculative invoices issued by RLP.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that RLP play any significant part in a retailer's decision to bring a court claim,

other than that RLP will have unsuccessfully attempted to extract money from the defendant by way of a speculative invoice in the first instance.

 

It follows that a retailer is neither more nor less likely to bring a claim if an individual has resisted RLP or not.

 

There are two schools of thought regarding the best way to deal with RLP's speculative invoices.

 

Some recommend ignoring them entirely, and it seems that this is ultimately generally successful;

RLP will churn out the usual rambling letters and eventually stop.

 

Others recommend sending the one line denial of liability letter.

The advantage of this is that in the very unlikely event of a court claim,

it can be shown that the matter was disputed early on,

and that the individual had made their position clear at the outset.

 

It seems that this is also ultimately generally successful; RLP will churn out some slightly different, and rather more lurid, rambling letters and eventually stop.

 

A consistent approach need not consist of a single recommendation.

Those who are looking for help are offered two possible ways to deal with RLP,

and can,

with some reading and by asking questions,

make an informed decision as to which they prefer.

 

What is not recommended is speaking to RLP at the telephone, or engaging in correspondence other than the one-liner.

Of course one should never say never, but the reality is that a court claim remains a remote possibility.

[fletch70]

Thank you SP , very illuminating . I learn something new everyday, especially the bit about RLP not really having any part in the decision making process.

There never will be a one size fits all approach as I know from my dealings with debt .

[ScarletPimpernel]

One thing that I think does happen occasionally is that if RLP are able to identify someone from their posts here, they do appear to generate additional invective, as can be seen in some of the letters. It's really rather pathetic, and speaks volumes about the personality of the writer - and these letters do seem to be penned by one person, which should give an idea of what a small time operation RLP is.

 

In RLP we are dealing with someone who has a grandiose sense of self-importance, a feeling of entitlement and of invincibility, but who is actually inadequate, and that translates to the bullying tone and persistence that marks the way RLP targets individuals.

 

If you Google 'narcissistic personality disorder' and then read some of the letters again, and you'll see what I mean.

 

Anyone dealing with RLP needs to be very clear that all they can do is send out letters - and they'll be unpleasant, but are just words on a page - and like all bullies, they can be defeated.

[renegadeimp]

lets also remember the infamous Oxford case, where this person publicly stated that the judge was wrong and they were right.

 

Brief case details

Two Defendants, together with another unidentified female entered a store and stole several items. They caused disturbance upon apprehension outside the store, requiring the assistance of 2 additional security staff from the shopping centre. The third female escaped and was not identified. The two apprehended females were abusive to the security staff. Due to their un-cooperation they were arrested by the Police and were found to have stolen goods from a number of other stores in their possession. They received a Police Caution and Reprimand respectively, upon admission of theft.

The CAB got involved and arranged pro bono defences for the two Defendants. They denied acting jointly for reasons not made known, which was called into question by the Judge. An application for anonymity was made by both Defendants and the Claimant agreed, on the basis that it applied to all parties.

 

Regrettably the case was not presented well. The Claimant’s witnesses (who are security guards and not experienced in legal proceedings) became confused under the considerable pressure of cross examination by the shoplifters’ counsel. This can happen in any litigation.

 

The Judge found against the Claimant, as he could not establish that the security staff were diverted from their duties. Whilst the Judge recognised that there were four different activities undertaken by the security personnel, being patrolling the shop floor deterring crime, monitoring the CCTV detecting crime, apprehending and detaining those who commit crime, and dealing with the aftermath, he did not however make the distinction between the former two, for which the security staff are engaged, and the latter two, which is their diversion from the former two activities. The claim was accordingly dismissed. Application for appeal was refused.

 

The Judge did however express sympathy for the retailer in question in having to deal with situations such as that which the Defendants caused. He found that other losses were recoverable, markedly, commenting that had the shop floor staff dealt with the incident, this may well cause significant disruption to the business.

 

If this were a binding decision of any kind, it would create a strange anomaly whereby a business which expects its shop floor staff to put themselves in danger dealing with situations such as this one, the cost of such diversion is recoverable, but where a retailer takes the extra step, at huge additional costs, thus protecting the shop floor staff and honest shoppers, the cost is not recoverable.

 

The Judge further held that goods not recovered could of course be sought, although the goods not recovered from the third woman who escaped, were not referred to in the Judgment.

 

The Judge finally made some suggestions for retailers to recover their losses such as a contractual car parking type of arrangement, which would not be feasible, or some kind of additional payment where security make an apprehension, which again, those in the business of retail crime are fully aware, is not feasible.

[fletch70]

It is quite amusing to look at their site. I did notice there have been no updates since 2012 . They do not seem to like either Cag or LB very much at all

[ScarletPimpernel]

They do not seem to like either Cag or LB very much at all

 

Well, they spent money on a firm of heavyweight lawyers to threaten both sites, and all they achieved was to focus more attention on themselves and their silly antics, including in that august publication Private Eye.

 

Made me smile, though, to think how angry the ridiculous woman must have been.

 

Whilst reminiscing, though, let's not forget their attempts to infiltrate by using sockpuppets posting documents from a retailer's solicitors in a failed attempt to make us think it was something else. Then there was the chap who said he worked in retail and was all for RLP's tactics; but they don't know that CAGgers come from all sorts of backgrounds and have all sorts of skills, and it was the work of a moment to track him down to a factory in - would you Adam and Eve it - Nottingham.

[fletch70]

Well it shows how many poor people they [problem] as well if they can afford the likes of them. I have been reading their site and they would scare the doodah out of me if I didn't know better. Another problem is of course many people do not understand the difference between civil and criminal court.

 

I don't know about the fake posts on here but i do know it is hard to get away with anything on here.

 

Not happy with CAB either are they and spent a fortune getting "opinion"

[francescakay]

Hi Guys

 

sorry about the late of this letter, due to everything going on with family. i dont have a scanner as its broken and my mobile phone is being fixed as i dropped it and the screen smashed. so its not been my week lately, so im writing the letter out word for word.

 

RLP Wednesday 23rd October 2013

 

 

 

Miss Kay (funny how thats not not name lol)

 

Amount outstanding:£130.00

 

Miss ***

 

We note that we have received no response to our letter of 1st October 2013. If you have already responded, it may be our correspondence has crossed, please make contact on number to check if this is the case.

 

Please be aware, our clients reserves the right to pursue the full value of the claim rather than the contribution currently sought, if this matter cannot be resolved.

 

Our client exercises it civil rights of redress mainly as a deterrent to future incidents, you have not sought to deny your actions nor have you sought to demonstrate any remorse or offer any reasonable explanation for your conduct. Our client appreciates there are many reasons why incidents o of this nature occur,. If you believe you have a defence, or if you have a compelling reason for your behaviour, it is important that they are given due consideration. Could you please therefore advise if there is any information you wish to be taken into account.

 

Whilst there is no legal obligation to consider mitigating circumstances in civil proceedings, our client adheres to core principles originally agreed with ACPO and abides by its own ethical codes. This ensures a degree of protection to those who may be considered vulnerable, or those in the long term severe financial hardship. If you consider this may apply to you, it is important that you notify us of your circumstances, so that they can be given due consideration and the appropriate action taken on you case.

 

Without any additional information by way of a Defence, or mitigating factors, the case will proceed based solely upon the information and evidence provided by our client. If the case proceeds to Court, our correspondence will be placed before Court. The issue of proceedings must however be a measure of last resort, In the absence of any DEFENCE, remorse or other information, this potion must be considered,It is therefore in both parties interest to confirm your position. This is what PROTOCOL for Pre-action Conduct and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides for as means to allow every opportunity to achieve an appropriate result for both parties, without the need for Court action.

 

Our client appreciates that your lack of contact may be a result of embarrassment or shame or perceived fear. Please be assured that our staff are professional and non-judgement and will deal with any communication sensitively, compassionately and with complete discretion. If you wish somebody to contact us on your behalf, you may do so, but will require your consent pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

We summarise the option open to you:

1. settle the claim by paying the amount stated £130.00

2. if you wish to settle the claim but cannot to do so within 14 days, contact us to discuss payment.

3. negotiate an alternative settlement.

4. submit a written defence with a full account of your version.

5. advise us of any relevant circumstances.

6. advise that you require more time to take advice and consider your position.

 

We require a response or payment from you 14 DAYS of the date of this letter in order to prevent further action be taken.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

RLP

[dx100uk]

god another load of bowlarks!!

 

ignore

 

dx

[fletch70]

Did you ever write to them saying you do not acknowledge any claim either they or their client may have?

 

If you did I agree with DX

 

If not you may wish to consider that , but if you do, keep it simple...no explanation, excuse, just a one liner