RLP Civil Recovery

adouglasmhor

Hailz86 wrote: »

My uncle works for royal mail, and he has checked for me, it is actually an offence to open mail not addressed to you unless you have the legal rights to it for instance like Power of attorney or similar situations.


xx

Your uncle is wrong, he must have asked a muppet, I posted the bit out the actual law above. Hint, this country has laws they don't rely on what someone's uncle says.

adouglasmhor

tbw wrote: »

Maybe so - but a bit of respect for a 14 year old might well be a positive way to teach her respect for other people. If we don't show respect ourselves then how can we complain if our children don't either ?

Maybe if she is vulnerable she could be frightened and confused and not capable of asking for help. I don't know for sure I am just speculating away I am afraid,. Every case is different, I am sure that at 14 you were more socially capable than me (hint I was a big daft boy), but I grew up in my own time. If it had been a card or a handwritten letter, I would have been opening it at that age, a bill or summons - dad would have asked me to come and see him while he opened it in front of me. I still manage to respect a lot (but not all) of people.

ceedoubleu

For the benefit of phlogeston, who seemed to take a particular pleasure in this matter, I am happy to say that the matter is now concluded and full apologies have been received.

donotgiveup

Does anyone know what the current position is with Retail Loss Prevention Ltd ie with consumer credit licence and investigation by trading standards and information commissioners office? My husband has just encountered the most appalling treatment from his now ex employer and them and the solicitor is now on the case.

Dobbings

CAB have issued a report on RLP & Drydens Solicitors both of whom are demanding money mostly from those 'accused' but not found guilty of criminal acts

I'll ask Martin to post it

Vomityspice

The 'report' is here

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/current_campaigns/unreasonable.htm

Anihilator

So the CAB's main finding is that these activities seem perfectly legal and they don't see why shops shouldnt have to incur extra staff, security and admin costs to deal with a bunch of teenage thieves who will be let go by the police because its too much hassle.

Personally I think the CAB should be grateful at these companies for doing parents a favour causing their children some comeback from being thieving little scumbags rather than giving them a pat on the back and telling them not to do it again like the police.

I am sure a lot of these stressed guilty examples learnt not to do it against whilst many of those who werent pursued will go on to committ again and again until their life is ruined.

The existing laws will defend people against unreasonable or unfair claims. If these "victims" are so hard done by then lets suggest they take it to a court and let them decide whether the companies are being reasonable in regards to their costs.

Dobbings

Anihilator wrote: »

So the CAB's main finding is that these activities seem perfectly legal and they don't see why shops shouldnt have to incur extra staff, security and admin costs to deal with a bunch of teenage thieves who will be let go by the police because its too much hassle.

Personally I think the CAB should be grateful at these companies for doing parents a favour causing their children some comeback from being thieving little scumbags rather than giving them a pat on the back and telling them not to do it again like the police.

I am sure a lot of these stressed guilty examples learnt not to do it against whilst many of those who werent pursued will go on to committ again and again until their life is ruined.

The existing laws will defend people against unreasonable or unfair claims. If these "victims" are so hard done by then lets suggest they take it to a court and let them decide whether the companies are being reasonable in regards to their costs.

"the existing laws will defend people":rotfl:

moonrakerz

I think that the wrong people are being blamed here - if the POLICE were to deal with a crime, as we pay them to do, then these companies would not be able to exist.

The police have "copped out" (intended!) of their duties, so the shops really have no other way to try and defend themselves against shoplifters.
The really stupid thing is that "professional shoplifters" know enough about the Law to !!!! (stupid censorship !!) a snook at these people anyway. Result ? the "store detectives" and the hangers on pick on the easy targets to say they are fulfilling their task.
Unfortunately, their methods are almost identical to those used by TV Licensing ! Bluster, mis-inform, lie (if necessary) to get a "confession".

BFG_2

Take them out the back, and knee-cap them all.