RLP Civil Recovery

Hailz86

phlogeston wrote: »

OK, don't post on a public forum then.

I only gave you some advice regarding opening mail that is not addressed to you, that is not raising a child.

Not to start an arguement but it is actually a criminal offence to open mail not addressed to you punishable by fines and custodial sentences, nor was any advice on child raising given.

xx

OlliesDad

Hailz86 wrote: »

Not to start an arguement but it is actually a criminal offence to open mail not addressed to you punishable by fines and custodial sentences, nor was any advice on child raising given.

xx

A already stated, if the person is in your care, you can open the mail.

hollydays

I too am a supporter of Civil Recovery,and RLP are one of the largest companies out there,they are sometimes the only effective recourse retailers have.
I think she has fallen foul of an over enthusiastic member of security,with clearly not an ounce of common sense.I think she must have been taken to an office and the details taken there,because she used an item that wasn't a tester,(let's hope they had a female member of staff present too,as they should).It would have been common courtesy to ring you to tell you this had happened, and allow you to attend,but frankly it is ludicrous and they should be told so.Boots are also a pretty sensible company by all accounts and their Head Office should have it brought to their attention that their Contract staff are behaving in this way.

The Police will not have been involved and would laugh at this offence.

Bookworm-haven't The OFT already stated in writing that the lack of credit licence was due to their own delays....Its only fair you mention that.

bookworm1363

hollydays wrote: »

I think she has fallen foul of an over enthusiastic member of security,with clearly not an ounce of common sense.

I would accept that, but that doesn't justify RLP themselves then compounding the stupidity by unlawfully trying to extort money from a child.

I think she must have been taken to an office and the details taken there,because she used an item that wasn't a tester,(let's hope they had a female member of staff present too,as they should).

Without the police being called, that would make it kidnapping, and don't get me started on if there was no same sex chaperone with her, yes.

It would have been common courtesy to ring you to tell you this had happened, and allow you to attend,

No, it would have been the LAW.

Boots are also a pretty sensible company by all accounts and their Head Office should have it brought to their attention that their Contract staff are behaving in this way.

Well, that's one of the things we are investigating, and that is how much do the companies contracting to RLP do actually know of the strong-arm tactics employed and do they knowingly condone it / get a cut of the profits? But it's still early days so we haven't got all the answers yet.

The Police will not have been involved and would laugh at this offence.

Yet RLP feel it's ok to commit bigger ones and try to extort money from a minor. Hmmm....

Poppy9

I hope the store didn't search her as this would have been assault!

hollydays

Sorry,whilst I agree with most of what you had said, stopping someone for technically damaging a product,and taking them to an office is not kidnapping,but they can't question her without an appropriate adult present,as said.


The companies DO get a cut of the profits,but that is BOOTS,not the contracting companies.They would say this is for recovering the time spent by their staff catching people stealing (not this trumped up charge though)

Ivory_Tinkler

So we've now gone from testing a lipstick to kidnapping :rolleyes:

We don't know all the facts yet. Maybe the OP's child was so frightened by the whole event that she told the staff she was 16 or even 18 as she was scared stiff hence the letter sent to her. I think we need more info from the OP once they have had a chance to speak to their daughter, the store and the dreadful company who have sent this letter.

I have to add though, I get very cross when standing in Superdrug or Boots and see groups of girls (in school uniform so they are young girls) wrecking perfectly good makeup by testing it out and then putting it back when there are testers all over the place. And, I've been witness to the hurling of abuse at a poor Superdrug employee when she asked a group of girls to stop. Maybe Boots have got fed up with this too and have now employed this company to try and stop this practice? But, if they have, then the methods of recouping losses is a bit heavy handed.

hollydays

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/664448.stm

One press article about civil recovery.

Poppy9

hollydays wrote: »

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:YRDC5zBgo2AJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/664448.stm+bamfield+civil+recovery&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk

One press article about civil recovery.

you link isn't working

hollydays

link changed now,try this one also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/184149.stm