RLP Civil Recovery

Tozer

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Libellous accusations? You can't libel a person if you only accuse them. Libel involves telling a third party.

OP, CAG sounds like it might be helpful. I don't think anyone on here will be able to assist, as we don't know the story. But there seem to be some people with experience over on CAG.

The libel would be Boots telling the collection agent.

bookworm1363

And if you want to see for yourself the outrageous side:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/retail-loss-prevention/

(sorry, too many threads to list individually!)

Don't get me wrong, anyone: I do not condone theft, dishonesty, embezzlement or anything like that.

But 2 wrongs don't do a right. There is growing evidence that RLP are preying on people's sense of guilt (whether real or not) to make demands for monies they do not justify or breakdown in any form or shape. That is simply not acceptable.

hollydays

I didn't find that thread but found a post on there by someone who picked up a bottle of suntan lotion in a shop.It had no price ticket so they saw "a similar" one on the shelf and peeled the price off that and stuck it on.Needless to say,it was a lower price.There is then a stream of replies from people telling him/her how badly they have been treated etc.

Well in my book thats clearly swopping a price,and how can you defend that?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/retail-loss-prevention/188354-tk-max-rlp-bottle.html

Then theres this one-admits it-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/retail-loss-prevention/174706-tk-max-rlp-price.html

You are giving advice to people who admit to criminal offences on how to get off with the civil damages (or whatever word anyone chooses)
It's not quite the same as the parking ticket thing is it......

bookworm1363

No, we are giving advice to people who are being summarily told to pay a seemingly random amount for alleged offences (not having been convicted in a court of law) on how to fight a company which seems to think they are the law.

So yes, it is in fact very much the same as the private parking companies which are also demanding random amounts from people who may or may not have committed a wrongdoing under cover of being legitimate demands with the backing of the law. It would appear that this company is also just as reluctant to actually take the alleged wrongdoers to court to justify their costs. Funny that.

Furthermore, we are also investigating that this moral high ground company may be operating themselves outside of the law (data protection breach, no license to operate) and how do you justify that exactly?


PS: the link is to the whole RLP forum, not just a single thread.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

No, we are giving advice to people who are being summarily told to pay a seemingly random amount for alleged offences (not having been convicted in a court of law) on how to fight a company which seems to think they are the law.

So yes, it is in fact very much the same as the private parking companies which are also demanding random amounts from people who may or may not have committed a wrongdoing under cover of being legitimate demands with the backing of the law. It would appear that this company is also just as reluctant to actually take the alleged wrongdoers to court to justify their costs. Funny that.

Furthermore, we are also investigating that this moral high ground company may be operating themselves outside of the law (data protection breach, no license to operate) and how do you justify that exactly?


PS: the link is to the whole RLP forum, not just a single thread.

I hear what you are saying but don't forget that the burden of proof for a civil claim is much lower than that of a criminal prosecution.

Personally, if it were me, I would much rather face a civil claim than for it to become a criminal matter.

hollydays

If the people deny they commit the "offences ",in cases where the Police haven't been called,any honest person would demand the police be called to prove their innocence.

bookworm1363

I quite agree.

The point is that RLP doesn't seem to even try to take these to SCC, they just issue demands letters whether the person did commit the offence or not. In that respect, as I said before, they make themselves prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner.

Let me ask you this. You say you'd rather face a civil claim than a criminal matter. If you were sent letters demanding £400 because a security guard checked your trolley and found it was all in order after all, would you pay?

bookworm1363

hollydays wrote: »

If the people deny they commit the "offences ",in cases where the Police haven't been called,any honest person would demand the police be called to prove their innocence.

In many cases, people were not even aware that there was a problem, only to receive a demand months or years later. Or got exonerated 100% by the police and still got demanding letters.

Have you never been checked because something in your trolley beeped and turns out someone hadn't deactivated the security tag when you paid? Would you demand that the police be called to exonerate you there and then? Of course not! Well, under RLP's terms, they could bill you for that.

hollydays

Why would I give someone my name address and date of birth if the alarms went off as I walked out? I think if I did-there would be the clue there that there was "a problem":rolleyes:

Would I demand the Police be called if accused-no,I'd call em myself.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Let me ask you this. You say you'd rather face a civil claim than a criminal matter. If you were sent letters demanding £400 because a security guard checked your trolley and found it was all in order after all, would you pay?

Refuse to pay and put them to proof that I owed that amount.