RLP - subcontractor cleaner.£180.00**Contact Ceased**

[juliusceasor]

Hi,

 

This is a first post and on behalf of a foreign friend.

 

The friend was a cleaner at a clothing store, they didn't work directly for the store but for an agency providing the cleaning only to this store. During the course of their work they hoovered the floor. On the floor was piece of chain not sure exactly but the kind you would find on a handbag decorative monkey metal. To prevent it getting entangled in the hoover they picked it up and put it in their pocket.

 

At the end of the day changing out of the work clothes they realised they still had the chain, they thought to put it in the bin then for what ever reason and wrongs or rights decided that if it was going to be thrown away they might be able to use it.

 

They were stopped on leaving the store and searched, nothing was found then they were searched again because they said had video evidence of something (the item being picked up), the person involved couldn't think what the reason was but volunteered the chain. Immediately they were escorted off the premises and asked not to return.

They then lost their job because this cleaning agency didn't have contracts anywhere else the manager of the cleaning agency tried to intervene (considers and still does the employee a good worker and provided a reference).

RLP have written to the person involved seeking £180 or £150 in settlement for Loss and addressed them as an employee of the clothing store which they were not.

They cite BMTA V Salvadori and the recent extensions Versicherung AG v Risk insurance etc. All of these and from what I read of BMTA revolved around substantial sums and costs and that is why they were granted and a recovery for loss a smaller amount for no value may not be but I may be wrong on that.

However this straddles two areas, The employee clearly was wrong to take rubbish from the shop however they were not given a hearing and were not offered a disciplinary so they have lost on two counts one they face the threat of a civil recovery and two they lost their employment.

 

RLP have given a further 21 days to reply after we asked for the basis of the charges which they have refused to give as they say this is a civil matter separate from criminal proceedings and is on the balance of probabilities. But surely they would have to take this to the small claims court to recovery the money in which case they would then have to show documentation of time and evidence of costs incurred, etc to substantiate their claim. Normally the court would require arbitration first and I can't see that RLP can justify the cost of doing all this over trumped up costs. In my opinion if the Loss prevention officer had simply asked the cleaner what they had found on the floor none of this need have occurred and

 

They are asking for a detailed letter of response with a legal basis for specific areas disputing this claim.

 

I would be grateful for advice on how best to proceed, sorry for the long post.

Edited January 8, 2009 by juliusceasor
spelling

[Sidewinder]

Retail Loss Prevention are making a fortune out of claims such as this and the Forum has many similar examples of their levying 'fines' and such like under the guise of recovering the costs associated with shoplifting or employee theft. The general concensus seems to be that these should be subjected to the same treatment as for other 'fines' or 'penalties' levied by banks or private parking companies and RLP should be asked for a detailed breakdown of the amount being claimed.

 

The case law which they have quoted seems open to interpretation and whilst elements of it would appear to be applicable, it is also a fact that in the event of RLP issuing a civil claim for this amount, then your friends defence could put them to strict proof as to how the £180 was calculated. They are asking your friend for the legal basis of his disputing the claim, however he is not obliged to do this beyond his assertion that their claim represents an unlawful penalty following a false allegation of theft. The Police were not involved either at the time or subsequently, he has not been accused of nor charged with any offence, and only under circumstances of conviction would he accept that any fine or 'costs' would be payable.

 

I would personally leave out of any discussion what you have said above in that "...if it was going to be thrown away they might be able to use it..." as this would be deemed a clear admission of theft, irrespective of what it was. Far better to leave it that this was an item which was clearly rubbish, not an item of stock and which was likely to damage the cleaning equipment so was picked up to be later disposed of.

[juliusceasor]

Hi Sidewinder.

 

This is actually what we did in the first instance we asked for a breakdown of how they arrived at those costs.

 

They assert "the costs applied in your particular case are fixed costs which operate in a similar way to speeding and parking tickets." They go on about the The national civil recovery scheme and a protocol which allowed companies to compile an average cost per incident.

"As such this average includes the times taken to watch apprehend, interview and complete documentation" blah blah. "Following on from this the the Nation Retailers compiled the average cost per incident creating fixed rates which have subsequently been tested in civil court which established the figures as fair and reasonable."

 

The letter they sent seemed to be more stock than an answer to our letter as you say they seem solely interested in revenue generation.

They assert this is a civil case and lower burden of proof exists on probabilities but nonetheless surely they will have to prove there was a loss and that their costs were justified. To which their letter alludes " it is a fallacy to labour under the assumption that regardless of whether our client got their goods or monies back that no loss to them was incurred. As a result of wrongful acts, store staff are increasingly being diverted from the tasks that they are paid to do to put right damage to the business"

 

Would our argument therefore be:

 

The employee in question whilst diligently carrying out their duties observed rubbish on the floor that they felt would cause damage to the cleaning equipment they were using at the time. In an effort to prevent such occurrence this item was picked up for later disposal. The employee was then accused of stealing rubbish and asked to leave the company property. The employee was not a direct employee of the company in question but contracted as a cleaner by a third party. The result of which was for the employee to be denied employee rights to a hearing and disciplinary, The cleaning company was then forced to withdraw employment as they were solely contracted to this store and whilst willing were unable to provide employment elsewhere. The employee has been severely disadvantaged by the episode and been denied employee rights which may or may not result in discrimination proceedings at an employee tribunal should the employee so decide to pursue.

We request again details of evidence you have (which you will need to present to us to take this matter to court irrespective of the burden of proof) documentation of and evidence of the costs attributable to your claim.

 

 

BTW the employee has limited English and would have been disadvantaged by that fact at the time i.e unable to articulate or defend clearly or understand fully the situation at the time. Not sure the relevance but certainly they weren't intending to steal or thought of it that way although they understand now the situation.

Edited January 8, 2009 by juliusceasor
detail

[Sidewinder]

I would also include something challenging their assumption that they are able to charge arbitary amounts in the same way as speeding tickets or parking tickets.

 

"You justify your charges in saying that your charges operate in a similar way to speeding and parking tickets. I would appreciate details of the legal basis for such a claim since these are governed by statute, unless you ally yourselves with those issuing private parking tickets which you will be aware may recover only actual charges incurred or rely on a dubious contractual agreement between carpark owner and driver. I am not aware in this case of any statute, contractual agreement, nor indeed damages in this case which would justify the charge which you are seeking to make"

 

I will have a look at your text again and just rejig it a little later.

[MARTIN3030]

RLP will of course tell you they are within their rights-as you have seen they will cite precadents,agreements with ACPO bla bla bla.

You should make it clear that pre action court protocols under CPR apply equally to all parties.

 

To allow equal footing,and to enable you to properly prepare any defence in proposed litigation

 

You require them to furnish you with a breakdown of the costs applicable to the fees they demand.

To include manually intervened operations,materials,what percentage of the fee will be retained by RLP,what percentage of the fee is given to their clients,how the fees are calculated,and who has the discretion to discount early payments.

The breakdown should be clear concise,and show that the costs are in proportion to the fees demanded,and therefore not a penalty in common law which seeks to duly enrich by profit.

 

Tell them that should they take you to Court,you will make application for full diclosure.

 

You also reserve the right to make a copy of the request to the court at a later date if appropriate.

 

You are under no obligations to provide them with a statement of means,enter into any discussions to pay by instalments,nor agree any discounts for early settlement.

Tell them in the absence of them failing to furnish you with the information that you request,they should consider your letter to be your final response.

[MARTIN3030]

oops forgot to add;

 

Head the letter

 

 

Legal Notice under section 4 (6) Civil Procedure Rules

pre action protocols (practice directions)

 

 

 

 

Keep a copy and send recorded to addressing the envelope - Legal Office.

[juliusceasor]

Thank you also Martin:

I have drafted the following based on the information provided if you could comment or anyone add further I'd be grateful for al and any input.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

 

Legal Notice under section 4 (6) Civil Procedure Rules

pre action protocols (practice directions)

 

We dispute all charges and allegations and consider the demands unfair and unjustified.

 

The employee in question whilst diligently carrying out their duties observed rubbish on the floor that they felt would cause damage to the cleaning equipment they were using at the time. In an effort to prevent such occurrence this item was picked up for later disposal. The employee was then accused of stealing rubbish and asked to leave the company property. The employee was not a direct employee of the company in question but contracted as a cleaner by a third party. The result of your clients actions was for the employee to be denied employee rights to a hearing and disciplinary, The cleaning company was then forced to withdraw employment as they were solely contracted to your client and whilst willing were unable to provide employment elsewhere. The employee has been severely disadvantaged by the episode whilst actually trying to prevent damage to company property, and has been denied their employee rights which may or may not result in discrimination proceedings at an employee tribunal should the employee so decide to pursue.

 

You justify your charges in stating that your charges operate in a similar way to speeding and parking tickets. I would appreciate details of the legal basis for such a claim since these are governed by statute, unless you ally yourselves with those issuing private parking tickets which you will be aware may recover only actual charges incurred or rely on a dubious contractual agreement between carpark owner and driver. I am not aware in this case of any statute, contractual agreement, nor indeed damages in this case which would justify the charge which you are seeking to make, akin to the issuance of a penalty ticket.

 

As you are aware pre action court protocols under CPR apply equally to all parties, to enable us to properly prepare any defence in any proposed litigation we require you to furnish us with a breakdown of costs applicable to the fees you have demanded. To include manually intervened operations, materials, what percentage of the fee will be retained by RLP, what percentage of the fee is given to your clients, how the fees are calculated, and who has the discretion to discount early payments.

The breakdown should be clear concise,and show that the costs are in proportion to the fees demanded,and therefore not a penalty in common law which seeks to duly enrich by profit. And as previously requested, again details of evidence you have for the incident and any details, documents, records attributable to your claim.

 

Should you take us to Court, we will make application for full disclosure.

 

We also reserve the right to make a copy of the request to the court at a later date if appropriate.

 

In the absence of you failing to furnish us with the information that we request within 21 days, you should consider our letter to be our final response and the matter closed.

Edited January 9, 2009 by juliusceasor
typos

[juliusceasor]

My friend received a response today if you want the full text I can post it here but mainly they state the following:

 

"..draw your attention to Mr Justice Ramsey para 123 of the judgement Bridge UK.com Ltd v Abbey Pynford [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC) we interpret this as authority that the court is prepared to take a broad-brush approach to assessing staff-time claims of relatively low value. We reject the proposition that detailed records are either necessary or proportionate in the instant case; it is suggested that the witness evidence of the staff member concerned is entirely sufficient for the court to assess damages. We maintain that were it not for the actions of individuals that cause losses to retailers such as our client then there would be no need for security personnel. Given this scenario we respectfully suggest that our client's losses do indeed amount to losses that are sustained in the mitigation and or investigation of a tort.

 

Given that there are no recorded time-costs to disclose we do not consider an application for pre-action disclosure (to obtain time-records) to be valid or appropriate, and hence the same will be vigorously defended. Furthermore, we respectfully refer you to the provisons of CPR.r.31.1(2) which states that the small claims track is exempt from the provisions of CPR Part 31. Clearly this would be a small claims track matter given the value of the claim.

 

Since all attempts to reach settlement have failed, our client has no option than to pass this matter to a debt recovery company."

 

 

 

Now, my research so far would suggest they are being less than truthful in their use of this case in so much as the judge reluctantly actually allowed the claim for management time less 20% and only after the submitting of a calculation of the hours spent and an hourly rate for the manager in question. Further this claim was for substantial loss value separate to which they applied for loss of time time spent on dealing with this separately. This is not the same as in the case of dealing with day to day activities.

 

I do find their manner and attitude both bullying, intimidatory, rude and arrogant.

Their assumption of judge jury and executioner and then to submit the debt for recovery before establishing it is beyond me.

 

Now as they intimate their action is a small claims track route do they have to progress this route before the debt can be established and passed to a debt recovery agency? or are they expecting the debt recovery agency to issue court proceedings? if so then will they have to establish in court the claim is justified? But as they haven't documents to support their claim for costs how can they establish them. Initially they were stating they didn't have to support them and now they are using case law that implies they would have to establish them as in the case now cited and yet they admit they can't support this.

 

If my friend offers to settle for £? then that fulfills the small claims requirement to try to settle first. As they don't have to provide evidence in a small claims court then it would be best if my friend shows that she has suffered financially and otherwise and the intended action is persecutory without any respect for her account of what occurred in court and as it is informal how sympathetic would the court be to her plight?

Plus they are again implying her actions caused an initial loss to the retailer before the losses incurred in management/security time, which hasn't been established or investigated either.

 

I'll go and do some more digging meanwhile, thoughts on the next step anyone?

Edited January 25, 2009 by juliusceasor
typos

[Sidewinder]

Whilst waiting for somebody with far greater knowledge of civil proceedings and their interpretation of the letter to pass comment, I have to say that this seems to be largely bluff and bluster. It is reminiscent of the type of letters which private parking companies send out to victims, and by using legal jargon and largely irrelevant case law they hope that the recipient will feel pressured into paying up. My guess is that when push comes to shove they would not take this to Court for fear that they would have the claim dismissed and risk damaging their whole business as a result. I doubt that this will go beyond a few threatening letters from debt recovery agents who will inflate the 'debt' with costs before they give up and return the matter to RLP. By this time (and certainly if using their own model for calculating wasted staff time costs) they will have spent more than they were hoping to claim.

 

RLP can pass this to a debt collection agency at any time, however they may only take action to enforce payment after the case has been successful at Court. Your friend is therefore perfectly free to tell them to get lost should she receive letters from them.

[juliusceasor]

Whilst waiting for somebody with far greater knowledge of civil proceedings and their interpretation of the letter to pass comment, I have to say that this seems to be largely bluff and bluster. It is reminiscent of the type of letters which private parking companies send out to victims, and by using legal jargon and largely irrelevant case law they hope that the recipient will feel pressured into paying up.

 

Yes I broadly agree thank you. However I would like to give a final response that would save my friend the inconvenience of the debt collector letters so ultimately either RLP take her to court or they p*off would be the ideal outcome (As a last resort when she moves she doesn't have to leave a forwarding address which may delay the debtor company making contact).

 

It is clear however that despite asking for evidence to support her disagreement with their claim RLP took no notice whatsoever of this and are solely intent in extorting money under the guise of legal hogwash. I hope the sooner this is brought to and quashed in court or at the very least made so unlikely for RLP to make a return by consumer action such as prepaired letters of response the better.

[juliusceasor]

I am thinking along the lines of the following but I don't know whether to provide argument against their use of case law or save that for the small claims court if it unlikely goes there.

 

Further to your ultimatum letter 19 January 2009.

 

I have looked at the case law you have provided and whilst it is interesting bears no relevance to this case and your use of this and other case law are disregarding the amount and value of the cases they represent. Further the case law you refer to was on the basis of a calculation for management time and effort in dealing with the issue separate to their normal duties, at the reluctance of the judge and reduced by 20%. You have neither established this to be the case or as you have disclosed have any supporting documents or evidence to support this time spent and hourly rates.

Despite your arrogant opinion to the contrary you are neither judge or jury in deciding case law precedence and therefore the outcome of your action with me. Therefore I suggest you take your arrogance and proceed to the small claims court to establish your claim or desist in further aggressive and intimidatory contact.

 

The threat of debt collector action is regrettable on your part and is of no concern to me, you well know that without court judgement in your favour the debt has not been established nor is it enforceable. This is mere bully boy tactics that I will hold as evidence against you, as you are no doubt aware The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing ";alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner".. The manner in which you are threatening me with such action clearly falls within this act.

 

You have seven days to either furnish the information requested or you should consider this matter finally closed.

Edited January 28, 2009 by juliusceasor
additional supporting fact

[juliusceasor]

Bumped - can anyone offer any advice please?

[juliusceasor]

We have received the following response.

 

The claim made against you is not a claim for a "debt". It is a claim for damages.

- news to me since they were going to pass it to a debt collecting agency per their last correspondence.???

 

We have followed the general pre-action protocol applicable in this case. In particular, we have set out the legal and factual basis for our clients claim for damages, and we have invited you to respond. -which we have????

This is in compliance with the court rules and therefore we simply do not understand your reference to the Administration of Justice Act or suggestion that our correspondence amounts to a demand calculated to cause you "alarm, distress or humiliation. -sending in debt collectors before establishing a debt is owed isn't that alarming??? when theyknow full well the "debt (that now isn't a debt)" is in dispute!!!

 

We have only addressed the issues raised which have a legal basis, any other points not answered are not relevant to this case. -again their view of case law and relevancy disregarding any other view.

 

Your options are now: -and note Debt collection agency not mentioned....

 

1 Pay the amount now currently claimed -(not now owed??...)

2 Contact our collections department to set up an instalment plan if you are unable to repay the full amount all at once

 

Failure to settle this claim within 14 days from date of this letter will result in further action being taken against you. -so now it is unspecified action of unknown import or relevance. The only action surely is to proceed to small claims..???

 

 

If it is not felt due to the limited responses that this forum is the appropriate one could it be moved to the debt forum by a moderator please??

Edited February 13, 2009 by juliusceasor
moderator attention...

[MARTIN3030]

I will move this thread into consumer issues since theres at least 3 other similar ongoing cases there.

 

 

So they are sying that this is a damages claim ?

Which requires a little longer under CPR pre action protocols.

They do not appear to be addressing your main points though do they ?

This is a civil recovery action.

You are right to maintain that they should provide you with proof that their fees represent a true reflection to any loss.That they are a genuine pre estimate of that.

 

For the record here are some points of interest that are relevant to your arguement.

 

The court will exercise its powers under paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 with the object of placing the innocent party in no worse a position than he would have been in if the protocol had been complied with.

3.1

 

A claimant may be found to have failed to comply with a protocol by, for example:

(a) not having provided sufficient information to the defendant, or

 

(b) not having followed the procedure required by the protocol to be followed (e.g. not having followed the medical expert instruction procedure set out in the Personal Injury Protocol).

 

 

3.2

 

A defendant may be found to have failed to comply with a protocol by, for example:

(a) not making a preliminary response to the letter of claim within the time fixed for that purpose by the relevant protocol (21 days under the Personal Injury Protocol, 14 days under the Clinical Negligence Protocol),

 

(b) not making a full response within the time fixed for that purpose by the relevant protocol (3 months of the letter of claim under the Clinical Negligence Protocol, 3 months from the date of acknowledgement of the letter of claim under the Personal Injury Protocol),

 

© not disclosing documents required to be disclosed by the relevant protocol.

 

 

3.3

 

The court is likely to treat this practice direction as indicating the normal, reasonable way of dealing with disputes. If proceedings are issued and parties have not complied with this practice direction or a specific protocol, it will be for the court to decide whether sanctions should be applied.

 

3.4

 

The court is not likely to be concerned with minor infringements of the practice direction or protocols. The court is likely to look at the effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally,under OFT guidelines on debt collection you are quite right to demand that you are furnished with the information that you request.

[juliusceasor]

double posted by mistake

Edited February 14, 2009 by juliusceasor

[juliusceasor]

So they are sying that this is a damages claim ?

Which requires a little longer under CPR pre action protocols.

They do not appear to be addressing your main points though do they ?

It has been variously a claim for costs, a tort, considered a debt ( to request it be recovered by a debt collecting agency)

No they don't however they state CPR.r.31.1(2) states small claims track is exempt from the provisions of CPR part31, and clearly this would be a small claims track matter

 

This is a civil recovery action.

You are right to maintain that they should provide you with proof that their fees represent a true reflection to any loss.That they are a genuine pre estimate of that.

 

For the record here are some points of interest that are relevant to your arguement.

 

The court will exercise its powers under paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 with the object of placing the innocent party in no worse a position than he would have been in if the protocol had been complied with.

3.1

 

A claimant may be found to have failed to comply with a protocol by, for example:

(a) not having provided sufficient information to the defendant, or

 

To date they have not supported their claim with any actual supporting documentation, in fact their previous letter and I quote"

We reject the proposition that detailed records are either necessary or proportionate in the instant case; it is suggested that the witness evidence of the staff member concerned is entirely sufficient for the court to assess damages. We maintain that were it not for the actions of individuals that cause losses to retailers such as our client then there would be no need for security personnel. Given this scenario we respectfully suggest that our client's losses do indeed amount to losses that are sustained in the mitigation and or investigation of a tort.

 

Given that there are no recorded time-costs to disclose we do not consider an application for pre-action disclosure (to obtain time-records) to be valid or appropriate, and hence the same will be vigorously defended. Furthermore, we respectfully refer you to the provisons of CPR.r.31.1(2) which states that the small claims track is exempt from the provisions of CPR Part 31. Clearly this would be a small claims track matter given the value of the claim.

They have no recorded time-costs yet clearly this was a factor in the judgment in the case they are citing.

3.2

 

A defendant may be found to have failed to comply with a protocol by, for example:

(a) not making a preliminary response to the letter of claim within the time fixed for that purpose by the relevant protocol (21 days under the Personal Injury Protocol, 14 days under the Clinical Negligence Protocol),

Well we have done that and submitted a defense as per CPR to which as you noted earlier they did not acknowledge.

 

I am a little perplexed by their letter to be honest. As I have provided a defense and I still dispute this (on behalf my friend I use the I) it would appear to me as stalemate.

Perhaps a letter along the lines of: I have complied with CPR pre action protocol I have requested as part of this protocol your proof which you have stated you are unable to provide. I refute your claim and dispute it therfore threatening me with Debt collectors is pointless and remains harrassment if you pursue this course of action.

 

I therefore conclude that this matter is now closed.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes you should say that in the absence of them providing you with evidence that the costs are reasonable,fair and a genuine pre estimate,they have failed to demonstrate that there would be any case to answer.

In the event that they do litigate,you will be making copies of all correspondence available to the Court,and applying on notice for full disclosure of the costs associated with their alleged loss.

This is your final response on the matter.

[juliusceasor]

Draft letter

 

I have complied with CPR pre action protocol and I have requested as part of this protocol your proof which you have stated you are unable to provide. In the absence of you providing me with evidence that the costs are reasonable, fair and a genuine pre estimate, you have failed to demonstrate that there would be any case to answer.

 

In the event that you do litigate, I will be making copies of all correspondence available to the Court, and applying on notice for full disclosure of the costs associated with the alleged loss. However I remind you that you disclosed that you do not have this evidence as per your letter 19th January.

 

I refute your claim and dispute it therfore threatening me with Debt collectors is pointless and remains harrassment if you were to pursue this course of action.

 

Subject to notice from the court of any further action I consider the matter closed and this will be my final response.

[juliusceasor]

Letter sent to OFT following ScarletPimpernel's post in Retail Loss Prevention (RLP)

"Just off the phone to the OFT, who confirm that Retail Loss Prevention Ltd have no Consumer Credit Licence - it lapsed in Nov 08. This means that they are committing a criminal offence by continuing to trade without a licence."

 

Dear Sirs,

 

My friend is being harassed by a company called Retail Loss Prevention which themselves say it is registered with a consumer credit license. It has come to my attention that this license expired in November 2008 and since that time they have been threatening my friend with debt recovery company action.

 

It is my understanding that trading without a consumer credit license is a criminal act and I dutifully request that you investigate RLP limited, PO Box 5413 Nottingham NG7 2BJ

Registered office 16 Regent Street, Nottingham NG1 5BQ company registered 4802733 vat registered 817 565 311

 

I am happy to furnish upon request copies of letters sent from this company during the period since their consumer credit license expired.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Thank you ScarletP

 

 

Reply from OFT

 

part of their Generic reply stated this..

 

Please Note:

 

The OFT is in the process of implementing a new Consumer Credit Licensing IT system and there are currently delays with the processing of licence applications. A consequence of these delays is that we are receiving a large increase in the volume of telephone and e-mail enquiries to our Licensing Enquiries Team. Whilst every effort is being made to respond to these enquiries as soon as possible, we regret that some delays are likely to occur. Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

Edited February 24, 2009 by juliusceasor
updated information.

[MARTIN3030]

But there is nothing in pending on their website.There has always been delays.Thames credit (Aktive Kapital) their licence expired also at the back end of last year but shows as being reapplied for.In the case of RLP theres nothing.

[JonCris]

Just a thought but if a DCA phones demanding money, & even though a private citizen, it would be perfectly legitimate for you to demand a copy of THEIR Consumer Credit License before you'll even considering discussing matters:D

[MARTIN3030]

Yes agree.

Although they would probably ask you to cover the costs.

[MARTIN3030]

Looks like RLPs Website is experiencing some ...ahem ...technical problems and has mysteriously gone down.

[juliusceasor]

Looks like RLPs Website is experiencing some ...ahem ...technical problems and has mysteriously gone down.

 

 

all the W's .lossprevention.co.uk/index.asp I think they changed the site?

[MARTIN3030]

Its hardly a shock !!