Tweet
DISCUSS THIS STORY --> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?35418-Civil-Recovery-Firm-lashes-out-at-Consumer-Forums-after-Court-defeat
Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat
In common with other consumer groups we have become increasingly concerned with the growing number of people seeking help and advice regarding civil demands for money sent by civil recovery companies representing major high street retail stores following instances of petty theft or alleged petty theft.
As with any other responsible consumer group we do not condone theft of any kind - least of all because the practice inevitably drives up the cost of goods for all consumers. However the lawfulness of these demands is, as yet, unclear. We and others believe that many of these demands are at best questionable and at worst unlawful. Some have described this industry as a ''parallel justice system'' or ''speculative invoicing''.
In May of this year, along with other consumer groups, we reported on the case of A retailer v Ms B & Ms K at Oxford County Court which is, to our knowledge, one of the first examples of these demands to be contested in court. Although the transcripts of the judgment are yet to be made available we know that HHJ Charles Harris dismissed the case in its entirety and found for the defendants. As a County Court case the judgment is not binding, however the general feeling amongst consumer groups is that it does not bode well for the civil recovery industry.
You can read the case summary here - Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
Earlier this month we received a letter from privacy lawyers, Schillings, on behalf of their clients Retail Loss Prevention Ltd (RLP), which we can only describe as purposely designed to be threatening and intimidating. It makes numerous accusations against us and some of our members including a ''vindictive campaign of harassment'' and ''defamation'' as well as making demands of us to supply the personal information of some of our members who posted comments which Schillings deemed less than flattering of their client.
We are now aware that Legal Beagles are not the only group in this position. Several other consumer groups have also received similar letters as well as the Citizens Advice Bureau (who published a scathing report on the industry last year - Uncivil Recovery), one of CAB's employees, http://thejusticegap.com/ and the solicitors acting for the defendants in the case linked above.
The common denominator of the recipients of the letters appears to be the reporting of RLP's lost court case and we believe that through Schillings, RLP are intent on stifling as much publicity on the adverse judgment as possible.
View the full letter (PDF)
After careful consideration we have decided to publish the letter which you can read in full below. We have not done this out of some sense of bohemian bravado or for our own amusement but to lay bare an issue that we think people should know about and we leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions. Mr Dunstan is aware of, and supports our decision to publish.
In openly publishing the letter and the story behind it our approach is unashamedly in stark contrast to Schillings, a firm whose website proudly boasts that 'we prefer to negotiate solutions out of the spotlight'.
View our Civil Recovery forum for more discussion and information.
DISCUSS THIS STORY --> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...r-Court-defeat
+++ Read our formal response to Schillings here ++++
Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat
In common with other consumer groups we have become increasingly concerned with the growing number of people seeking help and advice regarding civil demands for money sent by civil recovery companies representing major high street retail stores following instances of petty theft or alleged petty theft.
As with any other responsible consumer group we do not condone theft of any kind - least of all because the practice inevitably drives up the cost of goods for all consumers. However the lawfulness of these demands is, as yet, unclear. We and others believe that many of these demands are at best questionable and at worst unlawful. Some have described this industry as a ''parallel justice system'' or ''speculative invoicing''.
In May of this year, along with other consumer groups, we reported on the case of A retailer v Ms B & Ms K at Oxford County Court which is, to our knowledge, one of the first examples of these demands to be contested in court. Although the transcripts of the judgment are yet to be made available we know that HHJ Charles Harris dismissed the case in its entirety and found for the defendants. As a County Court case the judgment is not binding, however the general feeling amongst consumer groups is that it does not bode well for the civil recovery industry.
You can read the case summary here - Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
Earlier this month we received a letter from privacy lawyers, Schillings, on behalf of their clients Retail Loss Prevention Ltd (RLP), which we can only describe as purposely designed to be threatening and intimidating. It makes numerous accusations against us and some of our members including a ''vindictive campaign of harassment'' and ''defamation'' as well as making demands of us to supply the personal information of some of our members who posted comments which Schillings deemed less than flattering of their client.
We are now aware that Legal Beagles are not the only group in this position. Several other consumer groups have also received similar letters as well as the Citizens Advice Bureau (who published a scathing report on the industry last year - Uncivil Recovery), one of CAB's employees, http://thejusticegap.com/ and the solicitors acting for the defendants in the case linked above.
The common denominator of the recipients of the letters appears to be the reporting of RLP's lost court case and we believe that through Schillings, RLP are intent on stifling as much publicity on the adverse judgment as possible.
View the full letter (PDF)
After careful consideration we have decided to publish the letter which you can read in full below. We have not done this out of some sense of bohemian bravado or for our own amusement but to lay bare an issue that we think people should know about and we leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions. Mr Dunstan is aware of, and supports our decision to publish.
In openly publishing the letter and the story behind it our approach is unashamedly in stark contrast to Schillings, a firm whose website proudly boasts that 'we prefer to negotiate solutions out of the spotlight'.
View our Civil Recovery forum for more discussion and information.
DISCUSS THIS STORY --> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...r-Court-defeat
+++ Read our formal response to Schillings here ++++
)
Comment