Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

[Guest]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Think I will go with a reply like Andy has suggested keep it simple

Yes I only do simple

[MissFM]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Another little thought as an aside is that: as a retail trader "Game" is forbidden by law from (re)selling the items that Beagleman took from the bin - but Beagleman IS allowed by law to (re)sell such freebies as a private person....NO financial loss to "Game" (just pique, perhaps, that they can't legally do the same). So whilst it's worth nothing to "Game", BM can quite legitimately make money from it once it becomes his (as can any other private recipient). "Game" is trying to lay claim to money that it could not legally obtain in the normal course of things.

Wish I could put this better but hope you get the gist :ohwell: x

[charitynjw]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

At the risk of sounding cliched, at the end of the day it's got to be your decision, beagleman.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

By prosecuting CRS privately? That could be horrendously expensive in itself and, considering the burden of proof in a criminal case, about as likely to succeed as the Pope would be to convert to Islam.

As you quite rightly say, Cloggy, attempting a private criminal prosecution on your own, without any knowledge of the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice System is an absolute no-no. Criminal Law is a very complex area of English Law. I've worked in it. The Private Prosecution Service (PPS) undertake private prosecutions on a paid-for and pro bono basis.

CR operators sail extremely close to the wind, in the legal sense, and, in some cases, I would say they cross the line. Making allegations against another when there is either no evidence to support the allegations or demanding money when there are no grounds in law for doing so - which includes speculative invoicing - is harassment at best. Remember that in Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading [2009], BGT made demands they had no right in law to make and threats of legal action they had no right in law to make. Ferguson brought civil proceedings under the civil remedy provisions of Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, albeit that making an unwarranted demand and, at the time of doing so, using menaces (threats) as a means of enforcing it is a criminal offence. Sometimes, the easier route can be the better way of dealing with something like BGT's conduct, as it proved in Ferguson's case. There is no reason why it cannot be used against CR operators who make speculative demands, whilst preying on people's vulnerabilities. A lot of the threads I have seen on LB, involving CR operators, would fall at the first hurdle if the CR operator/retailer pursued the matter through a criminal court due to reasonable doubt. Also, in cases brought under Section 3, PfHA, the onus is on the defendant to prove their conduct was/is reasonable in the circumstances.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

The result of this has been the production of a letter (post 129) in which Beagleman states, "You are further put on notice that you make unlawful threats against me, which fall outside of legal protection, and I reserve my position as to whether I will pursue you, and/or your "client" (assuming it is true you act for them), in the criminal and civil jurisdictions."

Now let's assume he pursues this action, given that we know as fact CAB and other major advice organisations have taken HUGE interest in civil recovery, and not suggested the actions you have above, he could open himself up to vast legal costs when / if he loses the case.

This is my major concern with this form of advice. If it is going to be given, it should come with an absolutely massive warning or caveat. I am sure that if these avenues were there to be realistically tested, CAB etc... would have done so by now. Advising LB members these avenues exist in theory could lead to them being guinea pigs in this process, testing legislation that may or may not apply. This is not helpful.

The above is purely my opinion, but if I were the OP I would be very cautious of people who post with vast authority, when they may well not be correct in their line of thought.

The letter you refer to was found on a thread on LB. I will try and find it and provide a link.

PPCs are a different kettle of fish to CR operators. TBH, I would guard against trying to find similarities. CR operators require a different approach to PPCs for which there appears to be a clearly-defined path for dealing with their demands.

The vulnerabilities CR operators prey on are shame, confusion and those with physical and mental health and handicap issues. I do agree with you that CR operators demands are of a dubious nature or have no legal standing whatsoever.

As for your argument that CR operators should not be forced to register under the Legal Services Act 2007, whilst you do not explain your reasons, I doubt any of them would be allowed to register, due to the very nature of their modus operandi and the probable damage it would cause to the legal profession. However, that does not address the very real problem of aggressive and misleading practices for which legislation exists to deal with such practices. My gut-feeling is that if a CR operator was proceeded against under the applicable legislation, they would have difficulty convincing a court that their practices were not aggressive or misleading.

Viewing a case in one dimension - prima face - can result in important issues being missed that might otherwise indicate an OP is being unfairly pilloried or hasn't a cat in hell's chance of defending a case. I know you may disagree, but it is best to look at a case in a somewhat cold and clinical way, dissect it, see what's making its heart beat and then work from there. That is the way I was trained to deal with cases. You may not agree with it, but all avenues have to be investigated to find the nub of a case.

Beagleman is, I am sure, an intelligent individual who would seek as much information as possible and consider options, but at the end of the day, any reasonable person would seek professional legal advice before committing themselves to litigation.

I would also implore you not to post remarks of the nature you have in para 2 of your post, unless you have the evidence to support such remarks. Such remarks are unhelpful unless supported by real evidence.

[Guest]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Ahem yes well, as i say I am a simple soul. This is a civil matter since the police are not involved ?

So really we should I think just be talking civil law.

As far as I can see they have no actionable tort since there was no unlawful interference or trespass to goods, so that is that.

[labman]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Bluebottle, I think that post is best totally ignored. You have a habit of relying on a 'gut feeling' and quoting criminal legislation in contexts where their use would be entirely inappropriate. I don't intend to say any more on the subject, and would suggest you try to accept that much of what was said earlier was not sound counsel.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Ahem yes well, as i say I am a simple soul. This is a civil matter since the police are not involved ?

So really we should I think just be talking civil law.

As far as I can see they have no actionable tort since their was no unlawful interference or trespass to goods, so that is that.

Once again, I have to agree with you, Andy. What should be a simple employment contract matter has been perverted into potential civil litigation by a CR operator who is sailing so close to the wind, in the legal sense, it is unbelievable.

What is remarkable is that the CR operator has made statements in their correspondence which the OP knows are untrue in their attempts to extract money they are not entitled to demand for the benefit of themselves and another, i.e. the OP's former employer. Although the law enforcement and regulatory agencies have legislation to deal with aggressive and misleading practices by businesses, they will always have the Criminal Law as a fall-back option, as and where it is necessary or desirable, usually where a business's practices are so seriously-wrong they infringe the Criminal Law.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Unpleasant though the actions of CRS undoubtedly are, I would seriously doubt that they have (yet) become so oppressive as to ensure a payment of even minimal damages - let alone secure a criminal conviction.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

Unpleasant though the actions of CRS undoubtedly are, I would seriously doubt that they have (yet) become so oppressive as to ensure a payment of even minimal damages - let alone secure a criminal conviction.

Let's see what CRS's next desperate attempt to extract money from the OP brings.

[des8]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

BB, CC are you anticipating another muzzling attempt by Schillings or similar?:spit:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

I doubt they'd be so schilly.

[Celestine]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

I doubt they'd be so schilly.

No, but repeatedly stating on the forum that certain companies have committed criminal acts in addition to civil wrongs, leaves me personally at far greater risk of such threats.

Personally, I'd only like to see criminal conduct referred to when Absolutely Essential.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

No, but repeatedly stating on the forum that certain companies have committed criminal acts in addition to civil wrongs, leaves me personally at far greater risk of such threats.

Personally, I'd only like to see criminal conduct referred to when Absolutely Essential.

I'd be inclined to agree but would add that I rarely - if ever - would make such an accusation.

[labman]

Re: Caught Stealing from Work, Letter from CRS

I'd be inclined to agree but would add that I rarely - if ever - would make such an accusation.

I don't think it was referring to you CC. It may even have been a generic comment following suggestions of criminal offences earlier in this thread.