Tweet
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 it was 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, The Justice Gap, 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.
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 the full letter (PDF)
View our Civil Recovery forum for more information.
Read the Oxford CC case Judgment http://www.legalbeagles.info/ApprovedJudgment.pdf
And the Appeal - http://www.legalbeagles.info/ARetailervMsB09052012.pdf
With huge thanks to the ConsumerActionGroup for obtaining the transcripts.
--- You can view Legal Beagles response to Schillings Letter here and below -----
Dear Sirs
Legal Beagles
We act for Legal Beagles and refer to your letters addressed to our client of 7 June 2012 and 20 June 2012.
The nature of any internet forum is to display the personal views of individuals for the consumption of others and our client's forum was created for this purpose. It is denied that the posts made by our client's members on their website amount to a ''vindictive campaign'' against your client. So far as we can derive, they are merely expressing their honestly held views.
Our client will not remove any further posts or content from its website unless it breaches its own online website policy. Further, our client will not be blocking the profiles of any users of its website and will not disclose the IP addresses and any/or other personal information of the users complained of. Such information would only be disclosed if ordered to do so by the court.
Turning to your letter.
"To harass as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, is to "torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation. The conduct must be unacceptable to a degree which would sustain criminal liability and also must be oppressive."
Per Pill LJ, and Bennett and Field JJs in R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123, at Paragraph 29. That is an awfully high bar that your client cannot surmount.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...rassment/#a02a.
In your letter, you state that "Posters" using our client's forum make a number of inaccurate and defamatory allegations and go on to list 7 such allegations. You do not, however, provide the statements from which you derive these allegations. We fail to understand how our client could be expected to understand the meanings you attribute to the postings on their forum if our client is not provided with the alleged defamatory statements. Our client is happy to allow you to post responses to any inaccuracies and it would certainly add to the debate.
You have inappropriately labelled your letter of 7 June 2012 that it is not for publication, when in fact your complaint is about publication. By publishing the contents of your letter of 7 June 2012, our client is permitting the public see what you would like to censor just as intended in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 1805.
The intimidatory nature of your letter mirrors the conduct of your client. Further, your correspondence only serves to strengthen our client's resolve in continuing to help the victims of your client's business activities and to report on, discuss and expose their unsavoury tactics as our client sees fit.
We dispute the veracity of the statements made in your letter. We do not accept that this is harassment, nor do we see this as a campaign. We see this is as public information and we are happy to let you put your side to us within 7 days of the date of this letter.
Yours faithfully
Finers Stephens Innocent LLP
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 it was 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, The Justice Gap, 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.
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 the full letter (PDF)
View our Civil Recovery forum for more information.
Read the Oxford CC case Judgment http://www.legalbeagles.info/ApprovedJudgment.pdf
And the Appeal - http://www.legalbeagles.info/ARetailervMsB09052012.pdf
With huge thanks to the ConsumerActionGroup for obtaining the transcripts.
--- You can view Legal Beagles response to Schillings Letter here and below -----
Dear Sirs
Legal Beagles
We act for Legal Beagles and refer to your letters addressed to our client of 7 June 2012 and 20 June 2012.
The nature of any internet forum is to display the personal views of individuals for the consumption of others and our client's forum was created for this purpose. It is denied that the posts made by our client's members on their website amount to a ''vindictive campaign'' against your client. So far as we can derive, they are merely expressing their honestly held views.
Our client will not remove any further posts or content from its website unless it breaches its own online website policy. Further, our client will not be blocking the profiles of any users of its website and will not disclose the IP addresses and any/or other personal information of the users complained of. Such information would only be disclosed if ordered to do so by the court.
Turning to your letter.
- Richard Dunstan
- The thrust of your letter largely relates to a grievance against a Mr Richard Dunstan. We are at a loss to understand why your client's complaints against Mr Dunstan are directed at our client who was not a member of, nor had he ever posted any comment on our client's website. However, it was only after receipt of your letter of 7 June 2012, Mr Dunstan became a member of our client's website. Mr Dunstan's name appears no less than 10 times in your letter yet you fail to explain how he is connected to our client at a time when he was not a member nor had posted.
- We are unclear as to how Mr Dunstan can be the ''ring-leader'' of an ''orchestrated campaign'' which you allege our client has made against your client given that he has no involvement whatsoever with Legal Beagles and has never featured on their website, we would enquire whether this could be because this is a widely made allegation on behalf of your client but not founded in fact or in evidence?
- We view the inclusion of your client's complaint against Mr Dunstan in your letter as a weak attempt to increase the alleged liability of our client by including a wholly unconnected claim. For the reasons set out above, our client is not in a position to provide information about Mr Dunstan or indeed ''restrain'' him as requested in your letter. We will not further address specific points raised in your letter in relation to Mr Dunstan given that he is not our client, has no involvement with our client and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to do so.
- Harassment
- The posts complained of reference Retail Loss Prevention Ltd. A limited company cannot make a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The discussions on our client's website do not constitute conduct towards any identifiable individual which engages the provisions of that Act.
- In any event, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been defined by the Court of Appeal in the following terms:
"To harass as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, is to "torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation. The conduct must be unacceptable to a degree which would sustain criminal liability and also must be oppressive."
Per Pill LJ, and Bennett and Field JJs in R v Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123, at Paragraph 29. That is an awfully high bar that your client cannot surmount.
- The relevant postings on our client's public forum may relate to your client, but they have not been sent directly to your client and therefore cannot amount to constant interference or intimidation of them and could not amount to oppressive and unlawful conduct. It is our view that the postings on our client's forum constitute an expression of opinion relating to your client's conduct. We need not remind you that freedom of expression is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
- Your client's allegations that these forum posts on our client's website amount to a criminal offence shows a lack of understanding of the criminal law. We refer you to the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on Harassment, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...rassment/#a02a.
- It is of course a most serious matter to make unfounded allegations of criminality and is itself defamatory. We are surprised that, despite your client's allegation that ''for the past three years'' their client has been the ''victim of a sustained campaign of harassment and defamation...", your client has only now decided to bring this matter to our client's attention. We note that the timing of your letter coincides with the recent publication of a case summary by Bates Wells & Braithwaite on that firms website which outlines concerns about your client's business in light of their recent unsuccessful civil recovery claim (A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K (Oxford County Court, 9 May 2012)).
- You wrote a further letter to our client on 20 June 2012 and stated that you were ''disappointed to note that you have chosen not to remove the content complained of in our previous letter...''. To be clear, as part of our client's website policy, where there is any dispute relating to content the entire thread complained of is removed immediately from publication. We confirm that our client followed this procedure on receipt of your letter dated 7 June 2012. Our client is genuinely astonished that in your letter of 20 June 2012 you claim that our client has ''chosen'' not to remove it. This is clearly untrue.
- Defamation
In your letter, you state that "Posters" using our client's forum make a number of inaccurate and defamatory allegations and go on to list 7 such allegations. You do not, however, provide the statements from which you derive these allegations. We fail to understand how our client could be expected to understand the meanings you attribute to the postings on their forum if our client is not provided with the alleged defamatory statements. Our client is happy to allow you to post responses to any inaccuracies and it would certainly add to the debate.
- Publication
You have inappropriately labelled your letter of 7 June 2012 that it is not for publication, when in fact your complaint is about publication. By publishing the contents of your letter of 7 June 2012, our client is permitting the public see what you would like to censor just as intended in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 1805.
The intimidatory nature of your letter mirrors the conduct of your client. Further, your correspondence only serves to strengthen our client's resolve in continuing to help the victims of your client's business activities and to report on, discuss and expose their unsavoury tactics as our client sees fit.
We dispute the veracity of the statements made in your letter. We do not accept that this is harassment, nor do we see this as a campaign. We see this is as public information and we are happy to let you put your side to us within 7 days of the date of this letter.
Yours faithfully
Finers Stephens Innocent LLP
Comment