Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[michael]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

There's very little either for Civil Recovery or RLP on MSE and posters are often directed to CAG or here.

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

There's very little either for Civil Recovery or RLP on MSE

That's what I thought but I had a look earlier and although they don't have a dedicated forum on the subject a quick search will bring up loads of RLP threads all over the site including this one which although was closed after six pages, I'm genuinely surprised that the first post is still there as in my book it's unacceptable. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&highlight=rlp

[Tools]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18611977

[DBC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

That's what I thought but I had a look earlier and although they don't have a dedicated forum on the subject a quick search will bring up loads of RLP threads all over the site including this one which although was closed after six pages, I'm genuinely surprised that the first post is still there as in my book it's unacceptable. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&highlight=rlp

As well as the threads on MSE there is at least one on PePiPoo. On my postings on those threads I have drawn a parallel between loss prevention companies and those of private parking companies. They both use similar tactics. These include claiming amounts of money that bear no relation to the actual loss suffered by (in the case of PPCs) the car park owner, and the use of letters that threaten all types of nastiness, such as CCJs and bailiffs.

[Guest]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Schillings tactics of ''showering defamation writs'' on consumer groups such as...Legal Beagles

Could one put Legal Beagles into 'ownership' of a fictional person, or similar?

To claim defamation would involve proving mal intent against subject of statement/s.
People at Legal Beagles, IF THEY WERE IN THE WRONG AT ALL, could simply be:-
- mistaken,
- misinformed
- over-enthusiastic,
- mentally deficient,
or
- using emotional device to cause another or others to stand up for themselves

So, BIG CORP 1 would have to get to individual, sue them and prove mal intent.
So, unless you think BIG CORP can get through all of this, you can shred those writs...................

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

I mean, it's not about 'Legal Beagles' - is it?
It's about individual comments by individual commentators.
The company accusing would then have to target those individuals one by one, if it knew who they were.

I take your point but the reality is that contrary to Denis MacShane's quote, no writs have actually been issued.

But I think that principally it is about Legal Beagles as save for a court order the site is the gate keeper to the identities of the individuals. And Beagles would be equally liable for any defamatory comments posted.

[Guest]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

HI
I think we should be a little careful here when we talk of extortion and blackmail.
These companies are guilty of neither, and frankly to use language like this does the cause no good IMO.
They are using an established legal process in order to gain recompense for perceived damages. As far as we are concerned the amount of damages claimed is not representative to the actual losses.
The other legitimate argument is, was there in fact conversion if there was no prosecution for theft
The judge in the recent case did say that the Aerospace ruling was significant, so the value of the losses is an issue.
These are the points in issue in my opinion.
As far as the law is concerned and in particular criminal law they are doing nothing wrong, we make a big mistake in suggesting otherwise.
IMO
D

[leclerc]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Davy, you are convicted of no criminal offence and are asked to pay £400.00, for example.
Do you suggest that this is not merely a legal threat letter which may include threats to bankrupt you if you don't?

Interpretation by some is that it is a legal threat...

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

HI


The judge in the recent case did say that the Aerospace ruling was significant, so the value of the losses is an issue.

D

Yes the value of the loss is the issue. RLP routinely issues claims for exactly £137.40 time and time again so if it isn't an accurate account of the actual loss in each case, what is it? An arbitrary and necessarily inaccurate predetermined figure.

[messimoo]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

quote me if I am wrong but I thaught no bankrupcy under 750.00

[Guest]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Perhaps a FOI would be good to find out how they come about that figure, or do you think that could be construed as threatening ?

They are quite clear about how they arrive at the figure. They say that the average cost of processing a shoplifter is well over £300 so this is mearly a token payment towards the cost.

It completely flies in the face of all common law, which states that damages must reflect actual losses but this is their argument.

D

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Thanks for the comments on the nature of RLP's demands. It is not for LB to decide whether RLP's actions are lawful or not. But it is clear that their business model is painfully reliant on consumer ignorance.
It is estimated Civil Recovery companies succeed in gaining payment in up to 40% of demands sent out. Therefore 60% do not pay, presumably because they realised that just as currently there is NO law to stop RLP sending these demands, there is equally no law to force people to pay them either.

Therefore consumer ignorance is an ESSENTIAL part of the business model.

Hence the attempt to 'pour libel chill' on Consumer organisations. Citizens Advice Bureau, The Justice Gap, The Consumer Action Group, Bates, Wells and Braithwaite and Legal Beagles.

To be honest, right now, I'd rather this debate was about libel reform than the desperate attempts by RLP to extend their business lifespan.

There is a hell of a lot of work and campaigning to be done on the Bill.

http://www.libelreform.org/
http://www.englishpen.org/

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

They are quite clear about how they arrive at the figure. They say that the average cost of processing a shoplifter is well over £300 so this is mearly a token payment towards the cost.

It completely flies in the face of all common law, which states that damages must reflect actual losses but this is their argument.

D

In other words the figure is based not on what it actually is but is based entirely on what they say.

[Guest]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Thanks for the comments on the nature of RLP's demands. It is not for LB to decide whether RLP's actions are lawful or not. But it is clear that their business model is painfully reliant on consumer ignorance.
It is estimated Civil Recovery companies succeed in gaining payment in up to 40% of demands sent out. Therefore 60% do not pay, presumably because they realised that just as currently there is NO law to stop RLP sending these demands, there is equally no law to force people to pay them either.

Therefore consumer ignorance is an ESSENTIAL part of the business model.

Hence the attempt to 'pour libel chill' on Consumer organisations. Citizens Advice Bureau, The Justice Gap, The Consumer Action Group, Bates, Wells and Braithwaite and Legal Beagles.

To be honest, right now, I'd rather this debate was about libel reform than the desperate attempts by RLP to extend their business lifespan.

There is a hell of a lot of work and campaigning to be done on the Bill.

http://www.libelreform.org/
http://www.englishpen.org/

I agree that ignorance is part of their business model, there is a law which allows people to reclaim damages of course.

As for debating the legislation, yes lets, but i thought this thread was about the narrower issue of the RLP, and their attempts to silence criticism of the operating practices.

Of course at the end of the day it is about whatever you say it is about.

D

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

You're right actually. This thread is about whatever people want to discuss so long as it's at least relevant to what we've been experiencing over the last two weeks!

I guess I've spent the day with some amazingly committed people at the Campaign for Libel Reform debate and I suppose that my eyes have been opened wider. RLP must remain high on our radar because clearly they are determined to fight hard. But I also feel convinced and reassured after listening to Denis Macshane MP and Simon Hughes MP, that their business is soon to disappear.

So truthfully, to me now, the biggest issue this summer is getting this libel reform bill improved considerably.