Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[Bill-K]

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

The chameleon is now going for the other 9% then, - the employees - and doing a very good job of making it public that these people are considered to be morally on a par with the Directorship. Best of luck, guys. Every little helps...

[bluebottle]

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

I think defamation regulation is needed, although not in its current form. The position that exists over the pond would be a huge step to far in my opinion.

I read somewhere that the offense in connection with entries on web sites like this is usually regarded akin to slander rather than liable, due to the transitory nature of the information exchange (like a conversation) I think they avoided the term in their letter unless i missed it.
Slander is seldom prosecuted, not to say that it can't be.

D

Slander is extremely difficult, if not, impossible to litigate, under Civil Law, due to it being in spoken and not written form. It is best dealt with as anti-social behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986 as, in some cases, it can lead to public disorder. Libel has to be in published form, whether in print or broadcast, that is, in permanent form. Libel laws exist, chiefly, to provide redress for the individual who has their character and reputation besmirched by another. An example of this is a case involving Tesco wrongfully accusing two women of shoplifting at one of their stores. It went to the Court of Appeal and the two women were each awarded £70,000 in damages plus costs against Tesco. The claim included Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Malicious Prosecution and Damage to Character and Reputation. In criminal trials, witnesses make written statements and the proceedings are recorded onto audio CD, so there is a permanent record. Also, with libel, you have to prove you have actually suffered loss (damage) and that the comments you allege are defamatory are, in fact, untrue. Although it does go on and the practice is reprehensible, commercial concerns do cry "Libel" when someone or a group find they are involved in activity that is unlawful or illegal or potentially unlawful or illegal and bring this to the attention of the public and the regulatory/law enforcement agencies. Can you imagine what would have happened if Barclays had threatened the regulators with libel proceedings for making public the fact they had been fined £290m for rigging the market?

[labman]

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

It came from the USA, except this vital bit was omitted. The First Amendment:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Guest]

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

It came from the USA, except this vital bit was omitted. The First Amendment:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As someone said, you only have to look at u.s. candidates behavior at election time to see why a complete lack of regulation is not a good idea.

D

[EXC]

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

[B]http://www.publications.parliament.u.../120626s01.htm

4.45pm on discusses the case reported on this thread.

This is the contribution from Simon Hughes MP at the Committee debate (didn't know he was a lawyer) who then gave way to Denis MacShane. Simon Hughes was the first MP to raise the issue of Civil Recovery and RLP in the House some time ago.

A big thanks to Celestine for managing to meet with the MPs prior to the debate and persuade them to speak up about this issue on our behalf. This is how democracy should work.

*************************************

Simon Hughes: I rise to speak on the issue that lies behind the new clause. I have initiated Adjournment debates in the House on Retail Loss Prevention, and have worked with colleagues in the Lords on the matter, and I have had several meetings about it over the years with Richard Dunstan of Citizens Advice.

I remain concerned that power is abused by large retail outlets, which use a regular set of solicitors to protect their interest. They pursue normally young and often vulnerable people for small amounts of money, and lead them to believe that other consequences will flow if they do not pay, even though that is not true under the law. Effectively, retail outlets often get large sums from such individuals. If, for example, someone has left a store with a comb or a tube of toothpaste, they are told that unless they pay considerably more than the value of the property—£100 or sometimes £1,000, which accumulates very quickly—they will be guilty under criminal law.

Of course, retailers have to protect stores and the goods in them; I understand that. It is perfectly reasonable for stores to have security people, as long as they act reasonably. There is a real issue here, however, and there is a social malaise in how such companies pursue their interests. Some quite reputable companies are involved, as well as some disreputable ones.

It is clear from correspondence that Schillings, which has written about the case, is trying to represent Mr Dunstan as someone who is on a frolic of his own, pursuing something disreputably, obsessively and almost paranoically. He has been doing a job for a highly reputable organisation, Citizens Advice, with which I have worked over the years and on behalf of which I once sponsored somebody to work with me here. We all know from experience in our constituencies that Citizens Advice has at heart only the best interests of those who come through its doors. I simply want to ask how we stop the big boys and girls attacking the little boys and girls with the back-up of lawyers, who intimidate them and misrepresent the legal position.

In answer to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland’s challenge to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and me, I am not persuaded that the new clause is the right way to deal with the problem, although I understand absolutely that we must do something. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says. I am aware of previous debates on the issue in consideration of the draft Bill, but I certainly do not think the right solution is to make companies go through a separate doorway and an entirely different process that does not apply to individuals. I am keeping an open mind about that.

Mr MacShane: Is it not a fact that, as we speak, across the range of civil laws and torts, companies may be in front of judges, asking for urgent applications, injunctions or hearings? In the hypothetical case of a company that was about to be taken over when something grossly defamatory was said, clearly the company would go to a judge, who would instantly acquiesce to the necessary action being taken. The new clause does not prevent that, but it says to Tesco, Superdrug, TK Maxx and Mrs Lambert that they should not seek to silence genuine concerns about what they are up to by using defamation threats and Schillings.

[kiwicat]

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

Keep going at this one. Well done everyone.:tung:

[Guest]

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-tourism.html

Don't think this is already on here

[Amethyst]

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

Video montage of 27th June rally - including bits of our Celestine's speech
Thanks to Leah and http://www.popbitch.com/home/

[bluebottle]

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

Well spoken, Cel. Very clearly and concisely put across.

[labman]

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

Not bad considering she'd not long since fainted while swooning at some of the male company around! :tung:

[CleverClogs]

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

It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing, by all parties involved, that the case law R.L.P. companies rely on to justify their claims would form the basis of the hearing and was found not to be applicable. I have to agree that a business model that relies on public ignorance of the law is a matter of concern. Trying to stifle those who try to educate the public as to the true legal position by threatening them with an often-abused area of the law in order to preserve that business model is not only morally wrong, but raises questions as to whether those who abuse the law in this way should be denied access to it.

As RLP (Relying on Low Practises?) does not act as the claimant but merely "advises" its clients, there may be some difficulties with making all RLP cases 'vexatious'. There would, however, be a precedent, from when all cases that involved the odious, rarely relevant and excessively long-winded "Dr" Akena Adoko were directed to be heard by the Master of the Rolls.

[CleverClogs]

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

Not bad considering she'd not long since fainted while swooning at some of the male company around! :tung:

Gosh, yes.

It's just as well I wasn't there...

[teaboy2]

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

Well i was hoping they mentioned my username on their letter - Would have wrote back to them personally to give them a shock to their systems. But then i doubt they would want to accuse me of libel/defamation when their own cleints would possibly be found guilty of it. Dishonest Peoples database used to supply details to cleints about cleints job applicants, which is managed by a company connected to RLP (also a director off RLP) - Surely not! lol

Though perhaps Schillings are not even aware of
CIRECO LIMITED

Also worth mentioning is that Mrs Jaqueline Anne Lambert is the second Director of RLP and the Sole Director off Cireco Limited.

Schillings should know better, after all not only is making false accusations libellous, but their cleints actions of sharing personal data allegeding people are dishonest, when they have not be found guilty of such dishonesty, is itself libellous (also cause the data subject detriment) but also a breach of the data protection act 1998 on grounds of sharing inaccurate/untrue information with 3rd parties and where they do not have the permission of the data subject to process their data wether accurate or not.

Something tells me that they failed to mention my username as they maybe knew what i had said was true and they likely would prefer to not have to deal with the above matter in any court proceedings they may decide to issue (Though i believe would be highly unlikely to happen).

[bluebottle]

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

Well i was hoping they mentioned my username on their letter - Would have wrote back to them personally to give them a shock to their systems. But then i doubt they would want to accuse me of libel/defamation when their own cleints would possibly be found guilty of it. Dishonest Peoples database used to supply details to cleints about cleints job applicants, which is managed by a company connected to RLP (also a director off RLP) - Surely not! lol

Though perhaps Schillings are not even aware of
CIRECO LIMITED

Also worth mentioning is that Mrs Jaqueline Anne Lambert is the second Director of RLP and the Sole Director off Cireco Limited.

Schillings should know better, after all not only is making false accusations libellous, but their cleints actions of sharing personal data allegeding people are dishonest, when they have not be found guilty of such dishonesty, is itself libellous (also cause the data subject detriment) but also a breach of the data protection act 1998 on grounds of sharing inaccurate/untrue information with 3rd parties and where they do not have the permission of the data subject to process their data wether accurate or not.

Something tells me that they failed to mention my username as they maybe knew what i had said was true and they likely would prefer to not have to deal with the above matter in any court proceedings they may decide to issue (Though i believe would be highly unlikely to happen).

The data protection issues you highlight, TB, are a valid point. The DPA makes it clear any data shared must be accurate and with the consent of the person to whom it relates. There is an offence of Failing to Maintain Accurate Data under the DPA.

[CleverClogs]

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

The data protection issues you highlight, TB, are a valid point. The DPA makes it clear any data shared must be accurate and with the consent of the person to whom it relates. There is an offence of Failing to Maintain Accurate Data under the DPA.

Isn't there also an offence of failing even to notify the ICO that one's company is processing personal data?

Try as I might, I could find not a trace of Cireco Limited in the Data Protection Database - link - but, as it is quite possible that I made some sort of a mistake, I would be most grateful if others could try and, if successful, post their results here. I did wonder if Cireco Limited could have been listed as a trading name of their parent company, but it isn't.

RLP would not be wise to continue further with their allegations of libel, slander or harassment, as more details of their operations would come out during any trial. The details would probably include:

• the ICO / Data Protection Register notification by Cireco Limited
• why Cireco Limited is apparently maintaining a database of "Politically Exposed Persons" - see Integrity Screening from Cireco.pdf
• how RLP really deals with elderly, mentally challenged or other vulnerable persons accused of theft
• how or why RLP and/or its clients send alleged debts to a Glasgow-based debt collector
• why RLP does not have a current Consumer Credit Licence - see Public Register Search.pdf

In short, RLP would be far wiser to withdraw their threats and hope that nobody will question their activities in open court - where such questions would be protected by court privilege - than to continue and risk any future their business might still have.