Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[EXC]

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

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



D

Of course. Thing is that's not much good if people ignorant of it.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

I will admit that before I joined this forum that I knew nothing about RLP being shall we say... vigourous in their methods, I knew nothing about the majority of Consumer issues, I also admit that a lot of the language used in this thread and in the debate I listened to is well over my head, I am constantly saying, so what does this mean for the forum? Is this a good thing for Legal Beagles? and I apologise that I am constantly asking silly questions.

However if this Bill..or whatever it is that Celestine and co have been fighting for means that more people can use forums like this without being afraid of being sued then Sign me up!!

From what I'm gathering, there have been posts about RLP that have made them look bad and they aint happy so they want to shut us up by suing is. What I dont understand is, if what we are saying is proved in a court of law.. is this libel? cos its true.

Also, what does yesterday's debate mean to us as a forum?

again sorry to be a total numpty but, its going WHOOSH over my head!!

[bluebottle]

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

Okay, boys and girls. Let's calm down about the use of the terms "extortion", "blackmail" and "fraud" in posts.

Extortion and Blackmail are one and the same thing. A person is guilty of Blackmail if they make an unwarranted demand to another and at the time of doing so use menaces in order to enforce that demand. In practice, the person making the demand and using the menaces has to, firstly, prove that they have a right in law to make the demand and, secondly, that the use of menaces is a proper means of enforcing the demand. If they cannot prove they have a right in law to make the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of enforcing the demand, then, they could be looking an appearance in front of a judge and jury and a possible 14 years' in prison. The average sentence for Blackmail, depending on its gravity, is 4-6 years in prison.

Fraud is a different creature to Blackmail and a lot more complex, chiefly, because it can take a number of forms. The most common form of Fraud that is discussed on the Legal Beagles forums is Fraud by False Misrepresentation. A person is guilty of Fraud by False Misrepresentation if they dishonestly make a false representation and intend by making that representation to make a gain for themselves or another or to cause loss to another or expose another to loss. A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is or might be untrue or misleading. The term "representation" means any representation as to fact or law including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation or any other person. A representation may be expressed or implied. A representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

When certificated bailiffs charge or attempt to charge fees the law does not allow them to charge or for work they have not carried out, they are committing the offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation because they are dishonestly making false representations as to fact. Dishonesty is subject to a two-part test prescribed by the Court of Appeal in the case of R -v- Ghosh 1982. If they then start making threats in order to obtain the unlawful fees, then the offence of Blackmail comes into play because, (a) the bailiff has no right in law to make the demand for a debtor to pay unlawful fees (unwarranted), and (b) making threats, under such circumstances, is not a proper means of enforcing the demand, because the demand is unlawful (unwarranted).

Unfortunately, the police do not have the power to shut down businesses who engage in systematic fraud. That is the duty of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). However, the police can recommend to the OFT that a business is shut down. The usual reasons a business will be shut down where fraud is involved are (a) Being Used As A Vehicle for Fraud, that is, the business exists solely or mainly to defraud others, and (b) Fraudulent Trading, where fraud is being used during the course of trading.

I hope this post helps to clarify the mention of Blackmail/Extortion and Fraud in posts. Such references are not made lightly and certainly not without studying the circumstances involved and checking any legislation that may apply.

[Guest]

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

I will admit that before I joined this forum that I knew nothing about RLP being shall we say... vigourous in their methods, I knew nothing about the majority of Consumer issues, I also admit that a lot of the language used in this thread and in the debate I listened to is well over my head, I am constantly saying, so what does this mean for the forum? Is this a good thing for Legal Beagles? and I apologise that I am constantly asking silly questions.

However if this Bill..or whatever it is that Celestine and co have been fighting for means that more people can use forums like this without being afraid of being sued then Sign me up!!

From what I'm gathering, there have been posts about RLP that have made them look bad and they aint happy so they want to shut us up by suing is. What I dont understand is, if what we are saying is proved in a court of law.. is this libel? cos its true.

Also, what does yesterday's debate mean to us as a forum?

again sorry to be a total numpty but, its going WHOOSH over my head!!

I think a lot of have the same thoughts, the issues of the bill go well beyond the issues of this thread or even consumer issues altogether it is about people having the freedom to express an opinion.

D

[Tools]

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

Just a quick note to everyone posting, I have edited a few posts.

It should not be taken as a personal attack, but as a preventative measure. I am sure everyone will understand, any problems please do not hesitate to PM me to discuss off the publicly visible ( I think you know who I mean )thread.

[bluebottle]

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

I have probably posted something similar on this or another thread. Davyb, you are absolutely right when you say that a person can only claim what they have actually lost. This was confirmed by the ruling in the case of Dunlop Rubber Tyre Co. Ltd -v- New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd 1915 and which has provided a cornerstone of English Civil Litigation Law to this very day. My own personal view of the Oxford CC judgement in the case of A Retailer -v- Ms A and Ms B 2012 is that the premise R.L.P. companies use to justify their claims is not valid as the claimant failed to prove there was significant, if any, disruption to their business. Also, it was established, during cross-examination of witnesses for the claimant under oath, that the figures quoted in the claim bore no relation to actual losses incurred and had, in fact, been exaggerated. HHJ Harris, a senior Circuit Judge, threw out the claimant's case. Even in the unlikely event that the claimant had succeeded in having judgement made in their favour, after hearing how figures in the claim had been exaggerated, HHJ Harris had the power to truncate the claim and restrict it to actual loss incurred, plus court costs. The worst he could have done was to strike-out the claim after realising an attempt was being made to mislead the court. 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.

[Galahad]

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

Well I personally think that RLP's actions have only served to probably end their business that much sooner.

Yes they do play on people ignorance, just like Private Parking companies do with their charge notices, but RLP have managed a spectacular own goal here, because now its becoming a bigger news item, and will only get bigger.

Had they had the sense to simply keep quiet and simply weather the storm, they could probably have gotten away with their business model for a good while longer, but, what they've done with these rather ill advised but still quite humourous demands is simply done themselves in!

Now in a small way I can see why they would go after Legal Beagles and CAG, but to go after the solicitors in the case where RLP lost, and demand they remove references to a case that went against them....... did Schillings REALLY think they could bully another law firm in such a way and not have it backfire on them in the most spectacular way????

We must remain vigilant however, because I can see RLP closing its doors sooner, just so they can do a Phoenix and come up with a new swishier name and continue, though quite how keen some of these major retailers will be to ally themselves with RLP or New RLP, that may indeed end them that bit sooner.

This post was composed by me, in an honest belief to its contents

[Celestine]

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

Now in a small way I can see why they would go after Legal Beagles and CAG, but to go after the solicitors in the case where RLP lost, and demand they remove references to a case that went against them....... did Schillings REALLY think they could bully another law firm in such a way and not have it backfire on them in the most spectacular way????

Very true. But they did go after the Law firm because in 99& of cases libel threats are kept very quiet indeed. That's how 'usual libel business' is conducted.

I am delighted that today we were able to stand up and provide a vocal voice on behalf of all 5 organisations threatened by Schillings/RLP.

And a huge thanks to Dara O Briain who just tweeted our threat letter to 971,000 followers!

[Guest]

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

I am delighted that today we were able to stand up and provide a vocal voice on behalf of all 5 organisations threatened by Schillings/RLP.

And a huge thanks to Dara O Briain who just tweeted our threat letter to 971,000 followers!

A major thread of thinking I've noticed since I found this forum on May 21st (I think it was), is response to threat.

Threatening letters, doorstop visits, telephone calls.

Threats, and our response to threats.

I find threats kinda boring, but also irritating.

If you want to evict me/take me to court/whatever, GET ON WITH IT.

[Guest]

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

Well I personally think that RLP's actions have only served to probably end their business that much sooner.

Yes they do play on people ignorance, just like Private Parking companies do with their charge notices, but RLP have managed a spectacular own goal here, because now its becoming a bigger news item, and will only get bigger.

Had they had the sense to simply keep quiet and simply weather the storm, they could probably have gotten away with their business model for a good while longer, but, what they've done with these rather ill advised but still quite humourous demands is simply done themselves in!

Now in a small way I can see why they would go after Legal Beagles and CAG, but to go after the solicitors in the case where RLP lost, and demand they remove references to a case that went against them....... did Schillings REALLY think they could bully another law firm in such a way and not have it backfire on them in the most spectacular way????

We must remain vigilant however, because I can see RLP closing its doors sooner, just so they can do a Phoenix and come up with a new swishier name and continue, though quite how keen some of these major retailers will be to ally themselves with RLP or New RLP, that may indeed end them that bit sooner.

This post was composed by me, in an honest belief to its contents

Very true

This is the advice from another solicitor on the subject.

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea


The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved

[bluebottle]

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

Very true. But they did go after the Law firm because in 99& of cases libel threats are kept very quiet indeed. That's how 'usual libel business' is conducted.

I am delighted that today we were able to stand up and provide a vocal voice on behalf of all 5 organisations threatened by Schillings/RLP.

And a huge thanks to Dara O Briain who just tweeted our threat letter to 971,000 followers!

Could we get Dara O'Briain to do an interview for the forum, sometime, Cel? It would be interesting to hear his views on libel and freedom of speech. I used to come across libel and copyright issues when I ran a printing and publishing company after I retired from the police force. There are those out there who regularly use the libel laws to suppress healthy public debate of issues of importance to ordinary people if it doesn't suit their purposes.

[Magrew]

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

This is a fantastic example why I thought that this was the sort of group that you want to be part of.

There is an easy road and a right road, I want to choose the right road every time. Before I found this site I was finding that choice to be lonely and I was becoming weary but now I have found a new spirit feeding off the energy that you guys carry.

I know that many of us have our weaknesses and in some cases may in different circumstances cower away and hide from the world just trying to muck on by but with the power of this spirited group I feel I can again take on anything.

I would like to publicly thank all who have been involved in this particular campaign and all others in general who make it possible for us to tackle matters that would be close to impossible without such an inspirational and supportive group stopping us falling through the cracks.

[CleverClogs]

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.

Furthermore, since the Oxford case, we now know that the actual costs that can be ascribed to any given incident is likely to be significantly less than the sum demanded and that, as the staff involved are employed solely as security goons, they are not being diverted from any revenue generating activity.

Whilst it is most regrettable that shop-keepers feel the need to install CCTV and the like to prevent theft or to apprehend thieves, it is not reasonable to expect a suspected thief to pay for any part of the fixed security costs of the store. Everyone who purchases goods from that store will, of course, be paying a tiny fraction of those fixed costs, as those costs will have been included in the store's business plan.

"Stock shrinkage" - as stock loss from damage or pilferage is euphemistically known in the retail trade - will also have been included in the business plan, with the likely effect being that prices are a little higher than they otherwise would be. Hence, it is utter nonsense to aver that shoplifting costs retailers x millions of pounds every year, as those losses will have been more than covered in the gross profits.

[enaid]

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

I think maybe RLP thought the big guns they work for would back them up, seems they were wrong.
If 90% of shop lifting is done by organised gangs as I am sure I read somewhere, then that must be a police matter and I reckon the 60% of money demanded by RLP and unpaid would have been owed from these gangs who would treat a fine of any sort with the same respect as they treat the society they live in.
As for what this thread is really about, I for one am sick of having to watch me Ps&Qs tbh and anything that helps us keep the 'Freedom of Speech' we are supposed to have I support fully.

[EXC]

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

However if this Bill..or whatever it is that Celestine and co have been fighting for means that more people can use forums like this without being afraid of being sued then Sign me up!!

From what I'm gathering, there have been posts about RLP that have made them look bad and they aint happy so they want to shut us up by suing is. What I dont understand is, if what we are saying is proved in a court of law.. is this libel? cos its true.

Also, what does yesterday's debate mean to us as a forum?

again sorry to be a total numpty but, its going WHOOSH over my head!!

In a nutshell a major issue of contention in the Defamation Bill that has been taken up by the likes of various MPs, Dara O'brian, Brian Cox and our own Celestine is 'should commercial companies enjoy the same rights in using libel law as individuals?'. Libel law was originally intended as a remedy for individuals who's reputations had been unfairly besmirched by other individuals but increasingly companies have used libel/defamation laws to protect their commercial interests - the recent Schillings/RLP attack being a case in point.

As the law stands the press actually enjoy a greater degree of free speech than individuals - what is known as the public interest defence - where they can claim that what they write about is in the public interest and therefore they are protected. Campaigners for the Defamation Bill want a public interest defence written in to libel/defamation laws so that, for instance, individuals can post information and honestly held views on forums like this without the risk of being bankrupted by defending themselves from a libel writ.