Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[EXC]

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

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.

Someone is already making inquiries to the ICO.

[CleverClogs]

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

Is it considered permissible to maintain a database of "Politically Exposed Persons" that may be checked by prospective employers?

[Celestine]

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

*chuckle*

The thing that amuses me most is the fact that BEFORE they sent us the letter, we were interested in their activities but NOW, we and many others are absolutely FASCINATED!!

OWN GOAL!

[labman]

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

We have had a few postings from people invoiced by RLP Ltd. It would be very interesting if all of these people were to send a Subject Access Request to Cireco Limited to see exactly what data is held about them. The data subject could, of course, voluntarily post up some of that information to give a flavour of the Integrity Screening to us, and any other interesting data.

It would be interesting to see.

[Guest]

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

Reading that Schillings letter really made me laugh. It was like they are intending to litigate for their clients hurt feelings.

That letter inflicted more damage on Schillings own reputation as a london law firm, than anyone could have done on RLP. No wonder Schillings didnt want their letter published. It made themselves look like complete nitwit.

[Guest]

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

So to summarise;
They have made a list of people accused of theft, it doesn't matter if they are actually guilty or not.

Then, when they send one of their invoices they use the presence and prospect of being included on the list as incentive to pay up.

So you have got one dubious enterprise feeding another, its a bit like a house of cards. There are so many problems with this, besides the ones mentioned already.

It would be nice if someone reading this thread was on this list and wished to sue, I for one would certainly be please to contribute to any fighting fund.

Perhaps we could then give Schillings a ring, there must be cause for a defamation suit in there in addition to everything else.

D

[Celestine]

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

Perhaps we could then give Schillings a ring, there must be cause for a defamation suit in there in addition to everything else.

D

And you'd trust Schillings to manage this well??!!

Their astonishing lack of due diligence, like checking if we actually knew Richard Dunstan at all? Like checking if we'd removed that one thread before they send out a second threat accusing us of non compliance. That second letter alone will have cost RLP several hundred pounds.

Free Tip for you RLP: Don't pay that invoice in full.....or at all, or just speculate on whether it's enforceable eh?

[Guest]

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

And you'd trust Schillings to manage this well??!!

Their astonishing lack of due diligence, like checking if we actually knew Richard Dunstan at all? Like checking if we'd removed that one thread before they send out a second threat accusing us of non compliance. That second letter alone will have cost RLP several hundred pounds.

Free Tip for you RLP: Don't pay that invoice in full.....or at all, or just speculate on whether it's enforceable eh?

"Several hundred pounds"!!!!!

They have a better racket than RLP

I cant get over the baic lack of legal knowledge the first letter illustrates, not something you would expect.

D

[Galahad]

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

I think the likely outcome of this is that Schillings declines in the future to further represent their client RLP.

This has the potential to do them great damage, which it probably already has, by going after that other solictor firm.

[bluebottle]

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

Apparently, BWB is a very respected City legal firm. I, too, am going to be interested to see what effect this has on Schilling's reputation, especially after what they wrote in their letter about the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003, which shows an alarming lack of understanding of these statutes and how they work, in my considered judgement. And I am speaking as a retired police officer.

[EXC]

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

Attached is the first of the 3 articles on civil recovery which appeared in Private Eye in December 2011.

Today (Tuesday 3 July) is the deadline which Beagles have invited Schillings to respond by to the letter sent in response to theirs - http://www.legalbeagles.info/Letter%...2026_06_12.pdf

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

[CleverClogs]

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

Today (Tuesday 3 July) is the deadline which Beagles have invited Schillings to respond by to the letter sent in response to theirs - http://www.legalbeagles.info/Letter%...2026_06_12.pdf

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Is there some reason to suppose they'd not try to play at Schilly Buggers?

[labman]

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

Is there some reason to suppose they'd not try to play at Schilly Buggers?

And what exactly would that achieve? The same as last time I imagine - adverse publicity and statements which are blatantly untrue.

[Guest]

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

Attached is the first of the 3 articles on civil recovery which appeared in Private Eye in December 2011.

Today (Tuesday 3 July) is the deadline which Beagles have invited Schillings to respond by to the letter sent in response to theirs - http://www.legalbeagles.info/Letter%...2026_06_12.pdf

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

This is my favorite bit;

"The intimidatory nature of your letter mirrors the conduct of your client. Further, your correspondence only serves to strengthen our clients resolve to help the victims of your clients business and to report on, discuss and expose their unsavoury tactics as our client sees fit."

Its almost Churchilian.

D

[Guest]

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

Attached is the first of the 3 articles on civil recovery which appeared in Private Eye in December 2011.

Today (Tuesday 3 July) is the deadline which Beagles have invited Schillings to respond by to the letter sent in response to theirs - http://www.legalbeagles.info/Letter%...2026_06_12.pdf

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

OK, so CAB can't tell people these invoices are fish n chip paper...........
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight the Sun, we shall fight the Mirror and the Express, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the newsagents, we shall defend true and proper retailing procedures, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight the Guardian, we shall fight the Telegraph, we shall fight the waxed paper and the serviettes, we shall fight all known tabloids and broadsheets including but notlimited to the forementioned, allowing for the return of The Sport;

we shall never surrender.