Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[Guest]

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

OOPs

[CleverClogs]

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

OOPs

Is that a brand of knitting patterns?

[Amethyst]

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

This is where I'm, personally, coming from. I do not condone shoplifting by any means. If you do it and are caught then you should, of course be punished. The being caught, taken to the 'office', the telling off, the police being called, possibly the FPN fine, possibly the caution and arrest, and prosecution, where it goes that far, is enough.

Career shoplifters, so far as I can see, aren't likely to be fussed about a civil claim against them, and pretty unlikely to pay up off the back of a letter from some civil recovery company .... So who are RLP targetting ?

People who have made genuine mistakes or who have just had a moment of madness are likely to be embarrased, ashamed and just want the whole incident to go away. This is who RLP are preying on. Mothers who's kids stick something in the pram hood, people who put small items that would fall through the damn trolley onto the floor while they finish their shopping into a pocket or bag then forget about them at checkout, people who spray deodarant before deciding whether to purchase, people who don't understand the special offers and pick up too many of an item, people who pick up unlabelled/unbarcoded products and try sort it themselves, erroneously, but innocently.

These are not career criminals, they are everyday people who cock up or have a momentary lapse of judgment, we all do it. For most of those people the sheer embarassment or realisation of what they have done is enough punishment in itself.

I'd like to see a breakdown of all the claims RLP send out alongside the value of items alledgedly stolen - I bet most of those which ARE paid are for theft of insignificant value items and in the main part the merchandise recovered completely undamaged within a few minutes.

Remember the downloading porn invoices being sent out to all sorts of people - mostly erroneously - of course many of them got paid up, how would you approach citizens advice, or even post on a forum for advice how to deal with a claim like that. The ashamedness and embarrasment factor, and just wanting it to go away, factor is massive in RLP's business plan.

I've never noticed (without looking for it specifically) a notice in a shop about a store running a civil protection scheme - so how they can say that that is a deterent is beyond me.

It's a way to make easy money out of often vulnerable, scared and embarrased people.

If you read through RLP's 'successful cases' most are about employee theft where there IS an attributable cost and disruption. It really needs distnguishing between.

I really hope Joshua Bamfield, Cente of Retail Research in Nottingham, doesn't mind me quoting him - he set up the original RLP back in 1999 following studies and trips to the states. I think his intentions were good - as he says ''But it is true that for me CR was just praxis, turning academic analysis into action"

I think it has just been taken over by those akin to some of the less scrupulous claims management companies we have so many dealings with and is seen as a way to make money


Professor Bamfield did look in to a new company setting up in Civil Recovery.
''It is an attempt to do real civil recovery with none of the accretions (such as not reporting the case to the police, and not inventing amazing sums) that have crept in recently. . ''
He pulled out 3 months later.

On the types of cases RLP were bringing;
'' irespective of whether CR is a good or bad thing, no one wants innocent people to come within the orbit ''

And on the current owner of RLP;
''Although I know Jackie and have met her a few times over the last few years, there is no ongoing commercial
or other relationship, no advice is given or sought on either side, and no money or other advantage is requested or provided.''

[labman]

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

That's quite a post Ame, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. An excellent analysis IMO.

[Guest]

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

Personally i think the whole moral recompense or punishment thing is totally misplaced in civil litigation.

It is not the job of a bunch of solicitors to issue fines, and justify them by comparison to their own moral compass(god forbid).

Civil law is about recouping actual loss, of course the courts know this, but the idea that their is some kind of moral element to their actions is implanted in the consciousness of the public and clouds the issue on most public debates. Which is of course what they want.

D

[wales01man]

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

IMO what this boils down to is solicitors and these types of companies playing with peoples lifes many would sooner pay than hve the fear of futher reprisals and actions threats of this that that to many work in favour of these crooks who operate in a way that normal people do not without a thought for others only for MONEY until the law is changed in a way that makes every action clear they will go on and on>Forums like this do a fantastic job we need the message to get to everone then public opinion will drive these morons away

[CleverClogs]

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

IMO what this boils down to is solicitors and these types of companies playing with peoples lifes many would sooner pay than hve the fear of futher reprisals and actions threats of this that that to many work in favour of these crooks who operate in a way that normal people do not without a thought for others only for MONEY until the law is changed in a way that makes every action clear they will go on and on>Forums like this do a fantastic job we need the message to get to everone then public opinion will drive these morons away

Exactly.

My personal opinion is that 'civil loss prevention' is, at best, about as moral as a protection racket.

[CleverClogs]

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

This is where I'm, personally, coming from. I do not condone shoplifting by any means. If you do it and are caught then you should, of course be punished. The being caught, taken to the 'office', the telling off, the police being called, possibly the FPN fine, possibly the caution and arrest, and prosecution, where it goes that far, is enough.

I'd agree, except that I'd also suggest that compensation orders should also be made by a Magistrates' Court or Crown Court against convicted thieves where the retailer can establish genuine losses directly due to the crime. I'd even agree with a retailer seeking recompense from a convicted thief for any losses directly attributable to the theft, but not the "apportioned" costs of security which would have to be paid anyway. The depreciation on security equipment will have been claimed by the retailer against tax, so no part of those capital expenses should be paid by any culprit.

Remember the downloading porn invoices being sent out to all sorts of people - mostly erroneously - of course many of them got paid up, how would you approach citizens advice, or even post on a forum for advice how to deal with a claim like that. The ashamedness and embarrasment factor, and just wanting it to go away, factor is massive in RLP's business plan.

Yes - I also remember a company that offered a full refund if not satisfied with the gimcracks it sold through adverts in the cheaper Sunday newspapers. It sent out cheques, but most of them were never cashed due to embarrassment, as they were drawn on the account of a company promising penile enlargements.

I've never noticed (without looking for it specifically) a notice in a shop about a store running a civil protection scheme - so how they can say that that is a deterent is beyond me.

Is that so amazing?

What retailer in their right wits would openly display a placard that implies all customers are potential thieves?

It's a way to make easy money out of often vulnerable, scared and embarrased people.

Yes.

It may also be a covert way of a store chain despising its customers.

[EXC]

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

I think the most significant paragraph in the judgment (and the one which is most critical for RLP's business model) is #9 where the judge lists what he considers would be recoverable amounts.

''It was not easy for the claimant to demonstrate what loss or damage these defendants,
or other shoplifters who are caught, have caused to it on this or on any particular
occasion. In certain circumstances I am satisfied that there would be recoverable
amounts, for example: (a) If the defendants had managed to deprive the claimants of
the goods they took then there would clearly be a claim for the loss of value and/or
profit upon the items in question. (b) If the claimants had incurred specifically
directly referable costs in apprehending the defendants, there also would be
recoverable. To take an illustrative, though perhaps unrealistic, example: if one of its
security men had jumped into a taxi to pursue the fleeing shoplifters, then that taxi
fare would, in my judgment, be recoverable. (c) If the defendants, in the course of
their stealing or apprehension, caused physical damage, for example, breaking a
display cabinet or tearing a security man’s uniform, then the expense attributable to
those acts would be recoverable. (d) If a shoplifter injured a security person he or she
would be liable in an action for personal injury. Although there was some struggling
in the instant case there was no reported injury. (e) It is also possible to see that if a
member of staff, perhaps a cashier, has been diverted from his or her post in order to
chase and capture the defendants, then that person would not have been performing
normal duties while chasing the defendants and the claimant would have lost, for a
time, the value of the services in the task for which he or she was employed. The
figure referable to the wage might be recoverable for that, together with any other
consequential loss such as a loss of sales or takings in respect of customers who could
not pay for items and so left without a purchase. The latter would be difficult to
establish in a shop with multiple check-outs, but it could apply, for example, to a
small corner shop with only one cashier. This, I think the defendants did concede or
came close to doing so.''


It's difficult to imagine that any of these items would feature in the majority of cases that RLP claims on.

[bluebottle]

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

There is the problem of corporate paranoia amongst major retailers where retail theft is concerned. This needs to be addressed. What also needs addressing is the poor standard of training retail security staff receive and their ill-disciplined behaviour including snatching bags from shoppers and rummaging through them without consent or any lawful authority, paying total disregard to case law which the retailer should ensure was complied with and, in many cases, lying to the police or being economical with the actualities. The practice of retailers setting arrest targets for retail security staff needs to be nipped in the bud promptly. This is a significant part of the problem of wrongful arrests and unlawful detentions.

[EXC]

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

Our Baroness Hayter has asked 2 previous questions in the Lords about civil recovery as far back as 2010:


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...3A24973#g524.4

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...3A24973#g524.1

[EXC]

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

The judgment in the Debenhams v Gee case at Northampton County Court is available here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...707#post274707

[Guest]

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

HI
I found this calclation intersting.

26. Moving on to consider the requirements of British Motor Trade, again very much the
same thing applies. Mr Dickson has set out the cost to Debenhams of maintaining safe
security equipment, £653,000 over their entire store network and that it costs per case
£92.25. I have no reason to doubt his figures. As I have said already, the reason why
those systems are maintained are, I accept, partly for health and safety, no doubt if
there was a fire alarm the security staff would help in evacuating the stores. I have no
doubt that that is true but they are also substantially there to prevent thefts from their
stores and that is a cost to the claimant which they would otherwise not have if there
were no thefts from their stores. So, again, I accept that falls within them having to
maintain a department to prevent the very actions that the defendant had caused to
them and that although the expenses probably cannot be precisely done, although Mr
Dickson does his best at £92.25, I accept there is a cost and that the £92.25 is the best
evidence that I have.

So it follows from this that if less people stole from these stores, each thief would have to pay a larger part of the running costs of these systems. Presumably if there was only one theft he would have to pay £653,000
The problem is of course that you need precisely the same amount of equipment to catch one thief as you need to catch a thousand so how can you quantify the cost.

Not that the cost is a result of the losses it is part of the running costs of the shop and is paid for out of the profits, as pointed out by the eminent judge in the Ms B hearing. Any revenue gained from these fined would be profit not recovered damges.

D

[Dougal16T]

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

Afternoon all,

I have just 'come across' this post and have to say that Schillings are 'way off beam'!

The letter you sent to them via Finers Stephens Innocent LLP is excellent.

If Schillings want more exposure for both themselves and RLP, then I've got some good contacts in the media, both Press and TV........all they have to do is ask!!!

Best wishes everyone,

Dougal

PS: Message to Schillings : 'If you wonder why I have made the effort to post this message it is because I have found this Forum to be of great assistance in helping me through some very difficult times against those who seek to bend the law to suit their own, often financial, ends without regard for either the law or the truth.' The truth about RLP is out. Need I say more?

[Guest]

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

Does anyone have a link to;

1. British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch 556,