RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

In accordance with the ruling in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd -v- New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd 1915, in civil claims, the claimant is only permitted to claim actual loss suffered. The claimant is not permitted to be better-off financially as a result of claiming. This precedent has stood good and firm for the last 97 years.

I have to agree with Dougal that there was an intention to mislead in the case of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012, borne out by the security manager and security officer conceding, under cross-examination, that the actual costs and time spent dealing with Ms B and Ms K bore no relation to what was being claimed.

Because this came out under cross-examination in a court of law, the attempt to mislead would not, in my considered judgement, amount to Fraud by False Misrepresentation, but to Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

As to whether any CR letters, sent out on behalf of retailers in the light of the ruling in A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 amount to Fraud by False Misrepresentation, the ruling has now highlighted that the vast majority of CR claims sent out are potentially fraudulent if tested against the statutory definition of Fraud by False Misrepresentation. As to whether the letters CR operators send to people amount to Harassment, as provided by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, once at least two letters have been sent and received, then a cause for action, in the form of an injunction, may well exist against the retailer and CR operator.

What of other offences or causes of action?

Sending a communication to another containing a threat is an offence under Section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988. However, it is also an offence to make an unwarranted demand and at the time of doing so using menaces (threats) as a means of enforcing the demand. It is immaterial what the nature of the demand is.

Could retailers who use CR operators and the CR operators, themselves, find themselves coming under the scrutiny of formal investigation in the light of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012? Quite possibly. There is nothing to prevent a person alleged to have committed a "wrongdoing" from seeking legal remedy against any retailer and CR operator who attempt to obtain money from them which a court has found a retailer is no entitled to claim. Although A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 does not, in itself, set a precedent, the issues it brings forward are, in my considered judgement, a pretty strong basis on which to repudiate any arguments by a retailer and its CR agent that they are acting lawfully or reasonably when attempting to make a CR claim.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

In accordance with the ruling in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd -v- New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd 1915, in civil claims, the claimant is only permitted to claim actual loss suffered. The claimant is not permitted to be better-off financially as a result of claiming. This precedent has stood good and firm for the last 97 years.

I have to agree with Dougal that there was an intention to mislead in the case of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012, borne out by the security manager and security officer conceding, under cross-examination, that the actual costs and time spent dealing with Ms B and Ms K bore no relation to what was being claimed.

Because this came out under cross-examination in a court of law, the attempt to mislead would not, in my considered judgement, amount to Fraud by False Misrepresentation, but to Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

As to whether any CR letters, sent out on behalf of retailers in the light of the ruling in A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 amount to Fraud by False Misrepresentation, the ruling has now highlighted that the vast majority of CR claims sent out are potentially fraudulent if tested against the statutory definition of Fraud by False Misrepresentation. As to whether the letters CR operators send to people amount to Harassment, as provided by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, once at least two letters have been sent and received, then a cause for action, in the form of an injunction, may well exist against the retailer and CR operator.

What of other offences or causes of action?

Sending a communication to another containing a threat is an offence under Section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988. However, it is also an offence to make an unwarranted demand and at the time of doing so using menaces (threats) as a means of enforcing the demand. It is immaterial what the nature of the demand is.

Could retailers who use CR operators and the CR operators, themselves, find themselves coming under the scrutiny of formal investigation in the light of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012? Quite possibly. There is nothing to prevent a person alleged to have committed a "wrongdoing" from seeking legal remedy against any retailer and CR operator who attempt to obtain money from them which a court has found a retailer is no entitled to claim. Although A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 does not, in itself, set a precedent, the issues it brings forward are, in my considered judgement, a pretty strong basis on which to repudiate any arguments by a retailer and its CR agent that they are acting lawfully or reasonably when attempting to make a CR claim.

I think that the Dunlop case was more concerned with the fact that damages could be agreed in a contract, as long as the sum was not excessively disproportional (Unconscionable) to the losses.

The principle of sums for damages only being equivalent to liquidated loses are enshrined in common law and are a lot older.

D

[Amethyst]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

I would agree with position 2. PROVEN significant disruption incurring additional cost.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

I would agree with position 2. Significant disruption incurring additional cost.

OK
So then we are saying that each case must be judged on it's own evidence. We cannot say that store are not entitled to claim damages because there is not an extra cost.

We and the courts will have to ascertain what represents additional costs. The unfortunate conclusion of this is that what RLP are doing is not unlawful, there is an arguable claim for costs in any incident ?

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

I think that the Dunlop case was more concerned with the fact that damages could be agreed in a contract, as long as the sum was not excessively disproportional (Unconscionable) to the losses.

The principle of sums for damages only being equivalent to liquidated loses are enshrined in common law and are a lot older.

D

Dunlop forms a cornerstone of English Civil Litigation Law, Davy, and has done so since 1915. Quite simply, you can only claim actual loss. Where CR is concerned, it is more a case of unjustifiable enrichment on the part of the retailer and CR retailer involved, if you look at it in a purely Civil Law light.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Dunlop forms a cornerstone of English Civil Litigation Law, Davy, and has done so since 1915. Quite simply, you can only claim actual loss. Where CR is concerned, it is more a case of unjustifiable enrichment on the part of the retailer and CR retailer involved, if you look at it in a purely Civil Law light.

If you read he judgment it does in fact confirm the position under common law, but the precedent set, is that damages can be agreed in a contract as long as they are not unconscionable, anyway this is sidetracking the issue of the thread.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

OK
So then we are saying that each case must be judged on it's own evidence. We cannot say that store are not entitled to claim damages because there is not an extra cost.

We and the courts will have to ascertain what represents additional costs. The unfortunate conclusion of this is that what RLP are doing is not unlawful, there is an arguable claim for costs in any incident ?

D

I strongly disagree, Davy. Whilst CR operators and their retailer clients may not be doing anything unlawful, in your considered opinion, under Civil Law, that does not, in itself, necessarily mean that the CR operator and retailer are not in breach of any laws.

The cross-examination by counsel for Ms B & Ms K, in the case of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012, uncovered an attempt by A Retailer to mislead the court as to the costs it had allegedly incurred. That is very damning. HHJ Harris's ruling has, as a consequence, made it more difficult for CR operators and retailers to argue they are entitled to claim the costs CR operators cite. The description "£15 million racket" is as accurate a description you will get of what CR is. The Law Commission's statement that they can find no basis in law for the fixed-sum claims made by retailers and CR operators does not exactly help the case of CR either.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Dunlop forms a cornerstone of English Civil Litigation Law, Davy, and has done so since 1915. Quite simply, you can only claim actual loss. Where CR is concerned, it is more a case of unjustifiable enrichment on the part of the retailer and CR retailer involved, if you look at it in a purely Civil Law light.

No it is not a case of unjustified enrichment, they have an arguable case, this is the whole point. If anyone thinks they don';t then lets see why, not just cased but actual quotations and indications of relevant case law.

D

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

I strongly disagree, Davy. Whilst CR operators and their retailer clients may not be doing anything unlawful, in your considered opinion, under Civil Law, that does not, in itself, necessarily mean that the CR operator and retailer are not in breach of any laws.

The cross-examination by counsel for Ms B & Ms K, in the case of A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012, uncovered an attempt by A Retailer to mislead the court as to the costs it had allegedly incurred. That is very damning. HHJ Harris's ruling has, as a consequence, made it more difficult for CR operators and retailers to argue they are entitled to claim the costs CR operators cite. The description "£15 million racket" is as accurate a description you will get of what CR is. The Law Commission's statement that they can find no basis in law for the fixed-sum claims made by retailers and CR operators does not exactly help the case of CR either.

They would not be able to operate if they were i breach of any laws.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

No it is not a case of unjustified enrichment, they have an arguable case, this is the whole point. If anyone thinks they don';t then lets see why, not just cased but actual quotations and indications of relevant case law.

D

CR, as practised by the likes of RLP and other CR operators, has no basis in law unless retailers can prove the arguments CR operators cite as justification for their fixed-sum claims. As previously stated, "£15 million racket" is the best description you will get for CR as it applies to the retail industry. The CR practised by the courts in the case of organised crime is an entirely different ball game and is governed by legislation.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

The point I am trying to make is.
It is no use saying that these people are operating an illegal operation, it would be easy for us if they did, but unfortunately they operate entirely within the law.

So when someone comes on here with a case, we have to look at the circumstance surrounding it, we cannot say just ignore the demands anymore, unfortunately they have shown that they have an arguable case.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

They would not be able to operate if they were i breach of any laws.

D

And this is why they need to be formally investigated. A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 has let the genie of the bottle and raised serious questions as to legality of the practices involved in Retail CR. Retailers have been caught cheating consumers on a number of occasions. Words like "leopard" and "spots" come to mind.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

CR, as practised by the likes of RLP and other CR operators, has no basis in law unless retailers can prove the arguments CR operators cite as justification for their fixed-sum claims. As previously stated, "£15 million racket" is the best description you will get for CR as it applies to the retail industry. The CR practised by the courts in the case of organised crime is an entirely different ball game and is governed by legislation.

The fixed sum claim is another question that needs to be ruled on. But putting it in a claim is not unlawful.

There may be a defense that says that if a sum of liquidated damages cannot be exactly quantified then it is not claimable I don't know, but it seems unlikely as it would seem to prejudice the injured party excessively in my opinion.

D

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

And this is why they need to be formally investigated. A Retailer -v- Ms B & Ms K 2012 has let the genie of the bottle and raised serious questions as to legality of the practices involved in Retail CR. Retailers have been caught cheating consumers on a number of occasions. Words like "leopard" and "spots" come to mind.

Well that is a matter for conjecture , currently they operate within the law.

D

[Amethyst]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Indeed. It is a sound policy and one which, when started by Professor Bamfield in 1998, was for the RIGHT reasons, and was administered, intially as a Uni project, then as a not for profit company, to recoup some of the costs incurred by stores in dealing with specific instances, mainly employee fraud and theft by all accounts, which did, in many cases, involve significant disruption and cost.

It was then bought by Ms Lambert in 2002/2003 and that's when the issues began. If you read most of the stories from 'victims' of RLP they are very similar. Easy prey basically. These types of crimes are pretty non disruptive, usually no loss to the shop, and dealt with in a few minutes by staff specifically employed in store security anyway. So no extra cost to a normal day - maybe a sheet of paper extra when they give the alledged shoplifter the RLP letter.

It is IMO like ACS Law and the pornography download claims - basically relying on peoples embarassment and ashamedness to make them pay up, although slightly less random in who they target.