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

[Guest]

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.

Yes and i think that these cases can easily be dealt with by a simple reply stating that there was no real disruption involved and therefore the defendant denies any liability.

The problem arises when there is some disruption, when security have to chase people out of premises shelves get knocked over etc. Then it gets more difficult to advise.

D

[Amethyst]

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

I agree with you.

''Yes and i think that these cases can easily be dealt with by a simple reply stating that there was no real disruption involved and therefore the defendant denies any liability.''

In this case, and in a majority of cases, there is NO significant disruption or cost at all. Offender is stopped at door, gives back item/pays for it. Really that should be the end of the matter. How many cases do we see that are small & low value items left at bottom of trolley/in hood of pushchair etc. Mistakes. No chase (well in the A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K case the police did the chasing afaiaa) / no shelves knocked over etc. Easily rectified (excuse me madam I think you forgot to pay for the polo mints in the hood of your pushchair, did I, oh sh it sorry, heres 45p / heres the polos's, ) at no cost with minimum disruption. Why are these people being targetted by RLP ? because they are easy pickings, are most likely mortified at what they almost did and most likely to pay up to make it go away.

That's what needs stopping.

RLP don't accept the denial letters do they, so they don't work. Be okay if RLP listened to that letter - but they don't and carry on increasing the threats, plus the general public don't know to do that and think they have to pay. I think they said something like 65% of letters get paid. So if they sent out 60,000 at between £87 and £137 thats a fair whack of income to split between RLP and the retailers isn't it. And you can see from the Debenhams v Gee case, it is complex law, so defendents need representation - which costs money, time, stress etc etc they shouldn't be in a position where they have to do that.

So they shouldn't be able to invoice people in the first place unless they prove and justify the disruption/cost of the incident properly in advance.

And none of this random £87/£137 rubbish.

[bluebottle]

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

Yes and i think that these cases can easily be dealt with by a simple reply stating that there was no real disruption involved and therefore the defendant denies any liability.

The problem arises when there is some disruption, when security have to chase people out of premises shelves get knocked over etc. Then it gets more difficult to advise.

D

The problem there, Davy, is retailers trying to claim for the ineptitude and incompetence of their security staff who detain people on very unsafe grounds. Basically, a case of "Oh well. We've wrongfully accused and detained you, but we're going to make you pay anyway."

There is also the ill-conceived, misguided and potentially-dangerous practice of retailers setting arrest targets for their security staff. This encourages rash actions by retail security staff. Whether retail security staff now having to comply with Section 24A, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will curb this has yet to be seen. The saying "Act in haste, repent at leisure," comes to mind.

I have to agree with Amethyst as to the manner in which CR operators operate is comparable to the manner in which ACS Law operated.

My gut-feeling is that a CR operator will be formally-investigated and, as a result of that, closed-down.

[Amethyst]

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

From the transcript Day 1 Page 98

MR TOWNSEND: Within the parameters of legal principle and where there is
discretion, courts can seek to strive for fairness. If someone is claiming a loss, as a
result of a tort, it is well established that you have to prove that it is caused. It is
not enough, or sufficient in my submission, to come along to court and say,
“Shoplifting is a problem and we have security measures in place as a result and,
therefore, we want a portion of them” because what cannot be proved, or there has
been no attempt to try and prove -- let us not actually go so far as to say, “It cannot
be proved, there has been no attempt, no effort to prove”. They just say, “This is
what we spend on security and so we want this arbitrary sum as a result”.
There has been no attempt to show that it is caused and the evidence actually
appears to be that it may well have been incurred before and as a matter of
commonsense it seems logical to say that it has been caused as a result of this
particular incident.

[Amethyst]

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

and from the Judgment

14. The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question
were “significantly diverted from their usual activities” or that there was “any
significant disruption to its business” which, in this type of case, may amount to the
same thing. Nor was there any loss of revenue generation.


15. The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in
fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for
them to do. I do not think that it avails the claimants to say that because they were
busy apprehending, they could not be patrolling or doing camera invigilation. It
might just as well be observed that when they were patrolling they could not be
looking at the security cameras anyway. They could not carry out all aspects of their
job simultaneously in any event. The shop continued to trade undisturbed and there is
no evidence that any non-security staff were involved with these defendants.

16. So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was
not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative
costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims
too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’
activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the
defendants stayed at home or limited their shoplifting to other establishments.

my emphasis

[Celestine]

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

The crucial problem for the business model of the CR industry is that the demands NEED to be templated and not specific to the incident. This was specifically dealt with in the transcript.
If they went into any genuine detail, the role of RLP would not be cost worthy to the retailer.
Also, as stated above, very few cases caused significant disruption, let alone ripped security guard uniforms, smashed display cabinets and taxi fares to chase thieves.
I think it is highly significant RLP have not put any new cases up on their website. :beagle:

It is now even more important than ever to keep consumer ignorance levels high.

[Guest]

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

So they shouldn't be able to invoice people in the first place unless they prove and justify the disruption/cost of the incident properly in advance.

And none of this random £87/£137 rubbish.

I agree, but practically, how is this accomplished?

They will say that their invoices are totally justified, there is no legal reason that they cannot send them. The only way is through guidelines or legislation targeted soley at the abuse of a legitimate legal process. Currently none exists, to my knowledge.

D

[Amethyst]

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

Do we have details of the %'s split between retailer and RLP anywhere ? I know we used to have a document from Tesco's showing.... ok dug it up...I'm sure I'd posted it somewhere but can't find it. I'll PDF it and upload it.

Tesco received 55% in the first two years and 60% from then on. Cost them £2k to join the scheme.

[Amethyst]

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

How did ACS get stopped ? was it solely because they were refused peoples information off the IP Addresses ?

I guess this is a bit more like private parking firms.

[bluebottle]

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

I agree, but practically, how is this accomplished?

They will say that their invoices are totally justified, there is no legal reason that they cannot send them. The only way is through guidelines or legislation targeted soley at the abuse of a legitimate legal process. Currently none exists, to my knowledge.

D

The retail industry has been caught misleading the criminal courts over "compensation" in the past and Retail CR, today, is simply transferring it to the civil courts, but using a third party to do the demanding, etc., in the misguided belief the law won't point the finger at the retailers involved. This scam was around when I was working in the retail industry and when I was in the police force.

Clamp down on the retail industry and prevent them from using CR and CR operators wouldn't remain in business for very long. They would either become insolvent or shut up shop and do something else.

[labman]

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

I guess this is a bit more like private parking firms.

To quote Meatloaf, "You took the words right out of my mouth!"

It is exactly like PPC's in that the 'offender' is sent a speculative invoice. That is all it is at that stage, no more, no less, a speculative invoice.

There then follows a period where the 'offender' either pays or does not pay the invoice. If they do, then the company has made easy money from something where it could have potentially been proven no offence had been committed. If they do not pay, then the company has the option of taking the 'offender' through the court system to prove their case.

This is their right, and they cannot and should not be denied it. Equally if is the 'offenders' right to defend themselves and ask for proof.

In the Oxford case, that proof was not forthcoming as costs were clearly exaggerated. However, in a very small minority of other cases, the case has been proven.

With PPC's only 14 people last year were taken to court for non-payment of the speculative invoice. With CR I don't know the figures.

The principle to me remains the same. What is of most concern is that CR appear deliberately to target vulnerable people. At least with PPC's they target everyone. Clearly the CR approach is totally unacceptable and should be made as public as possible. By doing this, the CR companies will be forced to operate on a similar basis to PPC's where the invoices are not aimed at just one sector of society, but are aimed at everyone equally.

Once this position is achieved, each case has to be argued on its own merits and costs and losses have to be justified accordingly. Where they will then fall down is thatthe amounts involved are so small, it will not be worth court action. The question then arises, "Are speculative invoices lawful?"

[Amethyst]

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

Is there anything useful in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html ?

This should significantly restrict the ability of such companies to send out intimidating ‘pay now – or else' letters in the future, such as those seen in the high profile case of ACS Law. In a separate hearing soon, the High Court will impose conditions on the wording of the letters.

[Amethyst]

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

Transcript day 1

MR OWEN: Yes. The explanation is that the claimant has, through its agents,
calculated a fixed figure for how much is to be claimed for this kind of case. A
predetermined figure, if you will. The reason for why there is not a detailed
calculation in each case of what precise loss is that it would just take too much
time and make the whole method of recovery unviable.
What the claimant says though, is that the actual loss that is suffered by the
claimant in any given case will not be less than this fixed sum that they have
calculated to put forward. So it is predetermined.

mention of the 40% that goes to RLP ....

JUDGE HARRIS: Yes. A strong point in your favour is that the staff involved were not
staff who would have been doing anything other than security at the material time.
What you would say, I imagine, is these were security staff doing security work.
In those circumstances, it is not reasonable, you would say, to say, or at least to
attribute the fact that they stopped doing one sort of security work, which is
patrolling the isles and looking at the televisions, in order to do another aspect of
their security work, cannot be said to be diverting or disrupting the provision of
the staff in the shop.
Is there any point in the fact that the staff were not direct employees of the
claimants but came as, I understand it, agency staff under a fixed price package?
Allied to that, is there anything material in your submission in the fact that, was it
60 per cent or was it 40 per cent of anything that was going to be recovered was
going to go to the security company, rather than to the claimant? You better
remind me which it was.
MR TOWNSEND: As I understand it the 40 per cent that was being referred to was not
to go to the security company, but the civil recovery company, which is a distinct
organisation.
JUDGE HARRIS: You are quite right, the civil recovery company. But not to the
claimants, anyway?
MR TOWNSEND: In our --
Wordwave International Ltd, a Merrill Corporation Company
3
JUDGE HARRIS: I suppose the answer to that is it is a matter for the claimants what it
does and what it recovers, and if it chooses to pay a percentage of that to a
company that it engages to do this sort of work for it, that is a matter for it.
MR TOWNSEND: Well, your Honour, that might be said. In my submission it goes to
show that the pre-determined and fixed costs that it claimed in these cases that are
arbitrary, it probably goes someway to demonstrating the falsity of those as an
accurate reflection of any loss that is claimed, because it is almost enviable that it
builds into it.

[Guest]

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

Clamp down on the retail industry and prevent them from using CR and CR operators wouldn't remain in business for very long. They would either become insolvent or shut up shop and do something else.

I don't think that this is practical, recovery of damages is a fundamental legal entitlement, I don't think you could make a law that excepted retailers from it.

I think there could be some guideline introduced that prevented the blanket issuing of invoices, perhaps.

D

[enaid]

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

Do the retailers ever come up with any proof that price rises have been curbed because of this system?
We know that the consumer gets the brunt of the cost of shoplifting, so as an example do they state we used to add say 5% of any price rises to the cost of goods and now using this system we can keep that to 2%.