I am sure that Frogboy and Uwecan said that RLP a) helped the vulnerable and, b) dropped cases involving those with serious mental illness. We thought that this was the usual RLP bolleaux, and it seems we were right.

Yep, you were right. Talking of Frogboy, where IS she?

Yep, you were right. Talking of Frogboy, where IS she?

Not been around since yesterday afternoon. Frightened off??

Talking of Frogboy, where IS she?

Practicing standing sitting outside the station, wih a dog on a string, asking passers-by if they can spare £137.50 for a cup of tea?

[Frogboy's] not been around since yesterday afternoon. Frightened off??

She could be busy explaining herself to (a) Shakespeares (b) A Retailer © a lot of other retailers. Oh, and looking for a new job.

practicing standing sitting outside the station, wih a dog on a string, asking passers-by if they can spare £137.50 for a cup of tea?

rotflmfao!

A lot of guests on this thread recently, including right now. But, strangely, none of them posting about how they have received a County Court claim from a retailer (or even A Retailer) in relation to an unpaid civil recovery demand. Is there no-one out there who's received a civil recovery demand recently and needs advice on what to do?

As regards liability for their conduct,I would have though ALL parties involved in pursuit of demands for payment of monies where there was no recourse to do so,would be equally responsible.

Owen was very quick to talk about joint liability....

Last night, I followed Martin3030's example, and started watching The Matrix. I didn't get very far, as Mrs M wanted to go to sleep, but I got as far as this statement by Morpheus:

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very [court] room. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."

Does Morpheus work for The Retailer Who Cannot Be Named? Or for TSS Security (who CAN be named)? Or for Retail Loss Prevention (who can also be named). Maybe Frogboy can tell us. Or maybe not. She doesn't seem to have any time for us right now.

No I think she is busy looking for a cheap hostel in Oxford to book for the handing down.

Rumour is that she is now counting every penny.

Mr T might share his chips...........

Morpheus: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

Yes, well, we did try to see it for ourselves, but The Retailer Who Cannot Be Named refused to disclose it to us. Their chief witness was happy to witter on about it in the witness box, as if its application to the sum demanded by RLP explained and justified everything, but he and his bosses didn't want us to actually see it.

Its obviously an invisible Matrix-or else maybe you have to go to Specsavers to see it ?

Theres a thought too...I wonder if we will see an amended Matrix for the other case scheduled for May ?

There could even be another order for anon again but this time by the claimant.

That reporting of the case be referenced as A Retailer with evidence from data M vs Mr X

There was once a poor claim for loss

With very bad maths from the boss

with eyes open wide

She just couldnt decide

Or even put the right case across.

The Police took ages to come

but only 10 minutes said some

I might be wrong

When I said was so long

was replied with a tone that looked dumb.

We agree on the order said O

But 10 seconds later said no

I need to confide

As my client cant decide

If ageeing will cause us a woe.

For 10 minutes there was suspense

Such agreement could be immense

a call higher up was needed

before could be conceded

But the call did not make too much sense

If all this sounds confusing

It was really quite amusing

As RLP passed notes it O

He was not sure which way to go

It was the Matrix that was main choosing.

But in Court RLP took a back seat

Mr T was taking the heat

The submissions were fumbled

As the Matrix was rumbled

Yet A.R could not stay in her seat.

Obviously wasted in the wrong job Martin.

Presumably A.R. couldn't stay in her seat because she was getting ready to jump out of the frying pan & into the fire. Shame because I hear that frog's legs can be a delicacy ...

This may be a little premature, but a man must always have hope.

In memoriam RLP...

So. Farewell

Then

RLP.

Self-appointed Sheriffs of Nottingham.

Put to the test

You could not

Prevent

Your own

Loss

A Poet

(with apologies to E J Thribb)

A few thoughts on anonymity. As is clear from some of the above posts, the retailer claimant in the Oxford County Court case has requested anonymity in the judgment, transcript, citation, reporting by the press and others, etc etc.

For the record, I (and others) have no objection - repeat, no objection whatsoever - to A Retailer requesting and being granted such anonymity. In terms of taking this issue forward, it matters not a jot whether A Retailer is identified or not - the identify of the retailer is irrelevant, and all that matters is the judge's interpretation of the law. He may rule either way (though somehow I doubt A Retailer would be seeking anonymity if they were sure they were going to win), but the losing party will in any case have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, where any judgment will be legally binding. I am sure both parties want to see the law properly tested and clarified.

That said, I am not alone in being somewhat surprised that A Retailer should want anonymity, for two reasons. Firstly, the British Retail Consortium has stated that its member retailers are wholly committed to "open and transparent" civil recovery practice. And it's simply not clear to me how anonymity for A Retailer is consistent with that public commitment. This CC claim was brought by A Retailer and RLP to justify their civil recovery practice. So, why not do so openly and transparently?

Secondly - and far more importantly - we have been told repeatedly, by the British Retail Consortium, by retailer users of civil recovery, and by the civil recovery agents such as RLP, that one of the two main purposes of civil recovery is to deter shoplifting and retail crime. (The second main purpose is to recover the cost of such crime to the retailers, but as the practice would appear to recover less than 0.2% of the £4.4 billion annual cost of shoplifiting and other crime to the retail sector, it would appear to be somewhat ineffective in that regard).

In itself, deterring shoplifting and other retail crime is a laudable objective, that I for one fully support. But it is not clear to me how anonymity in the Oxford CC case will assist A Retailer to deter crime. For a practice to be a deterrent, those who it is intended to deter need to know about it, surely? Frankly, I doubt many of those thinking of going out shoplifting will first take the time to read up on recent County Court judgments, or even to read this thread. But should they do so there is now no way they will be deterred from going shoplifting in A Retailer. Put another way, A Retailer and other major users of civil recovery should surely be shouting from the rooftops about it: "don't come and shoplift here, or you'll get a civil recovery demand and, if you don't pay that, we'll issue a County Court claim against you."

Similarly, it is not at all clear to me (or others) why A Retailer would want to object to anonymity for the two young defendants, if it cannot have anonymity itself. Whether or not the girls are granted anonymity will make no difference to A Retailer's future ability to deter crime, or to recover the cost of crime though fair and proper legal action. (And for the record, no one at Citizens Advice has ever objected to retailers using legitimate and fair means to recover the cost of crime from proven offenders - our objection is simply to the unfairness of and lack of any clear legal basis for current civil recovery practice).

But, finally, there is a more important point to be made (and it was made by the defendants' counsel in court): if the two young (and, at the time of the offence, foolish and misguided) defendants are not granted anonymity, then there is a very great risk that this will be used in future to deter anyone else thinking of defending a County Court claim issued in pursuit of an unpaid civil recovery. Did someone mention 'equality of arms'?

Hi Myddelton

These retailers, including 'the Retailer with no name', don't need RLP, thats a fact (what exactly do they do?) by using RLP the Retailers can distance

themselves from the business RLP carry out in the name of justice. You also have to bear in mind the millions these Retailers spend telling us how wonderful they are and we consumers should shop with them. Something similar, is how Barclaycard use Mercers to collect debts for them, but try to hide the fact that they are their own inhouse debt collectors. These Retailers will try to protect their corporate image at all costs.

Don't the CPUTR compel the retailer to abide by its trade association rules if the retailer advertises its membership?

There may be some good news coming !!!

There may be some good news coming !!!

Do tell!!

Wahoo !. Sits on the edgeof my seat

It appears that the moth has flown too close to the flame.RLP's business model seems to be fatally flawed.No doubt La Lambert will embark on yet another turd-polishing exercise; I look forward to seeing the case reported on the RLP website.

Just checked to see if RLP have posted this case on their up to the minute 'cases sent to court page'. Bizarrely, it's not there; they must be busy with other stuff.

This is still on their website:

"Why are Fixed Rates Used For Low Value Claims such as low value shoplifting?"

 

Where the theft is low value, our clients do not wish their claims to appear disproportionate. Rather than seek the full extent of their losses, they therefore agree to seek a contribution to their losses. This is an acceptable means of streamlining the process of recovery, thus making it less expensive for the both the retailer and the shoplifter. The retailers bear the losses they opt not to recover.

 

As the actual loss is far larger, than the contribution to loss claimed, this is a benefit to the Defendants who steal low value items. When considering the costs of proceeding such low value claims, it is further disproportionate to spend a lot of time and money quantifying each individual claim. If companies were to do so, they would have to claim the full amount to make any claim viable. The courts have accepted this type of evidence of quantification, even in higher value claims.

 

Where a Defendant is a minor, a client may offer a significant discount to those fixed sums, in the hope that if they have to pay from their own money, it will serve as a deterrent in the future.

 

In the mitigation of many cases, the case is withdrawn, on the basis that an individual does not commit any further tortuous acts, reserving the right to pursue both claims should there be such a further act. This again acts as a deterrent to crime.