The future has not looked especially bright for the UK’s once rapidly growing civil recovery industry, ever since its leading practitioner, the Nottingham-based Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), and its retailer client lost – and lost badly – a test case in Oxford County Court in May 2012 (HERE). But a few weeks from now, the industry will receive a further stunning blow that may well prove fatal.

On 1 October, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 will amend the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, extending the definition of a ‘transactional decision’ and giving consumers new private remedies where a trader uses misleading or aggressive commercial practices. And guidance on the 2014 Regulations, published by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) on 14 August, expressly states that, as a result, civil recovery “is now clearly covered” by the consumer protection regime established by the 2008 Regulations.

It is important to note that this does not mean that civil recovery per se will become unlawful on 1 October. Rather, any misleading or aggressive action by the civil recovery agents will become unlawful. However, given that, as practised to date by the agents on behalf of household-name retailers such as Asda, Boots, Iceland, Tesco and TK Maxx, civil recovery against alleged shoplifters relies for its profitability on hoodwinking often vulnerable people into paying arbitrary, fixed-sum demands for ‘compensation’ for which there is in fact no legal authority, it is inherently misleading.

http://thejusticegap.com/2014/08/end-road-civil-recovery/

I saw this the other day and I am in the process of doing a report including my take on the new regs. Hopefully published in due course on CAG.

Richard Dunstan knows his beans and his report is quite informative.

Really interesting MB, I look forward to the report Silverfox .. thanks.

I wonder if the RLP staff have had to start buying nappies yet? They must be wetting their pants by now.

I wonder why the RLP site has not made any reference to this news.

This is going to throw their script writers into a panic..

So, from 1 October, if they are not to fall foul of the 2008 and 2014 Regulations, civil recovery demands sent to those accused of shoplifting will be able to state little more than ‘we’d like you to pay us an arbitrary sum of money, but if you decide not to pay there is nothing we can do about it and no court action will follow’. And I can’t see that being terribly profitable.

 

Interesting. I suspect that it will be the retailers that put an end to the unsavoury business of civil recovery, rather than its practitioners being worried about the law.

Does this mean the end of RLP? Please say it does?! I got another letter from them last Fri asking to pay or they will send this on to their recovery agent.

I don't want them coming to MY door! :/

Does this mean the end of RLP? Please say it does?! I got another letter from them last Fri asking to pay or they will send this on to their recovery agent.

 

I don't want them coming to MY door! :/

Don't worry about anyone coming to your door. It won't happen.

As for the poxy DCA, nothing to worry about there at all.

Thank you SilverFox

Surly this is harassment? U lot must get SICK of people worrying over these bullys!

Thank you SilverFox

Surly this is harassment? U lot must get SICK of people worrying over these bullys!

I do have to admit that I get a bit frustrated with some people who ask the same questions over and over again without actually reading the threads but I also tell myself, these people need help and it is my knowledge sphere to assist.

You should examine the indentations in my tongue from all the biting

I'm with Silverfox; the people who ask the same question over and over again (and get the same advice, over and over again), can be trying.

However, the thought that by helping people here, who are often vulnerable, and almost invariably innocent in the eyes of the law, we are depriving the morally repugnant civil recovery industry of money keeps me going.

I do have to admit that I get a bit frustrated with some people who ask the same questions over and over again without actually reading the threads but I also tell myself, these people need help and it is my knowledge sphere to assist.

 

 

You should examine the indentations in my tongue from all the biting

Yep. Ive been on the verge of screaming myself. I just restate what has already been said and try and keep a level head.

I often use this forum to help people and get some great advice from it, very rarely if ever post as I am looking for advice rather than here to give it, but today after reading this thread I am a bit bewildered...

On the face of what I am reading you guys are jumping up and down saying how wonderful that hard working people cannot chase up criminals who steal from them and cost us jobs and business's. It is not just big chain stores that suffer my girlfriends mum had a part time job in a local "offee", due to a combination of rent rises council tax .. etc then the hassle of dealing with so much theft threw his hands in the air said enough is enough, result no jobs.

Ok am no fan of these DCA's but I have other friends who work in mainstream retail and shoplifting really is a huge problem, when confronting individuals threats of violence are commonplace, hence the need for extra money spent on security. (I suppose this could be called a job creation scheme on it's own merits?)

I also understand when someone is down on their luck and get something to survive or suffering from illness, they should be helped, however the 2 girls in the test case were perfect example of why the retailers are frustrated about what to do, they were caught red handed pinching make up .. not exactly life sustaining sustenance!

So now Boots are in a dilemma if they send kids like this to court they will if convicted receive criminal records, that haunt you for the rest of your .. and believe you me it does as I was a recipient of several before I changed my ways.

Nobody wants this, so what is the option pay their costs, which in my mind is not a huge and outlandish amount, maybe it will show people actions have consequences, something this society is seeming to forget.. why shouldn't you pay for the problems you cause? Maybe if it was properly administered without the cowboy DCA's it would be a good thing? I would much prefer if I had a daughter caught shoplifting we paid costs, in fact I would make damn sure she got a job and paid it herself.. just like my dad did with me when I got into trouble, I had to work to pay of my fines... maybe I am now old fashioned, don't feel it, but it is now a long time since I was a teenager ..lol

It just makes me see red when people seemingly support unacceptable behavior, suppose I will be mercilessly lambasted as an uncaring git, but to be honest if so I really don't care on this occasion, maybe the guys from Nottingham were ******s, we do have plenty of them here, but in my view the idea someone pays for the crap they cause seems really fair to me.. I find this much more acceptable a way of dealing with it than by dragging kids through the courts.

Maybe the retailer should given the option to offer allow shoplifters to pay a contribution towards costs directly to themselves?

Prob end up with DCA's again eventually ... hey ho rant over...

Noone here supports Crininal behaviour and or condones shoplifting.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

RLP are not the retailer. They have no RIGHT to demand money. It is robbery and they use bullying and misleading tactics to do it.

They mislead the victim into thinking they MUST pay or RLP will TAKE THEM TO COURT when in fact they have no right to do so.

There is a LEGAL SYSTEM there to deal with shoplifters. THE RETAILER ultimately can either act within the law and have them prosecuted. OR NOT. BUT but NOT TAKING THAT OPTION they have no more right than you or me to demand money with threats and pretending that (RLP) are the JUSTICE SYSTEM. They are NOT. They are mearly a PRIVATE COMPANY making a profit by pretending to be something they ARE NOT.

The other point is the costs they try and "Claim" are out off proportion and in most cases goods are recovered in a sale-able condition.

Also RLP like to send speculative invoices to inncoent victims of over zalous security as well.

But Boots dont get the money. It is a system based upon a lie to the retailers of their being evidence that persuading people who have not been charged or convicted of any offence into paying RLP money somehow stops offending behaviour. The retailers pay RLP for a service they are not getting and the alleged perpetrator pays RLP and not the store so no restitution takes place.

The store loses out twice.

If Boots sued an individaul for their losses dealing with an incident of theft or attempted theft you would get no complaints from me but some daft woman sitting in an office claiming the ACPO support her activities when her company commits criminal acts makes a mockery of restorative justice.

Now why dont you try reading a few of the examples of the people being advised on these threads and you will see that none of them are what one would describe as hardened criminals. I havent seen one example where actually having a criminal record was ever going to be a consequence of following a different process, the police and the courts could not cope and in 95% of the cases raised heer there would be no conviction because there was no theft or at least the lack of evidence that would ever stand up in court.

I own a business that suffers from theft by shoplifting and the people who do it are not kids and not down at heel either. However, I cannot even challenge them as I sell in places where CCTV doesnt exist and the evidence trail would be non-existent. A certain amount of loss is factored in to prices charged and different retail sectors have a different margin for such things.

The police will not turn out for a shoplifter at places like Aldi becuase they dont have enough staff to detain and process any person they suspect of committing a crime there so it is pointless the police pitching up as there will be no continuity in the evidence trail and the best result would possibly be an accepted caution.

One of the trade-offs for the convenience of our shopping habits is we pay more for the thieves.

Hi snoopy69 and welcome (finally) to CAG

Your post is well intended and (IMO) well reasoned however things are not as they seem to appear. If we had a thread where we knew that the poster was a prolific shoplifter, you would see very little sympathy to them and would get very little help. We have to take the poster at their word that they are a first - timer who has been caught and as such is highly unlikely to do it again. If you were to search on the forum, there was one cocky little so and so who had so little help, he/she vanished.

There is already in place a system that allows a store to recoup there losses. this is called the civil courts. The problem there is that a company is only allowed to claim the actual losses incurred and any admin fees incurred, not the arbitrary amounts RLP demand.

I remember a while back reading something where RLP and the store has a 40/60% split of any money raised. How accurate this is, I have no idea. If the stores were to bring this in house, that cuts out the need for RLP (and their ilk) and it would be quite likely that the amounts claimed would be a bit more acceptable.

Imagine this, shoplifting suddenly stops entirely. Would the stores reduce their prices as they no longer have to factor this in to their prices? Of course not. they would be rubbing their hands with glee as they thought of the extra profit.

Going back to RLP, it is my suspicion that the stores are quite happy for some other body do their dirty work for them which is why they prosper. Also, if RLPs model was so good, why did B & Q dispense with their services?

I am all for recouping losses but not the inflated amount RLP demand. Their letters are full of misleading claptrap and 'mistruths' and there is no body to regulate their practices.

With the new rules coming in, RLP will find that the letters as they are now would be classed as misleading and aggressive giving the 'alleged' shoplifter an avenue to bring them to book for this. Please remember that very few of the threads we see have the criminal courts been involved and as such there is no absolute proof that anybody has shoplifted in the first place. RLP even chase people where a mistake has been made.

The same principle applies to RLPs 'dishonesty database' They place everyone who has been accused (but not found guilty in a court of law) on this database. Is this right? No is my opinion. If they want to place someone on this database, take them to court first and get a legitimate judgement.

The reason no court action has taken place since July 2012 is due to the slapping 'A Retailer' and RLP got slapped over the actual costs incurred as they could not prove they were actually incurred. If RLP were so sure that their actions were lawful, you have to ask, why are there no other cases ?

While a criminal record is detrimental to a shoplifters future prospects, the police usually use their common sense and either issue a caution or a fixed penalty for a person who is a first timer and in my opinion, that is a good way to do it. It also gives the police the information as to whether the shoplifter IS a first timer or someone who has been stopped before when proper court action can be instigated.

My apologies for the rambling nature of this post as I wrote it as it came to me.

I totally agree that people and organisations that bully others should be stopped in their tracks pronto, and as I said this RLP? lot have no sympathy from me if that is how they ran their business.

That people in a vulnerable situation need protection, but the vast majority of these people caught really do not fall into this category and should have some kind of deterrent whether it be an on the spot fine or whatever the legislators in their infinite wisdom.

As also stated I have no love for any of these DCA's as most are bottom feeders of the worst kind... however they are a necessary evil... hardly believe I am writing this..I detest these people.. but they are there to provide a service so they will want to get paid for what they do.. look at bailiffs fees.. do not get me started on that one... in comparison it is a virtual bargain ... someone has to do the nasty crap in life, if they are properly regulated with set fee's then in reality it is not the worst system ever..

when I was a kid me and some friends took some old stuff from an old hotel that was due to be demolished, with it inside we got seen coming out and it cost us a heck of a lot more in fines than the top figure quoted by civil recovery notices.

At the end of the day you go shoplifting and know you are going to get chased up in this way would you think twice, the answer is probably yes, but if after reading up on this 66% ignore the notices they are hardly an effective tool, and assuming the first timers will probably pay up it is the 66% that should looked at targeting maybe?

Also my apologies as with Silverfox for rambling further also as it came out ..lol

I hope not to have offended to many people on my favourite knowledge pool...

Sorry snoopy, you are wrong - Civil recovery has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention and everything to do with maximising profit for a rather shoddy industry.

If they wanted to prevent crime, then at the very least they would invest more in the community coppers and have them attend these incidents.

Sorry snoopy, you are wrong - Civil recovery has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention and everything to do with maximising profit for a rather shoddy industry.

 

If they wanted to prevent crime, then at the very least they would invest more in the community coppers and have them attend these incidents.

simply and accurately put.

when I used to travel in europe 35 years ago it was not deemed an offence in some countries to steal food for your own use!

I know I got caught enough times...

Silverfox has helpfully highlighted the fact that RLP's activities are really nothing to do with crime prevention or deterrence.

For me it's really simple. Theft, including shoplifting, is wrong, and I do not condone it in any circumstances. Thieves should be dealt with - but by the appropriate statutory authorities, such as the police and courts. There is no place for a parallel justice system of the sort that RLP purports to be.

There are a number of reasons why.

In law there is a presumption of innocence - it is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the accused may be represented and defended; the magistrate or jury determines guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. RLP dispenses with these awkward requirements and simply assumes that anyone accused is guilty, effectively acting as prosecutor, judge and executioner. We have seen a number of cases where RLP have pursued people who have made an honest mistake, or have done nothing at all - for example, a young teenager pursued by RLP because she happened to be with another teenager a shop security guard thought might have taken something.

The criminal justice system takes into account of the circumstances of accused individuals when determining what action to take. That might be a police officer deciding that a stern word is sufficient to deter, to a judge ordering psychiatric reports, or making a fine fit the accused's income. RLP, of course, aren't interested in anything but money.

An individual has formal redress in the criminal justice system; if a person thinks he's been wronged he can complain, for example about his treatment by the police, or by appealing a court decision or sentence. Further, everyone in the criminal justice system is trained and accountable. Shop security guards are not trained to the extent of police officers, and RLP's activities are entirely unregulated.

I know that retailers complain that the police do not appear to take shoplifting seriously in some areas. That may be the case, but retailers should be taking that up with the police or Home Office. Retailers may also want to consider how easy it appears to be for people to steal from them - balancing risk against their wish to generate sales by having goods easily accessible, and the number and cost of staff to serve customers is entirely a matter for them.

Finally, consider this: if RLP really is about deterrence and crime prevention, it's a particularly flawed business model that depends upon being unsuccessful - no shoplifting means no money for RLP!

Silverfox has helpfully highlighted the fact that RLP's activities are really nothing to do with crime prevention or deterrence.

 

For me it's really simple. Theft, including shoplifting, is wrong, and I do not condone it in any circumstances. Thieves should be dealt with - but by the appropriate statutory authorities, such as the police and courts. There is no place for a parallel justice system of the sort that RLP purports to be.

 

There are a number of reasons why.

 

In law there is a presumption of innocence - it is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the accused may be represented and defended; the magistrate or jury determines guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. RLP dispenses with these awkward requirements and simply assumes that anyone accused is guilty, effectively acting as prosecutor, judge and executioner. We have seen a number of cases where RLP have pursued people who have made an honest mistake, or have done nothing at all - for example, a young teenager pursued by RLP because she happened to be with another teenager a shop security guard thought might have taken something.

 

The criminal justice system takes into account of the circumstances of accused individuals when determining what action to take. That might be a police officer deciding that a stern word is sufficient to deter, to a judge ordering psychiatric reports, or making a fine fit the accused's income. RLP, of course, aren't interested in anything but money.

 

An individual has formal redress in the criminal justice system; if a person thinks he's been wronged he can complain, for example about his treatment by the police, or by appealing a court decision or sentence. Further, everyone in the criminal justice system is trained and accountable. Shop security guards are not trained to the extent of police officers, and RLP's activities are entirely unregulated.

 

I know that retailers complain that the police do not appear to take shoplifting seriously in some areas. That may be the case, but retailers should be taking that up with the police or Home Office. Retailers may also want to consider how easy it appears to be for people to steal from them - balancing risk against their wish to generate sales by having goods easily accessible, and the number and cost of staff to serve customers is entirely a matter for them.

 

Finally, consider this: if RLP really is about deterrence and crime prevention, it's a particularly flawed business model that depends upon being unsuccessful - no shoplifting means no money for RLP!

Perfectly put, not a single thing wrong with that.

 

Finally, consider this: if RLP really is about deterrence and crime prevention, it's a particularly flawed business model that depends upon being unsuccessful - no shoplifting means no money for RLP!

Applies equally to the majority of private parking companies, who might also in certain circumstances have to refund as a result of these regulations. I wonder if Trading Standards might be induced to prosecute even.

Perfectly put, not a single thing wrong with that.

I second that, I can understand Snoopys post but we have a criminal system here and that is to deal with shoplifters, thats the deterent, if the CPS/Police doesnt prosecute them then that is a different issue and its upto the stores to push for a change.

The civil law is quite clear and if someone 'wrongs' you and causes a loss it is quite simple to put in a civil claim to recover any loss as damages, the stores in question are welcome to do this BUT as the Oxford case shows, they have not satisfied the Judge as to the amount or indeed any amount lost. Involving a third partyy such as RLp further complicates matter as clearl;y RLp have suffered no loss AT ALL yet they seek to keep some/perhaps the majority of the cost claimed from the alleged shoplifter.

Crimes such as shoplifter can only be reduced IMO by the implementation of the CRIMINAL justice sytem not by the involvement of third parties such as RLP who clearly are in it for the money not (as they seek to suggest) any interest in detering crime.

This was posted by Scarletpimpernel on a different thread

Originally Posted by ScarletPimpernel

 

Misleading practices include:

 

 

 

- falsely claiming that their client's overheads are losses

 

- using legal jargon to give the impression that a RLP speculative invoice has the status of a legal claim

 

- giving the impression that RLP decide whether or not a claim is taken to court, when they have no legal standing to do so

 

 

- claiming an association with ACPO that does not exist, to give the impression that RLP's activities are in some way endorsed by ACPO, which is not the case

 

- quoting court cases on the RLP website, without providing sufficient detail for the case to be verified, falsely suggesting that retailers invariably win cases

 

- falsely suggesting that consumer websites cannot provide helpful advice to individuals targeted by RLP

 

- falsely suggesting that certain consumer websites are, or have been, investigated by the police for criminal activity

 

 

Aggressive practices include:

 

- sending repeated spurious demands for payment after the victim has made their position clear

 

- writing to parents of minors without consent (more on that later)

 

- threatening to wait until a minor is 18 before commencing legal action

 

- using terms such as 'offender' and 'wrongful actions' when an individual has not been convicted of any offence

 

- threatening to affect an individual's job prospects by claiming that their data will be held on a database of offenders.