probably shreading everything they can:lol:

dx

... individual does not commit any further tortuous acts, reserving the right to pursue both claims ....

Do they really say tortuous????

Very sad. Where on earth were they educated?

They also say

Brand protection is another key issue RLP considers with its clients, given that they are largely household brands. Our Claims advisers, client services team and legal advisers liaise with clients whenever any issue arises which may affect a client’s brand.

Eventually, yes.

 

Remember that RLP don't take anyone to court - it's the retailers that have to do that. It's happened in a very tiny proportion of cases; RLP crow about some on their silly website. After one of their major clients, A Retailer, lost what appears to be the first properly defended case last week, I suspect that the chances of court action, already extremely small, is now even more remote.

It is confirmed for sure now that the mysterious Retailer who Shall Not be Named has lost?

It is confirmed for sure now that the mysterious Retailer who Shall Not be Named has lost?

Yes it is.

However, we will need to see the judgment to understand the reasoning.

It maybe that the judgment will also suggest a way that cases can be brought successfully - so peope should be wary.

Also, it is only a County Court case. It is not binding. RLP could decide to advise their clients to try again. However this would be risky because another cleint might not want to face the same risk of humiliation and of damaging their reputation in open court.

Of course, the real message is: Don't shoplift.

But to the retailers, the message is - let normal justice take its course. Don't get involved with Bounty Hunters - and even though it may seem to make some kind of economic sense, that is only in the short term.

In the end, Bounty Hunting won't reduce your shoplifting problems.

It only visits vengeance upon a very small number of individuals. It isn't appreciated by the majority of your brand managers.

If you really want to recoup your losses from each shoplifter you catch, then do it yourself. You don't need to muddy the waters by bninging in bounty hunders

A bit more on what went on during the Oxford CC trial hearings: http://thejusticegap.com/News/a-fatal-blow-to-the-reeling-civil-recovery-industry/

A big THANK YOU from me to BankFodder, Martin3030, ScarletPimpernel and the many other Caggers who have travelled this long and sometimes bumpy road. I love you guys!

And, finally, a message to jonny46 (who was loitering on here yesterday!) and Frogboy, from one of my favourite songs, "Come on" by The Little Heroes:

Maybe we could still find a way,

To chip away at our mistakes (hey hey hey),

Live a life that gives,

Instead of one that takes,

Make this world a better place.

Just to point out - still rather cryptically to our fellow Caggers - that we have accumulated some very curious IP evidence about Frogboy and about Jonny46 and we can safely say that they are not who they say they are - and they are not what they seem to be.

It became curiouser when one of them suddenly produced a court document which did not come from where it purported to come from and which - so far as we can tell - was in the hands of only a very few people at the time.

Curiouser still were the hack attempts against the CAG account of Myddleton - who is from the CAB - and which hack attempts came from a Virgin Media IP address based in Nottingham one Saturday afternoon.

All very odd.

I'd be grateful if everyone could refrain from ANY comments on these curious events - thank you.

We are wondering what to do with this information and we are talking with certain organisations about it.

We will give more details when we consider it is prudent to do so.

A bit more on what went on during the Oxford CC trial hearings: http://thejusticegap.com/News/a-fatal-blow-to-the-reeling-civil-recovery-industry/

 

And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not there...

If RLP do not take people to court then what happens to all the letters they send out. Do they just stop sending them?

"During the trial hearings late last month, witnesses for the high street shop told the court that RLP sends out some 11,000 civil recovery demands on its behalf every year (i.e. as many as 145,000 since 1998), of which some 60-65% go unpaid"

http://thejusticegap.com/News/a-fatal-blow-to-the-reeling-civil-recovery-industry/

Isn't that their business model? (Along with asking for full details of your defense if you didn't want to pay up)

More from me on the excellent justicegap.com:

http://thejusticegap.com/2012/05/very-evil-demonic-card-anag/

Cryptic crosswords and RLP both go well together since often it can be hard to find the real answers.

I noticed that their website has no references at all to the Oxford case,and still mentions a further case in Northampton in May ?

Will the Matrix be making a further appearance for this ?

Very Evil Demonic Card's indeed

Do we know when the case in Northampton is supposed to be?

Well there doesn't seem to have been any activity from RLP since May 1st, they must be busy with their lego set trying to build a new business model.

Northampton's the bulk centre isn't it? Then it will have to be moved to a local court.

I heard a rumour that Steven Speilberg is in talks with them over a possible film deal.

Leaked reports have indicated he was very impressed with their make believe storylines they have been using for years,

Martin, I don't think it's Lego, I think it's Cluedo, they've lost the plot.

Well there doesn't seem to have been any activity from RLP since May 1st, they must be busy with their lego set trying to build a new business model.

I noticed that their website has no references at all to the Oxford case,and still mentions a further case in Northampton in May ?

RLP are being remarkably coy about the Oxford case, aren't they?

I should not be at all surprised to learn that the Northampton case of which they speak is a bulk issue case in which they hope to get a default judgment, which they will then use to suggest that the Oxford case was an aberration.

In fact, the Oxford case appears to have gone largely unreported in retail circles - but the fact that none of the big retailers who use civil recovery are suggesting that the outcome came as a surprise is interesting in itself. It could be, of course, that civil recovery is not a particularly big deal to many retailers, given its low success rate, and that the potential reputational damage may make them think twice about using it in future.

Even La Lambert, previously no stranger to issuing shrill defences of her company's antics, appears to be silent on the case - or perhaps the media don't consider her opinion of any interest.

I contacted Guy Bell and said they might be calling him for advice on how to deal with image cleanups:lol:

HI

This as a very interesting thread and if I may put in my two pennneth worth.

For sometimes I was responsible for preparing accounts for a small supermarket (Co-op), I am an accountant.

I understand vaguely about the point of law that says if the tort of conversion is committed the injured party can claim any damages incurred by that act

(please correct me if I am wrong here)

The problem that I see is, what exactly do those damages consist of?

I used to prepare cost analysis for these stores and security and shrinkage are included within their operating parameters.

In other words any costs incurred in handling these incidents are already paid for when you purchase your shopping. It is not an external cost..

This is why in my opinion the legal case will always fail,

the argument relied on as I understand them,

concern a business whose normal business activities were interrupted by an event which incurred losses,

it may be a sad fact but pilfering is a normal part of the business of the retail trade unfortunately.

DB

Have to agree, good post.

HI

This as a very interesting thread and if I may put in my two pennneth worth.

For sometimes I was responsible for preparing accounts for a small supermarket (Co-op), I am an accountant.

I understand vaguely about the point of law that says if the tort of conversion is committed the injured party can claim any damages incurred by that act (please correct me if I am wrong here)

The problem that I see is, what exactly do those damages consist of?

I used to prepare cost analysis for these stores and security and shrinkage are included within their operating parameters.

In other words any costs incurred in handling these incidents are already paid for when you purchase your shopping. It is not an external cost..

This is why in my opinion the legal case will always fail, the argument relied on as I understand them, concern a business whose normal business activities were interrupted by an event which incurred losses, it may be a sad fact but pilfering is a normal part of the business of the retail trade unfortunately.

DB

In other words any costs incurred in handling these incidents are already paid for when you purchase your shopping. It is not an external cost..

 

You know this, we know this, retailers know this and I suspect even La Lambert knows it.

Civil recovery, as it was first proposed by Prof Josh Bamfield, was designed to recover costs from convicted thieves. It was only after La Lambert became the owner of RLP that anyone suspected of wrongdoing, or who had made an innocent mistake, or who was vulnerable by virtue of learning difficulty, mental health or age became targets, and this was picked up by the other companies that are involved in civil recovery. In other words, they saw a potential source of easy money - no need to bother with all that pesky evidence and boring stuff like proving your case - just send some threatening letters and a percentage of people will pay up. It works, to an extent, and retailers got a cut - money they otherwise wouldn't have. It has nothing at all to do with crime prevention or deterrence, though - the shoplifting stats prove that. No, it's only ever been about money.

In the big scheme of retail things, the amount of money generated by civil recovery is tiny. The potential damage to a retailer's reputation that can be caused by bullying methods of civil recovery is significantly larger, and retailers will no doubt weigh the advantages and disadvantages up when deciding if civil recovery is worthwhile.

Currently, I suspect that a number of retailers may be deciding that civil recovery as it is currently practiced has outlived its useful life.

Here is the Judgment in the Oxford case - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer-Judgment&p=3898858#post3898858