Judgment handed down today. Further details to follow.

We don't yet know whether the anonymity order has been confirmed - so for the moment we must honour the retailer's request that they would rather that none of the other businesses in the High Street - nor their customers - nor their shareholders know precisely who it was went on this Bounty Hunting exercise against two silly girls who took items from their shop.

Of course, we don't condone shoplifting - and we recognise the right of any business to recoup its losses but to turn this into a revenue-earning exercise for some enterprise which decides to turn human error and human silliness into a cash cow and which seems to go for anyone regardless of that peson's personal circumstances and regardless of the circumstances of the case - is really going too far.

There seems to be a whole bounty-hunting industry vogue at the moment.

Civil recovery isn't only about shoplifting, it is about file-sharing, private parkiong, debt collecting, bailiffs - you name it.

The effect of the industry - even if it is not the intention - is that once a person is down, to give them a good kicking and to keep on kicking until they have been bled of their last drop.

The Civil recovery industry is, in effect, usurping our justice system. At least our justice system tries to listen to the facts, tries to treat people as individuals, tries to apply action or sanctions tailored to the wrongdoer and to the events and to the effect of those events.

At least our justice system tries to set people back on their path.

At least our justice system isn't in it for a quick buck - and damn the consequences.

What on earth has possessed A Retailer and other decent well-reputed companies to risk their good name on this kind of stuff?

Maybe a good reputation is like stock, nowadays - pile it high and sell it cheap.

I think that it brings a certain shame upon our society - is this David Cameron's Big Society?

Outstanding news.

How can TK Maxx justify setting it's Security Guards targets?

Leave to appeal refused.

Of course, it doesn't stop A Retailer from appealing the refusal - but I have a sense that A Retailer would rather keep their heads down ... (in shame???)

Excellent news, they should be ashamed

Couldnt agree more, instead of just acting like proper solicitors and waiting for a case to come along in which they can represent people there has been a rise in companies (sometimes actual solicitors, sometimes not) who are sniffinmg around looking for an 'in'and a way to make money from nothing, file sharing is an obvious one, which took bad publicity, SRA sanctions and an eventual court case for the process to end (I'm thinking mainly of ACS Law).

Private parking contractors are another one, it is no doubt that due to the disgraceful way that many behaved (in particular my local villans LBS Enforcement) thjat was behind the decision to outlaw it.

Civil Recovery is the laterst monster to rear its head and many have been pointing out the flaws in its (mostly RLP's) arguments for a long time, so can we expect this latest news to appear on the RLP website ?, will Mawrey be making comment ?

Andy

Well done to the defence team and to the CAB for supporting the young ladies.

HB

I agree with all the comments so far.

If the retailer who must not be named decideded to dispense with these money makers and follow the rules and take people to court for their actual losses (if any) then I don't think we would be here today railing at RLP and their practices.

I've ordered a transcript of the judgment and this will be available for viewing as soon as it received.

Could take three weks or so though.

You might be able to find a summary on RLP website as they like to publish their trophies - and this judgment must rank as a particularly significant one, mustn't it.

A victory for common sense, as well as for the defence teams and CAB.

I've ordered a transcript of the judgment and this will be available for viewing as soon as it received.

Could take three weks or so though.

 

You might be able to find a summary on RLP website as they like to publish their trophies - and this judgment must rank as a particularly significant one, mustn't it.

Im tempted to email them and ask why I cant view this latest case ?

I've been following a couple of RLP stories, and wondering now this has been shown up, how the stores are going to react.

I've avoided two particular stores in town because I do not approve of the way they target ordinary people making a mistake whilst ill or in a hurry.

I also think now the stores involved in RLP will be thinking 'RIP RLP' instead to save their reputations in these difficult times.

I think any bad reputation these stores get is deserved, they should look into RLP properly and understand what they do before they decide to use them. They should have more respect for their customers than that.

It is difficult to imagine how RLP will persuade retailers to utilise their unsavoury services now that the proper authorities have decided that they can't recover their made-up charges through court. This has, after all, been the only sanction that RLP have to threaten their targets with.

They took a few undefended cases to court to try to show that they did issue and they did win. Everyone saw through this pathetic ruse in short order.

Now one of their biggest clients - and let us not forget the part played in court by RLP - have lost the only properly defended case to come before a judge.

Comment on this case, prior to judgement, on a Tesco staff forum:

The case was heard at Oxford County Court on 26/27 April and the Judge has reserved judgment - to be announced at a later date. It is the subject of an anonymity order over the Claimant and Defendants, and focuses on the legality of what Civil Recovery may claim as 'costs' from alleged shoplifters. I say 'alleged' because although many are undoubtedly guilty, and may even admit their theft, they only remain 'accused' of wrongdoing unless the case is progressed through Court.

There have been an ever increasing number of complaints to the authorities about the demands made by Civil Recovery companies - with juveniles, vulnerable people and sometimes those who were guilty of genuine forgetfulness in leaving an item unpaid for at a checkout receiving demands over many months, and organisations such as CAB have been extremely critical as beyond threatening letters, very few cases have been taken to a defended case in court - remember this is civil law not criminal, and a decision the wrong way for the CR industry could set a precedent that undermines their business model - the CR company takes the lion's share of whatever is recovered and stands to lose a significant amount of income. In law, any demand which exceeds the actual loss incurred is a penalty, and as such is unrecoverable as a penalty can only be imposed by a Court or a properly appointed body, not a private company.

As so many people are now just ignoring CR demands as the vast majority of cases don't go beyond the letter stage - think of this in the same way as parking charges on private land - you don't have to pay them as the legal authority for the demand is extremely flimsy and parking companies are reluctant to see their claim tested in court - a test case has been arranged where two shoplifters have ignored the CR claims and the demand has been followed up with a county court claim.

Civil Recovery allows a business to reclaim only genuine and actual losses incurred as a result of wrongdoing, and this is more straightforward to pursue if the case has been to criminal Court first to prove guilt, however Retail Loss Prevention, the company used by us, and other retailers (and who presented the case at Oxford, but for another retailer, not Tesco), take the name and address of those caught in store and then write to claim a fixed amount of 'costs' (normally £87.50 or £137.50 depending on the value of goods). Whilst the law allows such a recovery of costs where these are a genuine account of losses suffered, the counter-argument is that in invoicing for a fixed amount, RLP are not making an accurate demand, for in most cases the goods are recovered in a saleable condition, the security staff and others involved in apprehension and interview are already on duty and therefore being paid anyway, so no loss was actually involved. This is the main consideration for the Judge in the case, for the law cannot agree that such demands are lawful unless RLP, or the store can demonstrate that either extra staff had to be brought in and paid where they would not normally have been, or that the distraction of security staff caused other shoplifters to steal goods which would otherwise have been detected - and how can a cost be calculated for that?

Many submissions were heard on both sides - the Judge wanted to know for example how much the security staff (TSS in this case) are paid (£12 - £14 per hour apparently!) in order to try and gauge how long they were distracted for (15 minutes or so) and how this could equate to a loss of £137.50 - times 2 as there are 2 defendants.

This case, whichever way it goes, will be unlikely to change anything too drastically as it stands, although RLP may have to reassess the way in which costs are calculated. They may have to be clearer about how many staff were involved at £XX per hour for example, but the longer term potential implication could go further. As a county court case it would not set legal precedent, although would be a 'persuasive' argument for others in defending future court claims, but if the losing side in this case were to appeal, and an appeal court were to overturn the earlier decision, then this could open the way for those previously charged, and who paid up, to take action to recover the money!

http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?topic=11967.0

Do most of you know or have a good idea as to who the retailer that does not speak it's name is!? It's bugging me I'd like to know if it is who I would like it to be!

Do most of you know or have a good idea as to who the retailer that does not speak it's name is!? It's bugging me I'd like to know if it is who I would like it to be!

To answer this question on this forum could put us and the person responding in contempt of court

Oh right, I shall sift through some other threads to ease my eager mind then

What do you think this result means for those of us who have received letters from RLP? Do you think they will bother keeping at it or do you reckon they will give up on those ignoring them?

What do you think this result means for those of us who have received letters from RLP? Do you think they will bother keeping at it or do you reckon they will give up on those ignoring them?

I think it will make it very difficult for them to even consider going near court again if you continue to refuse to pay them!

I wonder if they will go out of business eventually once people cotton on, especially those who have the good sense to ask you guys for advice. You have been my rock throughout and i will always be grateful to everyone who gave me their advice and opinion. Hopefully retailers who use them will come to their senses and try to put in place a better deterrent system in the future.

What do you think this result means for those of us who have received letters from RLP? Do you think they will bother keeping at it or do you reckon they will give up on those ignoring them?

I would say that the prudent thing is to respond to the lett5er and tell them that you are aware of the Oxford judgment and that they should take you to court and you will be happy to defend vigorously.

I'm not at all sure that it is a good idea to ignore them.

Ive had 5 letters so far, the last one threatening debt collectors was dated 1st feb so am keeping my fingers crossed thats the last one.

Great news, well done to all involved

Jogs

A bit late to this one but excellent news, as any company they denies due process, and issues unenforceable demands deserves a kicking in court.