ladies and gentlemans the responces

[labrat]

The last paragraph basicly prevents me from publishing extracts on other websites which has shot the story on shortnews, but here is the information you have all be waiting for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. I am currently looking at writing an article about retail loss prevention, how it works, and why people have reservations about it, for this I am contacting yourselves and several of your clients for information and would appreciate an answer to the following questions

if possible I would like a breakdown of how retail loss prevention (rlp) works, for example what kind of cases are referred to yourselves, what details are asked for, and what adjustments are made for people who may not understand what is happening due to either language barriers or disabilities

A. RLP acts as legal agents for retailers and other businesses who engage us to recover for them losses that they suffer as a result of shoplifting, staff thefts or other damage to their goods or property. Our clients send us all necessary information to enable us to identify and contact the individual involved and give us the details of the incident in their witness evidence along with the amount of the claim. We assess merits of the claim, raise any specific queries or concerns we have with the client and provided it satisfies the requirements for liability within tort law we proceed with civil recovery. Our letters set out the civil claim and the further action that will be taken if the claim is not settled.

Q. What happens when these details are received I understand you cannot use specific examples due to the data protection act but if possible general examples or "what if" scenarios would be helpful. How are costs determined for example, or what sorts of letters are sent.

A. There are too many variations to discuss and each case is dealt with on a case by case basis. Our clients send us full details of their time expenses and other expenses (costs) involved in investigating the incident. Although for small claims it is not proportionate for our clients to spend further time and expense recording every action that they take in investigating incidents. Our clients therefore sometimes claim a fixed cost based on the value of the item. The fixed costs consist of average costs, which were compiled in a survey by national retailers and include the time taken to watch, apprehend, interview and complete documentation, the associated administration costs for phone calls, stationery, printing and a proportion of the security measures to try and reduce thefts. As per the judgment in Bridge UK.com Ltd v Abbey Pynford [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC), the courts have confirmed that they are prepared to take a broad-brush approach to assessing staff-time claims of relatively low value.

To ensure that individuals can understand the claim made against them we have a call centre team and legal team who deal with all telephone and written queries, requests for information or explanation in plain English. Whenever an individual has difficulty understanding English, on receipt of their verbal or signed authority we will correspond with any authorized representative, whether they are a relative, solicitor or citizen’s advice bureau etc to explain and resolve the matter.

Q. I have been reading peoples accounts of dealings with rlp and what their side of the story has been for example charging large amounts for very low value items, charging two people for the same items, charging for items that have been paid for after the event, however I realise that these may have been exaggerated for the benefit of online forums and would appreciate your views of these examples.

A. I presume you mean that you have been reading accounts written by people who have received correspondence from RLP as a result of our clients making claims against them for theft (shoplifting), fraud or staff thefts.

As our clients are legally entitled to claim their investigation and surveillance costs for dealing with incidents of theft or fraud the total amount of the investigation costs claimed sometimes exceeds the value of the items stolen. Whether the total value of the items is low or high it is the time it takes to deal with apprehending the individuals involved and dealing with the incident that is being claimed (whether or not the police attend and or press charges). Low value thefts cumulatively cause high levels of loss to our clients.

When two people have been involved in an incident causing loss to our client they are legally held jointly and severally liable for the loss and compensation costs until total liability has been extinguished.

Clients have policies which prohibit their staff from accepting subsequent payment for stolen and damaged goods (apart from genuine accidental customer damage), however, where subsequent payment is evidenced these cases are not pursued for civil recovery. This is not to be confused with incidents where an individual commits a deceitful act for gain by changing price labels so as to make payment for less than the offered price of our client's goods.

Q. there has also been concerns raised on these forums about facts such as retail loss prevention not holding a current consumer credit licence, despite in store signs stating that they use a Civil Debt recovery company online responses to people who have asked about this include "we do no claim debts simply compensation" however I note that the retail eyes trademark lists debt collection under its registration, if I could gain a comment on why you feel a consumer credit licence is not nessacery for your business.

A. Our signs, which we supply to our clients, state that “Civil Recovery” is in operation – they do not mention the word 'debt'.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulates the provision of credit (as the title suggests) and the debt which ensues from it. Debt Collection as defined by the Office of Fair Trading's document entitled, “Do you Require A Consumer Credit Agreement” states that you require a licence "If you collect debts due to others, arising from credit or hire agreements (whether regulated or exempt)”. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft147.pdf Our clients engage us to make civil compensation claims to recover losses which our client's have suffered for them. The legal basis of these claims does not arise from credit or hire agreements but from tort liability (civil wrongs) in law. This is the law that protects individuals or companies from other individuals or companies who wrong and cause loss to them and whereby the civil County and High Courts award damages in compensation.

RLP had previously held consumer credit licenses for business activities it had undertaken which required a Consumer Credit Licence. Appropriate trademark registrations were accordingly obtained. RLP intends to again undertake work which may require a Consumer Credit Licence and has therefore applied for one.

Q. finally with the recent reporting on the building trades hidden database there has been a lot of focus on the data protection act recently I notice that your site lists yourselves as "having the largest database of dishonest people outside of the police", how is this data maintained and under what circumstances is it passed onto third parties, is it possible for people to update their information on this data base, for example someone listed as stealing from a store but without a criminal conviction may have the right to have this amended under the data protection act what would your actions be if contacted about this

A. All data that RLP are sent by their clients relates to incidents where the client has reasonable belief that the individual detailed is liable for the theft or fraud they are reporting. This will be based on the eye witness evidence of our client's staff, cctv footage, investigations, the apprehension of the individual, recovery of items and subsequent interview. In many instances this is supported by an admission, police evidence and or criminal convictions. Additionally all individuals are given the opportunity to submit a defense to the claim. Any valid/necessary amendments are subsequently made.

Data is stored strictly in accordance with the Data Protection Act and with the guidance of the Information Commissioner's Office. This is obtained and utilised for the purpose of legal civil recovery action and the prevention and detection of crime and as such this use is permitted by section 35 of the Data Protection Act. All Data Subject Access Requests are responded to within the guidelines set out in the Data Protection Act.

Q. i am writing the article mostly for publication on the same internet forums as noted in the previous email, my reasons for writing the article is to hopefully clear up the points on how retail loss prevention and to resolve the issues that are being discussed such as the credit liscence and data protection issues, i listed the main sources of information in the previous emails.

Further to my original query and having consulted the original guidelines as set by Professor Bamfield, the founder of RLP, I should be obliged if you could also respond to the following

As you know the original guidelines indicate that civil loss recovery should only take place against 'convicted' thieves over 16 years of age yet it's alleged that RLP frequently demand payment from both adult and under aged shoppers who have neither commited nor even been found guilty of any offence.

A. Civil law claims can be made against anyone usually from the age of 14 years old (as the age agreed by the courts to be when an individual is responsible for their actions), while criminal prosecutions can be made against individuals from the age of 10 years old. Guidance on civil claims against under 18 year olds is set out in Part 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part21.htm

Q. You claim to have the largest data base of dishonest persons in the UK. Therefore does this data base only include 'convicted' persons or does it also include any person from whom you have requested payment

Have you at any time advised an accused person that if they don't pay their name would be added to your data base

A. As our database consists of the information sent to us by our clients, which enables us to contact individuals to proceed with civil recovery claims – this could not apply.

In conclusion:

We are aware that there is a considerable amount of mis-information in certain sections of the public domain and we have responded in detail to your questions so as to aid in reducing this mis-information. All individuals who contact RLP regarding a legal claim made against them are given individual information on the circumstances of that particular claim and accordingly we cannot comment further.

As previously discussed, thank you for confirming that you give permission for your questions to be published on our website. I hereby give you permission for this document to be reproduced in full on the two forums mentioned in your emails: CAG and Money Saving Expert. I do not consent to it being edited or paraphrased or adapted in any way. I do not give you permission for this document or any of its contents to be published anywhere else without my specific prior consent.

the only editing is font as this didnt copy well from the document sent to the forums.

 

i find the answer about if payment for the goods is accepted then no action is taken intresting

Edited June 12, 2009 by labrat

[samjf]

This has made excellent reading Labrat and your questions were brilliant. I also am confused with the bit about if payment is accepted for goods then no action is taken, as with the very kind help of Martin, I wrote to RLP with a great letter explaining that I had paid for my goods, and also more goods after the incident and they still are threatening me with Court Action.

[labrat]

thank joncris for some of the questions

 

and i would like to thank retail loss preventions company solicitor for taking time to answer them

[Conniff]

It would appear that the main question has not been asked or answere:

 

How do you reach the figure that you demand from alleged wrongdoers?

Typical political mumble jumble, not one single question has been answered satisfactorily.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Conniff

[shanty]

.

 

Q. I have been reading peoples accounts of dealings with rlp and what their side of the story has been for example charging large amounts for very low value items, charging two people for the same items, charging for items that have been paid for after the event, however I realise that these may have been exaggerated for the benefit of online forums and would appreciate your views of these examples.

A. I presume you mean that you have been reading accounts written by people who have received correspondence from RLP as a result of our clients making claims against them for theft (shoplifting), fraud or staff thefts.

As our clients are legally entitled to claim their investigation and surveillance costs for dealing with incidents of theft or fraud the total amount of the investigation costs claimed sometimes exceeds the value of the items stolen. Whether the total value of the items is low or high it is the time it takes to deal with apprehending the individuals involved and dealing with the incident that is being claimed (whether or not the police attend and or press charges). Low value thefts cumulatively cause high levels of loss to our clients.

When two people have been involved in an incident causing loss to our client they are legally held jointly and severally liable for the loss and compensation costs until total liability has been extinguished.

Clients have policies which prohibit their staff from accepting subsequent payment for stolen and damaged goods (apart from genuine accidental customer damage), however, where subsequent payment is evidenced these cases are not pursued for civil recovery. This is not to be confused with incidents where an individual commits a deceitful act for gain by changing price labels so as to make payment for less than the offered price of our client's goods.

 

 

 

 

 

Can they use the phrase "I presume you mean that you have been reading accounts written by people who have received communications from RLP as a result of our Clients making claims against them for theft (shoplifting),fraud or staff thefts", when a proportion of these people have NOT been found guilty by a court?

 

At the very least I would have expected them to say"alleged thefts.."etc. There seems to be no allowance here for staff errors,or incompetancies,and seems to be saying that everyone who is communicated with is guilty,I don't like that, it's as though errors couldn't exist,but the system is wide open to it because of poor,or little training.And they appear to be doing nothing to put that right.

[shanty]

I also don't like in question 1 they say they "raise any specific queries with the Client," but fail to mention how the accused person can also raise queries with them,and be taken seriously.I believe their should be a second opportunity (I don't think people are necessarily in a position in the store to evaluate what's happened),for people who believe they have been treated unfairly,in law,to state their case to RLP,in writing,and RLP should seriously consider this BEFORE progressing further,It doesn't seem this is happening.There should in effect be an "appeal" system which is taken seriously.

 

They are just like wheelclampers in my view,actually ,worse.

Edited June 13, 2009 by shanty

[ScarletPimpernel]

The answers to Labrat's excellent questions point, to me, to an organisation that may have started with the laudable aim of assisting companies to recover costs from convicted thieves. However, perhaps because the profits from such activity may have been small, they've extended their activities so that it no longer matters whether their targets are actually guilty or not.

 

I also find RLP's answer to the consumer credit licence question evasive; the OFT's definitions of businesses that require a licence are much broader than RLP suggest.

[JonCris]

Well done - Still I'm afraid it's a load of carp - for example their reference to 16 year old whilst they are correct about 14 year olds being liable this was never envisaged in the original guidelines anyway they claim protection of the DPA as a reason for NOT contacting the parents so if the parents aren't informed just where do they expect a 14 year old to find £150 - by stealing perhaps - This just doesn't make any sense

 

Also for their to be criminal act of theft or damage there has to be a criminal intent so I don't think the checking of the contents of a product amounts to a criminal act

 

It goes without saying that this pernicious company needs to be stopped & if necessary their theories tested in the courts followed by substancial damages for defamation being awarded against them

 

PS they have my permission to reproduce MY post on their site:)

[raydetinu]

They are correct about a 14 year old being criminally liable ( the bit the refer you to does not say they can be sued at all)! they cant ,you have to be 18 unless they are jointly sued with their parents or 'friend'.

Like msot other cases I doubt they would ever get to court.

It would be interesting to know if they have successfully brought any cases to fruition against an under 18 that had not involved the police or been found guilty by a crimnal court first?

[JonCris]

I agree The CPR refers to compensation paid to a minor & the requirement that ant settlement can only be agreed by the court. - It does not refer to a financial claim against a minor - as I stated who on earth do they think would pay even if they did

[labrat]

 

PS they have my permission to reproduce MY post on their site:)

 

 

sorry jon cris thought i had made it clear that they were looking at publishing the Q&A on there site in the pm.

 

so i applogise again if you did not want you questions publishing, loooking at the FAQ on the site it looks like they used a B******dised version of the questions anyway

[My Real Name]

I do not give you permission for this document or any of its contents to be published anywhere else without my specific prior consent

Rubbish. This does not constitute a creative work, and does not enjoy copyright protection.

 

Great letter and great questions though.

[JonCris]

double post

Edited June 18, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

labrat if they have misquoted you insist they remove your input - My real name - the writer does hold copywrite & can deny publication - the principal reason is that a letter is considered the 'intellectual property' of the writer & doesn't have to be the work of a creative genuis

[My Real Name]

labrat if they have misquoted you insist they remove your input - My real name - the writer does hold copyright & can deny publication - the principal reason is that a letter is considered the 'intellectual property' of the writer & doesn't have to be the work of a creative genius

My thoughts are that they would be hard pressed to enforce copyright over correspondence entered into, either in whole or part, and would have absolutely no chance over paraphrase, adaptation or derivative thereof.

[JonCris]

Picking out the bits is one thing but if you did you still shouldn't attribute it to the original writer as that's considered plagiarism & can still be considered a breach of copyright particularly where permission to publish has been specifically denied as in this instant

[My Real Name]

Picking out the bits is one thing but if you did you still shouldn't attribute it to the original writer as that's considered plagiarism & can still be considered a breach of copyright particularly where permission to publish has been specifically denied as in this instant

I disagree, but this isn't the place to do so, as we might drag it out for days

[JonCris]

eg the attempt to sell Diana's letters & the ginger whatsisname the estate claimed copywrite to stop them being published & if I'm not mistaking won

[JonCris]

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Who owns a letter once you've sent it?

 

Note the bit about the content as apposed to the paper it's written on

[shanty]

sorry jon cris thought i had made it clear that they were looking at publishing the Q&A on there site in the pm.

 

so i applogise again if you did not want you questions publishing, loooking at the FAQ on the site it looks like they used a B******dised version of the questions anyway

 

Does this mean they will try to somehow use the name of the consumer action group to their advantage,as they did with acpo for example?

[JonCris]

Shanty anythings possible with this bunch

[shanty]

Yes,I agree.

[labrat]

they did promise not to associate the questions or to use consumer action group as referances or something like that

[yourbank]

Good work labrat very interesting. Thank you.