New Report on Ciivil Recovery from the CAB

[buzby]

Criminal Records are in the Public Domain? Have you tried to search them? I'm not talking about personal access to data (which is what the CRB provides), so by definition this is not a 'Public Record'. If you care to tell me where I may peruse them, then I might just believe you. My attempts at doing so have been continually thwarted.

[diddydicky]

looking at their modus operandi, defamation doesn't even appear on their radar. they are judge, and jury, they send out their demand EVEN IF there is no crime, or conviction as they rely on the 51/49 principle of civil liability. so they will send out their demand regardless imho. Time has been taken and must be paid for so they think, and the innocent who inadvertantly caused it to be spent must pay by their reckoning.

 

and regrettably they will catch some folk out

 

however. all that needs to be done (politely) is to tell them to f**k off

 

 

none of these people has EVER taken one of these debts to court

[Surfer01]

Apologes this time you are right so you can take a bow. I was getting mixed up with court cases which are in the public domain. As a matter of interrest how would a prospective employer check if you have a criminal record or can't they?

[diddydicky]

Not make goods so easy to steal?

 

CAB make clear in the report that they do not condone crime at any level (the same as CAG), but the concern with civil recovery is that it is applied in very many cases where there is no crime. Let's not forget that Professor Bamfield, who introduced the concept of civil recovery to the UK (through his Institute for Retail Research - actually a commercial company), thought that it should only be applied where there had been a conviction.

 

RLP and their ilk set themselves up as a parallel justice system, and this is wholly inappropriate.

 

As for convictions not being in the public record, I cannot see why this should matter. If the retailer is the victim in a case, they will be perfectly well aware of the conviction of someone who steals from them.

 

It seems to me that it is much more important to protect innocent people from the likes of RLP than it is to offer solutions to retailers who do little to protect themselves from thieves.

 

your first comment (not make goods so easy to steal)- is a cop out and- if i may say so- typical of those caggers who blame everyone but themselves for the mess they are in

 

if you cannot resist the temptation to steal something- because it is sitting there in an easy situation- you need to have a conversation with your parents- who were responsible for teaching you right from wrong-

 

the rest i agree with

[buzby]

none of these people has EVER taken one of these debts to court

 

Well, I'me aware of at least 2 in my local court from the last 5 years. (I look out for things like this, along with actions by TVLRO, DVLA and Insurance Companies). I agree this may be a miniscule percentage of the actual letters they send out, but that's not the point - the same holds true of speculative Private Parking Companies.

 

Check out the information here: http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/advice.aspx

[diddydicky]

Well, I'me aware of at least 2 in my local court from the last 5 years. (I look out for things like this, along with actions by TVLRO, DVLA and Insurance Companies). I agree this may be a miniscule percentage of the actual letters they send out, but that's not the point - the same holds true of speculative Private Parking Companies.

 

Check out the information here: http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/advice.aspx

 

i should correct myself and state that they have not been succesful in any defended case sorry

 

the "Guff" they spout on the item- what if i do not pay- after the first para is no more than a precis of how the county court procedure works which any fool can recite

 

the " we will decide" etc is a total nonsense

 

without a successful police prosecution or an admission of guilt (and that does not include one that was obtained by fear in the managers office) they have more chance of knitting fog than securing a successful conclusion to a civil claim-

 

a civil courts authority to decide a civil action is based on a balance of probability- in a criminal matter the same criteria do not apply and the prosecution have to prove each individual aspect of the alleged offence - beyond all reasonable doubt- something which a civil court has no power to decide.

 

a civil court therefore cannot make any "presumption of guilt" irrespective of how compelling the claimants evidence of a criminal offence is

 

without proof that the defendant was guilty of theft- how then may a civil court make a ruling on damages sustained by the claimant for an offence which is not proven

 

If the claimant came to a civil court with proof of a conviction or a caution ( a caution cannot be given to an alleged offender who does not admit the offence) then that would be an entirely different matter

 

a store detective or employee has no power to issue a caution and any such caution is not worth diddly squat

Edited January 6, 2011 by diddydicky

[buzby]

They can't, UNLESS they are in a field/industry that is explicitly permitted to make a CRB enquiry (for which they have to pay for). This is why most request the potential employee to request the check, and exhibit a certificate confirming the results of the search. (This way, the applicant pays for it!).

[Surfer01]

your first comment (not make goods so easy to steal)- is a cop out and- if i may say so- typical of those caggers who blame everyone but themselves for the mess they are in

 

if you cannot resist the temptation to steal something- because it is sitting there in an easy situation- you need to have a conversation with your parents- who were responsible for teaching you right from wrong-

 

the rest i agree with

I do not condone shoplifting at all, but if they are caught there should be a fair process even if ti means that they have to go to court. at the moment the RLP people are no better than the people they are apprehending. They are legal crooks protected by our laws.

[diddydicky]

Retailers have security guards, cctv, and electronic tags to prevent theft, what else are they to do? When some people are determined to get something for nothing, then they will go to great lengths to do so. I don't mean the habitual thieves or druggies trying to get money to feed their habit, I mean the people who may be spending money in a shop, who think they are entitled to a little freebie. One young mum I saw recently, stole a mascara about £8 value and put it in her pocket. She was stopped outside by the guard and asked to return. On the way to the office she took the item from her pocket, and put it in her little boy's anorak hood.

 

I do agree that civil recovery companies are asking for a lot of money, they are purely businesses and try to make money for themselves, regardless of the effects on anyone else. I can, however, see why this is attractive to businesses. When a low value theft occurs, the police do not want to deal with it, and will get the hump if they are called out when less than £10 value has been stolen. These thefts will never make it to court, the courts system would collapse if all such crimes were processed, and the police don't want all the paperwork etc. If the police take a thief into custody, they are gone from the streets for about 3 hours. The police don't want that for such a small theft, and the public already complain enough about there not being enough officers on the streets. Even when a shoplifter is taken to court, it is quite rare for a compensation order to be made in favour of the retailer.

 

On the subject of "innocent", almost every shoplifter will say that it was an honest mistake, they are on anti-depressants, they just had an operation, they just lost a loved one, they are confused. You cannot truly believe that because someone says they are innocent, that they in fact are? It can often be seen on cctv, that a person is looking at cameras, or staff, or other customers, before slipping something into their pocket or bag. If you do a google search for shoplifters, you will find some videos to show this in action. They are not all innocent! Some retailers will give the benefit of the doubt where it is a possible mistake, but these cases are few and far between, because cctv evidence will show deliberate concealment and this removes all doubt. People can put stuff under buggies or in the hood and close it, but when they then take great pains to cover it up, it shows the intention to steal, and when they then don't produce the item for payment it has to be deliberate. Would it be normal shopping behaviour to push something up your sleeve?, remove a barcode?, remove a security tag?, remove something from it's package then conceal it?

 

I DO NOT condone the actions of civil recovery companies, but retailers pass on the costs of theft to the customer in higher prices. Why should we have to pay for the thefts of others? Given all of the above, what other avenues are open to retailers to protect their business?

 

if they have so much evidence- and the police will not act- they could bring a private (criminal) prosecution

 

i'm with you on most points but find the proposition that anyone can be found to be guilty without a trial by his peers- for the sake of cost savings - a chilling orwellian prospect.

 

we have already started down this unsavoury path insomuch as if you challenge a speeding ticket you can exoect to be "punished" in court by up to £1000 fine if your challenge fails- a clear disincentive to seek justice

[diddydicky]

The problem is exactly that, and further to hightail's point, they will just see an incident as a licence to extract money, from the obviously innocent victim. they are not concerned that no crime was actually committed, just that they can invoice the innocent party apprehended in error, using undue duress to collect it, for the time that was spent by the store's security "investigating" the non-crime. RLP would likely argue on Watchdog, judging by their representatives interview on the BBC programme, that it is entirely reasonable to bully an innocent person in this manner and enter the details on the dishonesty database, because they wasted the stores time.

 

This to me is the inherent weakness of this system criminalising the innocent, people will pay these companies to avoid the "shame" of suspicion.

 

and if i were the recipient of such a demand- i would submit my own invoice to the company for the time and inconvenience - together with a denial that i stole anything- a claim for compensation £4999 for damage to my reputation caused by the company branding me a thief and i would take THEM to the small claims court

 

i know i would have more chance of winning than they would!

[diddydicky]

Cautions will flag up on a CRB check in addition to a criminal conviction which should be on public record.

 

apart from certain excluded organisations no one can access your criminal records without your written consent

 

and again, for most purposes convictions over 7 yrs old are considered "spent" and would not be disclosed- again except to certain exempt organisations

[Surfer01]

They can't, UNLESS they are in a field/industry that is explicitly permitted to make a CRB enquiry (for which they have to pay for). This is why most request the potential employee to request the check, and exhibit a certificate confirming the results of the search. (This way, the applicant pays for it!).

When I went for temporary work at DEFRA I had to undergo a CRB check for some reason. The work never entail anything of a security nature and no money was involved, just statistics. weird.

[diddydicky]

I don't understand the concern - it is only an allegation available to 'club' members - it is not a 'Public Record'. Look at a similat money-making enterprise, the Credit Reference Agencies. Their system allows their clients to record 'defaults' against an individual. It is those accessing this information who decide that this default is the same as a CCJ. Their error - there has been no court case, no decision of an independent nature. Yet firms MUCH prefer to work this way, they avoid the costs of taking anyone to court, and are able to 'record' the debt information for others to see - whilst having a ready-made collection industry ready to pay them a % to take ownership of the debt to pursue the alleged debtor.

 

This appears to be what RLP do, in a parallel exploitation. You might recall they were there as a dual-track to pursue the miscreant in addition to any criminal liability. But they got greedy. Rather than ignore cases that never make it to court, they need to pursue cases that have not been proven (as theyd be unbable to exist otherwise). So far, they're still hanging on in there.

 

anything that is put on a computer data base about an individual is subject to SAR irrespective of whose benefit the database is for

 

the consequences of failiure to comply with the DPA are not minimal

 

the CRA records are freely available to anyone named on them

[diddydicky]

Apologes this time you are right so you can take a bow. I was getting mixed up with court cases which are in the public domain. As a matter of interrest how would a prospective employer check if you have a criminal record or can't they?

 

very simply- with your written permission- so it is yourself making the application and then giving it to them

[brassnecked]

and if i were the recipient of such a demand- i would submit my own invoice to the company for the time and inconvenience - together with a denial that i stole anything- a claim for compensation £4999 for damage to my reputation caused by the company branding me a thief and i would take THEM to the small claims court

 

i know i would have more chance of winning than they would!

 

That is what I would do citing the reciept as absolute proof, and if they tried the county court route would defend vigourously, and counterclaim for my time wasted.

[andydd]

You do not need 'permission' from the ICO to run a computer database - however, you need to be registered under the DPA, and a check of the ICO's register confirms that RLP are indeed registered complete with a Data Controller.

 

As such, a SAR sent to them with the appropriate fee is all that is required to obtain all information.

 

Although the CAB report states "

As noted in the case of ‘Paula’, above, some of

the RLP ‘notices of intended civil recovery’

handed out by retailers have falsely stated that

the above data-screening scheme has been

“approved by the Office of the Information

Commissioner”.

 

and then

In correspondence with Citizens Advice, the

Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) has

confirmed that it has not at any stage approved

RLP’s data-screening scheme. Furthermore, in

November 2009 the OIC informed Citizens

Advice that it had “contacted RLP requiring them

to remove the wording regarding [OIC] approval

of their scheme – according to RLP [this false

statement] appeared due to an error and was

removed in March 2009”

 

Which would imply that some sort of 'approval' is needed (which was not granted) although the situation may have changed since the report.

 

Andy

[buzby]

They're being disingenuous - the 'approval' is the Data Registration, not that the ICO has explicitly approved their methods of operation. It's like CRA's and the disclosure of 'defaults'. The term is misused in it's original (legal) sense, as a Default (note the capital 'D') referred to a court document or judgement proving the person was at fault. However, anyone can be 'in default' (small 'd') for not complying with the terms of an agreement. It suits their purpose to blur the major differences in the same word - in effect, giving them the power of blackening someone's name without resorting to a judicial decision.

 

The ICO's 'approval' is just the same thing - but they are approving RLP's ability to register their computer system to comply with the DPA. Firms like these rely on ambiguous terms in order to give creditbility to their business model. A look at the website linked above will show how desperate they are to seek justification for their reason to exist, with quotes from legal people that endorse what they do. (They're hardly going to promote those that don't!) But their form for visitors to complete to their rejection of RLP's claim is an abomination, but I bet there will be many who will fill it in and bury themselves even deeper.

[brassnecked]

They're being disingenuous - the 'approval' is the Data Registration, not that the ICO has explicitly approved their methods of operation. It's like CRA's and the disclosure of 'defaults'. The term is misused in it's original (legal) sense, as a Default (note the capital 'D') referred to a court document or judgement proving the person was at fault. However, anyone can be 'in default' (small 'd') for not complying with the terms of an agreement. It suits their purpose to blur the major differences in the same word - in effect, giving them the power of blackening someone's name without resorting to a judicial decision.

 

The ICO's 'approval' is just the same thing - but they are approving RLP's ability to register their computer system to comply with the DPA. Firms like these rely on ambiguous terms in order to give creditbility to their business model. A look at the website linked above will show how desperate they are to seek justification for their reason to exist, with quotes from legal people that endorse what they do. (They're hardly going to promote those that don't!) But their form for visitors to complete to their rejection of RLP's claim is an abomination, but I bet there will be many who will fill it in and bury themselves even deeper.

 

 

Agreed buzby, that form is a real stinker, it will allow people to bury themselves without realising what they are doing. The other thing is the websites contact details are profit garnering phone numbers also, so you pay for the privelige of denying any liability. Although there is an alternative geographical number on say no to 0870, the whole site is thoughtfully designed to intimidate, and persuade someone that it is hopeless to fight just pay up or else.

 

I would be interested to know if people who have not been sent an invoice are on the database through being referred from an incident like the scenario I posed?

[diddydicky]

pity no one knows any hackers who can flood the site and bring it down

[hightail]

I would be interested to know if people who have not been sent an invoice are on the database through being referred from an incident like the scenario I posed?

 

I'd go further and suggest that there shouldn't be ANY names on that database other than people they have successfully pursued through the courts. It is not up to RLP to label someone as dishonest on the say so of a shop employee. They have on their website an opinion from a QC stating their actions are lawful - and very proud of it they are. This 'opinion' has nothing about the database and quite clearly uses the term 'thief' as someone they are entitled to pursue for compensation. Until and unless they get judgement in either criminal or civil court an individual isn't a thief, they are accused of theft which is an entirely different thing.

[sillygirl1]

RLP themselves are guildy of 'dishonesty' as they are absuing the whole concept of RLP, which was designed to recover costs for goods NOT recovered, not for goods recovered and subsequently resold.

 

I think the whole concept of RLP stinks, fair enough there are 'geniune' shoplifters but they should not criminalise somebody making a geniune mistake.

 

As for their banning orders, they have no legal validity and should somebody be handed one to sign they should refuse - they cannot then take you to court for not signing a banning order.

[buzby]

The issue that nobody has mentioned, is - as required by the DPA - a data subject has to GIVE THEIR PERMISSION for their information to be stored on RLP's database. There is no exception for RLP. So, if they are compiling lists of allegedly dishonest individuals, where is this all-important permission?

 

Have people really confirmed their details (inclkuding DoB) and agreed that RLP may store their details?

 

Someone, who has found themselves to be listed, but has not provided permission would need to be prepared to take on RLP and the ICO to ensure the Act is complied with.

[brassnecked]

I'd go further and suggest that there shouldn't be ANY names on that database other than people they have successfully pursued through the courts. It is not up to RLP to label someone as dishonest on the say so of a shop employee. They have on their website an opinion from a QC stating their actions are lawful - and very proud of it they are. This 'opinion' has nothing about the database and quite clearly uses the term 'thief' as someone they are entitled to pursue for compensation. Until and unless they get judgement in either criminal or civil court an individual isn't a thief, they are accused of theft which is an entirely different thing.

 

There is the nub of the problem, they assume everyone is guilty, and we are all a potential criminal, that is how they base their business model. Suspect all, is their motto as there are multiple ways they can get data over and above referrals from store detectives such as couriers and delivery drivers signing in and out of some big store delivery bays. What is there to stop security passing driver details on, if they have a spat with the driver at the back door?

Edited January 7, 2011 by brassnecked

[buzby]

Surely, they have no interest in whether anyone has guilt? They offer a 'service' and firms subscribe to it - in the same way PPCs do. Like them, I doubt many of the larger companies actually pay anything for the service provided (like the clampers) - and another case where 'guilt' is of no interest. As for it being 'dishonest', I don't see how it can be - they are not judge or jury, and they are entitled to their opinion - your beef is that they are attempting to profit from it.

[brassnecked]

Surely, they have no interest in whether anyone has guilt? They offer a 'service' and firms subscribe to it - in the same way PPCs do. Like them, I doubt many of the larger companies actually pay anything for the service provided (like the clampers) - and another case where 'guilt' is of no interest. As for it being 'dishonest', I don't see how it can be - they are not judge or jury, and they are entitled to their opinion - your beef is that they are attempting to profit from it.

 

That is the problem stored up for the future, as more retailers buy into their services, then their assumptions and opinions can have far reaching consequences for the innocent, on the no smoke without fire principle.

If I personally found them processing my data, and the only way they could have it is through me signing in at the back door to deliver to a store, then I would pursue them and report them to the ICO.