Help with RLP

[ScarletPimpernel]

Umecan, you present an extremely simplistic view of civil recovery. The problem is that civil recovery as practiced by RLP and some others isn't about recovering money 'lost' by the retailer - it's about making money for the civil recovery company.

 

In this country, as with other civilised, democratic countries, we have a criminal justice system to deal with offences against the law. That is the proper route for dealing with shoplifters. If retailers are unhappy with the police or court response to shoplifting, they can lobby for changes in the law, through bodies like the British Retail Consortium.

 

The problem with civil recovery as practiced by RLP is that they do not target only people who steal; they also target people that security or shop staff think may have done something wrong. Many security and shop staff are poorly trained, so the chances of them getting it wrong are high - as we have seen in many of the cases that come up on CAG. Amazingly, some retailers, such as TK Maxx, set targets for their security staff, and it is easy to see how this could affect the threshold of suspicion.

 

There are other possibilities, of course. Someone could be targeted by a security officer because of the colour of his skin, his inability to speak English, or simply because the security officer doesn't like the look of him. This can happen with the police too, but they have much more training and the process that has to happen before court and conviction will minimise the chances of rogue accusations.

 

Read my posts earlier in this thread about mental health and shoplifting for further information as to why these matters should be dealt with by the proper authorities.

 

RLP has no interest in reducing shop theft; if shop theft stopped completely tomorrow RLP would be out of business. It's in their financial interest to have a steady stream of people being accused of wrongdoing, often without evidence.

 

To my mind they are no different to the PIRA hoods that try to replace the rule of law on some housing estates in NI.

 

Please have a read of the CAB reports - they are stickied - and also look up the Law Commission's recent report which raises serious doubts as to the legal basis of RLP's activities.

 

The argument about the cost of retail security being added to prices is specious; we can all choose where we shop, and there are lots of factors that affect our choice - price is only one. For example, I choose not to shop in Boots; price is not a factor. Their use of RLP is one reason I do not shop their; others include long queues to pay and poor choice in my local store.

 

At the other end of the scale, when I bought my OH's engagement ring I had to ring a bell at the jeweller's door and wait to be admitted. I couldn't browse by myself - the assistant had to help. Undoubtedly some of the cost of the ring was overheads such as security, but I didn't mind paying it. Indeed, I gladly pay a little more for good, polite, service, which presumably costs the retailer more in training and recruitment.

[andydd]

Andy. I'm learning fast. You are correct in saying "CIVIL Courts are there for other matters, monetary disputes, etc". So if I, as a retailer, try to claim my losses from a thief by means of compensation and they refuse to pay, does that not become a monetary dispute?

 

Yes..BUT what does your compensation entail ?. What are you being compensated for ?. What have you lost ?. You cant just say 'gimme some money', I think youll find this point popping up in greater details over the next week or so.

 

Andy

[cerberusalert]

@Umecan

 

Have you read this report by the Citizens Advice Bureau & the Law Centres Federation?

uncivil_recovery.pdf

[Umecan]

Andy. Not everything has to go through CRIMINAL court. For a start, they're too busy already. If the Police want to arrest someone for burglary and take them to court, that would be heard at CRIMINAL court. But if the Police don't arrest them and you, as the "injured party" feel you have a valid claim which you can substantiate, then you're quite within your rights to take the matter to CIVIL court. That's how the law works in this country.

[rebel11]

Everything you've listed you would consider as part of a business plan, yes you could do without those costs but as you've highlighted those costs are incurred in todays retail environment. If those costs were £100,000 for cameras etc but you've generated profit of £300,000 through your 'spectulative invoices', what you are saying just doesn't add up does it.

 

OK rebel11, imagine this... You're a shopkeeper happily going about your business of serving customers. They come in, you serve them, they pay and leave. All is happy in the retail world. Your shop then becomes very popular so you expand it and allow people to wander around gathering things from shelves and rely on their honesty and decency to go to a check out and pay before they leave. This works well most of the time, but as usual with society nowadays, the odd oink will come in to your shop and think it's OK to take stuff and not pay. What do you do? Suddenly, you have to start paying out money for CCTV cameras, tags on products, scanners at doors, security guards etc etc, all which hits your profits thus forcing you to put up your prices to everyone, (most of whom are honest and are now being punished with higher prices). Armed with your new, (expensive) security measures , which lets not forget, you wouldn't need if it weren't for these sticky-fingered blighters, you now start to apprehend the odd thief, (although annoyingly, a high number still get away), and now you have the added cost of the time it takes to deal with them - filling in paperwork, calling the police checking your CCTV tapes, writing witness statements, putting the stoeln goods back on shelves, (some of which may need to be repacked or sold at a discount).

[Umecan]

Cerberusalert. When I click your link, I get " Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

[Umecan]

Everything you've listed you would consider as part of a business plan, yes you could do without those costs but as you've highlighted those costs are incurred in todays retail environment. If those costs were £100,000 for cameras etc but you've generated profit of £300,000 through your 'spectulative invoices', what you are saying just doesn't add up does it.

 

Not sure what you mean by "speculative invoices"

[ScarletPimpernel]

A speculative invoice is one sent where there is no proper basis for the amount claimed, e.g. private parking tickets, RLP claims. In other words, I could send you a bill for 'services rendered', and threaten to take you to court if you didn't pay it - it would legally be just as valid a claim as any of RLP's.

[cerberusalert]

Cerberusalert. When I click your link, I get " Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

 

Try it now

 

Or download from here https://rapidshare.com/files/2275461517/uncivil_recovery.pdf

[Umecan]

A speculative invoice is one sent where there is no proper basis for the amount claimed, e.g. private parking tickets, RLP claims. In other words, I could send you a bill for 'services rendered', and threaten to take you to court if you didn't pay it - it would legally be just as valid a claim as any of RLP's.

 

That is correct, you could. However, we would at that point enter into correspondance about the validity of your claim. I would ask what services you rendered and you would tell me. If you were correct in what you were saying and therefore had a valid claim, I would pay your demand or make you you a reasonable offer to avoid the potential costs of a court case. However, if I knew you couldn't possibly have a claim for your services as you never "rendered" them, I would make you aware of that and suggest you submitted your evidence proving otherwise to the court if you have any. In the case of private parking, if I knew I was never in your car park and you had no evidence I was, you would have back down. However, if you had CCTV footage of me in your car park and made me aware of that, I would have to pay your demand or take my chance in court. It's all about talking to each other, understanding each others point of view and coming to a settlement - hopefully without the need for either of us to go to court.

[Umecan]

Try it now

 

Or download from here https://rapidshare.com/files/2275461517/uncivil_recovery.pdf

 

That takes me to a website which asks me to log in and install some software, whcih we're not allowed to do on our systems. Sorry

[cerberusalert]

It shouldn't do. You should be given three options; Buy Rapid Pro, Save to your computer or Save File to Rapidshare account. You need to click 'download in the 'Save to computer' option. It will download a pdf file not an exe file.

 

Alternatively you can download it from the CAB site http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/uncivil_recovery

[dx100uk]

the pdf link in post 232 works ok now

[ScarletPimpernel]

That is correct, you could. However, we would at that point enter into correspondance about the validity of your claim. I would ask what services you rendered and you would tell me. If you were correct in what you were saying and therefore had a valid claim, I would pay your demand or make you you a reasonable offer to avoid the potential costs of a court case. However, if I knew you couldn't possibly have a claim for your services as you never "rendered" them, I would make you aware of that and suggest you submitted your evidence proving otherwise to the court if you have any. In the case of private parking, if I knew I was never in your car park and you had no evidence I was, you would have back down. However, if you had CCTV footage of me in your car park and made me aware of that, I would have to pay your demand or take my chance in court. It's all about talking to each other, understanding each others point of view and coming to a settlement - hopefully without the need for either of us to go to court.

 

Not quite right.

 

I could easily say that the service rendered was reading your posts, and I am charging a sum for doing it because it took me away from something else. If I follow RLP's method, I make up a standard sum, dismiss all your arguments that I haven't really done anything, I am unable to give you a breakdown of the costs, and I rely on you being scared by my aggressive demands to pay. Of course I don't want to go to court, but I hope that you won't know enough about the process, or your rights, and will pay. Suppose you suffered from mental health issues, or couldn't speak English well? So much the better, because you'd be less likely to know that it's all nonsense.

 

In the case of a private car park CCTV would be irrelevant - all that can be claimed is what was lost, so if it usually costs 60p for an hour, and you were there for an hour, that's all you owe. The parking contractor can't legally claim any sort of excess, penalty or profit charge.

[Umecan]

I don't think RLP are as bad as many of you make them out to be. An associate who introduced me to the forum told me he'd spotted a couple of postings from shoplifters who had co-operated with RLP and actually been treated very fairly. In fact one, reportedly had her cheque sent back to her by RLP once she'd been in touch with them and explained her predicament. I can't find them on here myself, so not sure if they've been removed. Maybe someone doesn't want the good stuff to be heard? What was it they said on the XFiles? "The truth is out there"

[Umecan]

Not quite right.

 

I could easily say that the service rendered was reading your posts, and I am charging a sum for doing it because it took me away from something else. If I follow RLP's method, I make up a standard sum, dismiss all your arguments that I haven't really done anything, I am unable to give you a breakdown of the costs, and I rely on you being scared by my aggressive demands to pay. Of course I don't want to go to court, but I hope that you won't know enough about the process, or your rights, and will pay. Suppose you suffered from mental health issues, or couldn't speak English well? So much the better, because you'd be less likely to know that it's all nonsense.

 

In the case of a private car park CCTV would be irrelevant - all that can be claimed is what was lost, so if it usually costs 60p for an hour, and you were there for an hour, that's all you owe. The parking contractor can't legally claim any sort of excess, penalty or profit charge.

 

So if I come and park my van on your drive so you can't get your car on it, that's OK is it? And if you had a wheel clamp which you could put on my van and charge me £50 to take it off, you wouldn't think you would be justified to do that? I don't want to be pedantic, I'm just trying to understand your point of view. But enough about wheel clamping - I was merely using that as an example of a practice which is seen as "dodgy" by many but has it's place as a detterent against illegal parking and can be operated in a proffesional manner. Going back to your argument about claims for reading my posts, are we in agreement that if you could show you were detracted from your normal business because you had to deal with me and could substantiate your claim by means of proving your costs, that it would indeed be valid under civil law?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Umecan

[cerberusalert]

I can't find them on here myself, so not sure if they've been removed. Maybe someone doesn't want the good stuff to be heard?

 

It is not the policy of CAG to remove posts or threads to make RLP look bad.... they are more than capable of that all by themselves.

[ScarletPimpernel]

So if I come and park my van on your drive so you can't get your car on it, that's OK is it? And if you had a wheel clamp which you could put on my van and charge me £50 to take it off, you wouldn't think you would be justified to do that? I don't want to be pedantic, I'm just trying to understand your point of view. But enough about wheel clamping - I was merely using that as an example of a practice which is seen as "dodgy" by many but has it's place as a detterent against illegal parking and can be operated in a proffesional manner. Going back to your argument about claims for reading my posts, are we in agreement that if you could show you were detracted from your normal business because you had to deal with me and could substantiate your claim by means of proving your costs, that it would indeed be valid under civil law?

 

I'm sure that if you do some more reading you will understand, without branching off into ever more extreme examples.

[Umecan]

I'm sure that if you do some more reading you will understand, without branching off into ever more extreme examples.

 

You're probably right, but humour me - Would the claim be valid?

[ScarletPimpernel]

You're probably right, but humour me - Would the claim be valid?

 

We would only know if the case was tried before a court.

 

Just remind me, what area of retail are you in?

[Umecan]

Major high-street.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Major high-street.

 

I was interested to know what you sell; it strikes me that most of the RLP cases we see concern the theft, or alleged theft of small, low value items such as toiletries. We know that RLP are happy to leave the organised, professional thieves to the police, but I was wondering if the experience is different where large goods or high value items are concerned and the suspect fits the same sort of profile as the others (usually female, often a minor, often with MH issues).

[Myddelton]

Umecan - you really need to calm down. Within a week or so, a Circuit Judge is going to issue his judgment on all this. I assume from what you've said already that you believe in the rule of law? Maybe you do, maybe you don't - feel free to clarify - but whether you like it or not this is the UK in the 21st century and the rule of law is the accepted way of doing things. (If you don't like that, maybe you should go and live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where they take a somewhat different approach.) And, when we have the Judge's ruling, all these arguments will be put to rest. Maybe he'll favour your approach, maybe he won't. But you've only got a week or so to wait.

 

So, calm down, go and do something else with your time. Or is your life as sad and empty as you think ours are?

[andydd]

Andy. Not everything has to go through CRIMINAL court. For a start, they're too busy already. If the Police want to arrest someone for burglary and take them to court, that would be heard at CRIMINAL court. But if the Police don't arrest them and you, as the "injured party" feel you have a valid claim which you can substantiate, then you're quite within your rights to take the matter to CIVIL court. That's how the law works in this country.

 

With no police involvement or arrest there may be no actual proof of any wrong-doing, I'm well aware of how the law works BUT you are missing an important point, that any damges or losses must be proved, you cant just pluck a figure from the air (as RLP's 'matrix' appears to do). This is the point that many people such as CAG, CAB and Law Commission have put forward. The current scenario appears to be nothing to do with reducing crime or covering store losses just a money making exercise.

 

Yes..anyone is quite entitled to take a claim to a civil court but so far RLP's reluctance would appear that they are not that confident in their case, time will tell

 

Andy

[Anus Horribilis]

Andy. I'm learning fast. You are correct in saying "CIVIL Courts are there for other matters, monetary disputes, etc". So if I, as a retailer, try to claim my losses from a thief by means of compensation and they refuse to pay, does that not become a monetary dispute?

 

In my opinion as a trenchant critic of RLP, there is nothing wrong with what you've proposed here. Just be sure that the theft is proven and that the losses are specific and real, and you are perfectly entitled to claim and to win.