Help with RLP

[Myddelton]

Just make sure you have a 'Dress Code' in place.

 

Afraid you've lost me there! But I will most definitely have a matrix.

[cerberusalert]

Afraid you've lost me there! But I will most definitely have a matrix.

 

Gold leggings?

[rebel11]

Yes, exactly. Dress professionally, look the part, not like extras from a 'Soap'.

 

Gold leggings?

[Myddelton]

Hey, with my 40% cut, I'll be making so much money I will be wearing gold everything!

To pass the time whilst waiting for Frogboy and Umecan to enlighten us further, I have been updating my dossier of civil recovery cases reported to Citizens Advice by CABx and others since 2007. It now contains 556 cases. Here's the breakdown by year of issue of CR demand, CR agent, and alleged offence type:

(NB: Since 2007, CABx in England and Wales have dealt with more than 15,000 civil recovery cases. The 556 cases are those cases from the 15,000 that have been reported to and examined in detail by Citizens Advice. I seem to remember these figures confusing Frogboy horribly in the past. But she does only have an A Level in Law, so we really shouldn't be too hard on her.)

Year of issue of civil recovery demand

Year of issue

 

% of all 556 cases

2007

 

8

2008

 

5

2009

 

19

2010

 

35

2011

 

30

2012

 

3

Civil recovery agent

Agent

 

% of all 556 cases

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd

 

79

Drydens Lawyers

 

14

Civil Recovery Solutions

 

2

Palmer, Reifler & Associates/Goddard Smith, sols.

 

2

DWF, solicitors

 

1

Stephens Scown, solicitors

 

Others

 

Alleged offence

Offence type

 

% of all 556 cases

Alleged shoplifting

 

83

Alleged employee theft

 

16

Other alleged offence

 

1

Edited May 2, 2012 by Myddelton

[Myddelton]

Hmm, the formatting of those tables didn't come out quite right, but never mind. Here's the breakdown, by age of recipient:

Age of recipient of demand (at time of alleged offence)

Age

% of all 556 cases

Under 17

12

17 to 24

30

25 to 34

20

35 to 49

25

50 to 64

11

65 and over

Teenagers (11-19)

22+

 

The youngest recipient was aged 11, and the oldest was aged 81.

[cerberusalert]

Yes, exactly. Dress professionally, look the part, not like extras from a 'Soap'.

 

Maybe she got a special offer on their Gold Label Clothing at TK Maxx?

[Myddelton]

This is the breakdown by police action taken in relation to the incident:

Police involvement/action taken in relation to incident

Police action

% of all cases

Not called

42

NFA

21

Caution/reprimand

11

Fixed Penalty Notice

14

Prosecution

11

 

[Myddelton]

And - the one you've all been waiting for - the breakdown by retailer:

Retailer client

Retailer

% of all 556 cases

TK Maxx

19

Boots

17

Asda

11

Tesco

9

Debenhams

6

Wilkinson

5

Superdrug

4

Primark

4

Iceland

3

B&Q

3

Morrisons

2

Sainsbury’s

2

Marks & Spencer

1

Lidl

1

 

So, just three major retailers (TK Maxx, Boots and Asda) account for almost half of all demands, and just five major retailers for two-thirds of all demands.

Other retailers (all less than 1% of cases) include: Argos; Bookers; B&M; Harrods; H&M; Makro; Matalan; Mothercare; Netto; Next; Poundworld; Quality Save; Roadchef; Somerfield; Toys R Us; Travelodge; Travis Perkins; Waitrose; and WH Smith.

B&Q have tumbled down the table since dumping RLP in October 2010. The rising stars are Primark and Iceland. All others have remained at pretty much the same position/percentage since we first started producing these figures in 2009. That said, we haven't had a Morrisons case reported to us for some time.

[rebel11]

Hi Myddelton

 

No surprises there, TDMaxx apparently have targets for their security teams, just like the store has a target for sales.

[Myddelton]

No surprises there, TDMaxx apparently have targets for their security teams, just like the store has a target for sales.

 

Yes, a CAB in the north east has been assisting a security guard to claim unfair dismissal. He was sacked for not 'creating' enough civil recovery claim incidents.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Interesting stats. Is there any information on the gender of the individual concerned, and whether or not there were any mental or other health issues involved?

 

The list of retailers involved is not very surprising, though I had not expected to see the Egyptian Grocer included, though it has gone downhill considerably in recent years. I am amazed that Primark would notice anything missing - my only foray into one of their shops showed it to be utterly chaotic.

[caledfwlch]

Surely, RLP are just the "Agents" of the retailer, and thus, the retailer would be liable for the FULL return of monies paid, if someone went to court, and won? Not to mention potential compensation and interest.

[rebel11]

'Egyptian Grocer', he doesn't own it any more, he sold it for aprox £1.5bn.

 

Interesting stats. Is there any information on the gender of the individual concerned, and whether or not there were any mental or other health issues involved?

 

The list of retailers involved is not very surprising, though I had not expected to see the Egyptian Grocer included, though it has gone downhill considerably in recent years. I am amazed that Primark would notice anything missing - my only foray into one of their shops showed it to be utterly chaotic.

[rebel11]

Absolutely, I'm sure they will welcome the publicity that comes with the liability.

 

Surely, RLP are just the "Agents" of the retailer, and thus, the retailer would be liable for the FULL return of monies paid, if someone went to court, and won? Not to mention potential compensation and interest.

[cerberusalert]

The Qatari royal family bought Harrods when Al Fayed retired.

 

Interestingly regarding Asda I was speaking to someone who works there and if anyone is seen shoplifting the so called security have to inform a manager to do the business. I wonder if it is just the one store or company policy now?

[ScarletPimpernel]

The Qatari royal family bought Harrods when Al Fayed retired.

 

 

Indeed. It still has all the fuggin' ghastly decorations from Fayed's time though. Still, the Americans and Arabs seem to like it.

 

I was in Egypt earlier this year; in Luxor there is a small shop with a large sign, in green and gold, and the correct typeface - 'Harrods (of Luxor)'.

[MARTIN3030]

Afraid you've lost me there! But I will most definitely have a matrix.

 

Ah I saw one going-not sure if its been sold yet tho.

 

http://www.gumtree.com/p/for-sale/matrix-for-sale/101453959

[cerberusalert]

Indeed. It still has all the fuggin' ghastly decorations from Fayed's time though. Still, the Americans and Arabs seem to like it.

 

I was in Egypt earlier this year; in Luxor there is a small shop with a large sign, in green and gold, and the correct typeface - 'Harrods (of Luxor)'.

 

I actually worked at Harrods myself... in security, but that's when it was a real store, House of Fraser.

[Myddelton]

Yep, breakdown by gender:

 

Gender of recipient of demand

Gender

% of all cases

Female

61

Male

39

 

As for mental health issues/vulnerability, yes: of the adult recipients of a demand (i.e. excluding known juveniles), 12 per cent are recorded as having serious mental health issues or other exceptional vulnerability (e.g. illiterate, heavily pregnant, no English, street homeless). I know from comments made in response to my previous posting of this figure on this thread that some are surprised that this figure is not somewhat higher, but it is important to note that our reporting process records only serious mental health issues or other exceptional vulnerability. And there is no doubt an inevitable degree of under-reporting.

[Myddelton]

Surely, RLP are just the "Agents" of the retailer, and thus, the retailer would be liable for the FULL return of monies paid, if someone went to court, and won? Not to mention potential compensation and interest.

 

You could be right - I don't have even an A Level in Law! But I am advised by some very, very clever lawyers, and they have advised that there is also the question of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These make it an offence - punishable by up to two years' imprisonment - for traders to engage in unfair commercial practices (and the Law Commission has recently confirmed that this includes misleading and/or aggressive demands for money in relation to e.g. alleged shoplifting). And I am advised by the very, very clever lawyers that, in any one case of a misleading or aggressive civil recovery demand, both the agent AND the retailer would be liable for prosecution.

 

And, of course, any civil recovery demand for which there is no legal cause of action is by definition misleading, unless it makes clear to the recipient that there is no possibility of court action if the demand is not paid. In other words, unless the demand makes clear that it is no more than a request for 'compensation', which can be safely ignored.

 

We don't see so many cases of a demand issued by Drydens these days, but it is clear from those we have seen that Drydens has in recent months substantially revised the content of its demand letters, to the point where they would appear to be little more than 'requests' for money. Now, why might that be, I wonder?

Edited May 2, 2012 by Myddelton

[ScarletPimpernel]

The only problem with CPUTR is that Trading Standards have to bring the prosecution, and they seem markedly reluctant to do so.

[Myddelton]

The only problem with CPUTR is that Trading Standards have to bring the prosecution, and they seem markedly reluctant to do so.

 

The times they are a-changing ...

[Myddelton]

But let’s get back to the here and now, and in particular what we know about County Court claims issued by retailer clients of RLP. In its written response to a short film on threatened civil recovery broadcast by BBC TV’s Watchdog on 14 April 2011, RLP stated:

 

“It should be noted that [civil recovery] claims are routinely issued in Court and that RLP rely on established case law to support its [retailer] clients’ claims. This legal concept was tested in lower value first instance cases and the heads of damages were accepted in County Court by separate judges. Whilst first instance cases do not create a legally binding authority, they have some persuasive authority. The Law Commission, Home Office and Ministry of Justice have the information on these cases.”

 

Noting that the British Retail Consortium and its retailer members have expressed their commitment to “open and transparent” civil recovery practice, we immediately asked the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to share this information with us. The Ministry of Justice promptly did so. The information consisted of:

 

(a) transcripts of the judgment in the two Nottingham County Court cases HMV v Plummer (judgment dated 26 April 2000) and Littlewoods v Ishfaq (judgment dated 9 June 2000). For further information on these two (meaningless) cases, see pp 11-12 of the December 2009 report by Citizens Advice: Unreasonable demands.

 

(b) a table setting out brief details of 96 County Court claims issued by retailer clients of RLP over the ten-year period 2001 – 2010; and

 

© a table setting out brief details of 12 cases 'sent for issue' in March and April 2011, including the CAB cases (featured in our December 2010 report Uncivil recovery) of ‘Kate’ and ‘M’.

 

Our analysis of the 96 court claims issued by retailer clients of RLP between 2001 and 2010 showed that:

 

Seventy-three (76 per cent) of the 96 claims resulted in a default judgment only, 13 were admitted/settled, and five could not be served on the defendant. Only three claims (all issued in 2005) were defended, but in each case the outcome is given by RLP as ”unknown”. Hmm, strange that! In the remaining two cases, the outcome was not clear from the document, and we sought clarification from RLP. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that this clarification has never been forthcoming from RLP.

 

All but 25 of the 96 claims were issued before 1 January 2007. No claims were issued in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007 or 2009, and only three claims were issued in 2008.

 

Forty-eight (50 per cent) of the 96 claims were issued by just four retailers: Boots (22), Arcadia Group (10), Argos (8) and Sainsbury's (8). The other retailers included: Allders (3 claims); Dixons (3); Debenhams (1); Early Learning Centre (2); Halfords (3); Lloyds Pharmacy (3); Roadchef (1); Superdrug (1); Tesco (4); TK Maxx (2); and Wilkinson (1).

 

(NB: Sainsbury’s is of course no longer a client of RLP; it first moved its civil recovery business to Drydens, then dumped them in favour of law firm DWF in early 2011. I have reason to believe that Halfords stopped using RLP some years ago. And I haven’t seen any demands issued on behalf of Argos, ELC or Lloyds Pharmacy for some considerable time, either.)

 

Of the 22 claims issued in 2009 or 2010 (all in 2010 in fact, as no claims issued in 2009), 12 (55 per cent) were issued by Boots; three by Lloyds Pharmacy; two by Arcadia Group; two by the now defunct Game; and one each by Roadchef, SSP Air (who?), and TK Maxx. Of these 22 claims, 17 resulted in a default judgment only, and the other five were settled without a hearing/trial.

 

Of the 15 claims issued in 2001, eleven (73 per cent) were for less than £155. However, of the 81 claims issued since 1 January 2002, none was for less than £200, and only five were for less than £500. Of the 22 claims issued since 1 January 2009, only three were for less than £1,500, and the median sum claimed was some £3,700. This suggests that most if not all of the claims issued since 1 January 2002 related to employee theft, not (alleged) shoplifting.

 

In my next post, I’ll look at the 12 cases ‘sent for issue’ by RLP in 2011.

[Myddelton]

As noted above, the third element of the information provided by RLP to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Law Commission in April 2011 was a table setting out brief details of 12 cases “sent for issue” by RLP in early 2011. By ‘sent for issue’, RLP would appear to have meant ‘cases being prepared for the issuing of a County Court claim by the law firm Berryman (which subsequently merged to become part of Shakespeares), on behalf of the retailer in question’. The backstory is as follows:

 

On 22 March 2011, during a short parliamentary debate on threatened civil recovery initiated by Simon Hughes MP, the justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly MP, stated:

 

“The Government accept that a retailer arguably has a legal right to recover any additional costs or losses directly caused as a result of dealing with a case. However, we appreciate that there is no statutory or other clear basis for setting the amounts of such costs or losses that can be recovered in an individual case. Therefore, the amount of money, if any, that a retailer can recover from an individual accused of low-level theft in respect of its wider costs is entirely a matter for the courts based on the circumstances and facts of the case.

 

I say ‘if any’ because my officials [in the Ministry of Justice] have not yet been able to identify any cases in which the issue has been tested before the courts and a definitive judgment given … a test case might be a good idea”.

 

(The full record of the parliamentary debate is available at:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110322/halltext/110322h0002.htm#11032273000005)

 

Two weeks later, on 5 April 2011, Jackie Lambert, the owner/manager of RLP, was reported as saying: “We are pleased to advise that we have two of the CAB cases at present going through the court system, which should hopefully address the testing issue (albeit not set case law)”. On 8 April 2011, Ms Lambert confirmed to Citizens Advice (by email) that the two CAB cases she had in mind when making this statement were those of ‘Kate’ and ‘M’, both featured in our December 2010 report Uncivil recovery.

 

Later in April, as noted above, RLP indicated to the BBC that it had passed information on County Court claims to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Law Commission, and the Ministry of Justice promptly shared that information with Citizens Advice. From the third element of this, the table with brief details of 12 cases ‘sent for issue’ by RLP in early 2011, we can see that:

 

Six of the 12 cases related to employee theft, and six to shoplifting.

 

The six employee theft-related claims were (to be) issued by six different retailers: Boots, Dunelm, Game, Primark, Sodexho, and Starbucks. The case involving Sodexho would appear to be Case 0005 of the ten court cases summarised on RLP’s website (http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/Court%20Cases.aspx)

 

The six shoplifting-related claims were (to be) issued by Boots (four claims), Iceland (one), and Tesco (one). As I have noted in a previous post on this thread, the Iceland and Tesco cases would appear to be Cases 0001 and 0002 respectively in the ten court cases summarised on RLP’s website; the two claims were against the same individual (defendant), a persistent offender with at least one criminal conviction for shoplifting. In other words, not your average recipient of a shoplifting-related demand from RLP. Both claims appear to have resulted in a default judgment only.

 

Among the four cases of a shoplifting-related claim (to be) issued by Boots was the case of ‘Kate’, featured in our December 2010 report Uncivil recovery (see p14). ‘Kate’ was an extremely vulnerable individual with a well-documented history of serious mental illness, living on disability and carer benefits. She had never denied the theft from Boots of one packet of Nicorette chewing gum, worth £13.49, but RLP had repeatedly demanded £165.48 (£137.50 + £27.98 for two packets of gum, i.e. a price of £13.99 each). In March 2011, the police force in question confirmed to Citizens Advice that the incident involved just one packet of gum, worth £13.49 [sic], and had been dealt with by means of community resolution (not a caution as repeatedly claimed by RLP).

 

The police force even provided Citizens Advice with a copy of the community resolution form, signed by a member of Boots staff, confirming the details of the incident (and the £13.49 value of the gum). To this day, it remains unclear why Boots had never clarified the details of the incident to RLP, despite holding a copy of the community resolution form.

 

In late May 2011, RLP suddenly indicated that Boots was now “willing to accept £90 in full and final settlement of this claim and any potential counterclaim or set off”. Not wishing Kate to be subjected to the stress of a County Court claim and trial, given her exceptional vulnerability and history of mental illness, Citizens Advice advised her to accept this offer (54% of the sum originally and repeatedly demanded by RLP). Katie decided to do so, and an anonymous donor paid the £90.

[ScarletPimpernel]

In late May 2011, RLP suddenly indicated that Boots was now “willing to accept £90 in full and final settlement of this claim and any potential counterclaim or set off”. Not wishing Kate to be subjected to the stress of a County Court claim and trial, given her exceptional vulnerability and history of mental illness, Citizens Advice advised her to accept this offer (54% of the sum originally and repeatedly demanded by RLP). Katie decided to do so, and an anonymous donor paid the £90.

 

I am sure that Frogboy and Uwecan said that RLP a) helped the vulnerable and, b) dropped cases involving those with serious mental illness. We thought that this was the usual RLP bolleaux, and it seems we were right.