Help with RLP

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm just worried that poor old Jonny46 has been given some extremely duff advice by a solicitor and will be tricked into paying money that he doesn't need to.

 

I shouldn't be at all surprised to find that a duff solicitor is involved somewhere.

[Anus Horribilis]

CAB says it only knows of one case, but RLP has a case about another one where she had to pay costs cos of CAB advice.

 

Dont know who to believe.

 

 

Ask yourself who has the motive to misrepresent the law. Why would nationally-respected groups like CAB & CAG wish to do that? What advantage would they gain that could justify the risks to their reputation?

[frogboy]

u sure you're not looking at old stuff from cab? cab endorses civil remedy for charities such as itself, insurers, government departments, NHS, police and businesses and the report from home office cab endorsed talks about billions of losses to retail through crime, so how can it say retailers cant claim when everybody else can? and the stuff you lot say about acpo isnt what it says on RLP website. and they say they been to some government business crime thing. if RLP is what you say, how come some of the biggest nationals work with them? it makes no sense. there is nothing from cab for ages. that cab man is publishing same old stuff from ages ago in other places and not through the cab. think you lot ought to do more research as i think you are misleading people giving old news which is looks wrong. and that cab man's interpretation of the law commission report is odd. the main gist of the report is to give better redress to consumers like people who dont read small print and sign stuff under pressure on doorstep and stuff, but the cab man reads into it that its all about criticising shops for civil recovery. where is that case the cab is on about? is public allowed in? would be interesting to see what its all about.

[andydd]

RLP were forced to change some of the comments they made about ACPO hence why the website is now different.

 

What is the government business crime thing you refer to ?

 

I think youll find many here have done plenty of research about RLP, see here > http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?344941-RLP-Cases-Examined&p=3781623#post3781623and youll find a thread that I created examing the case law that RLP depends on, none of it is about shoplifting and it is doubtful whether it really is about the same or similar circu,stances, (for example, the first one is about a flooded factory !).

 

Beyond that I dont really understand the rest of your post as it appears quite rambling.

 

Andy

[frogboy]

Dont know why you want continue to insult people who ask questions you dont like. You clearly have not seen the website lately. they are still involved with ACPO and also the National Business Crime Forum. That is a Parliamentary group. why would they say that if it wasnt true? and i ask again, why would all the big shops use them? they must have their own legal departments and advisersYour research looks like a waste of time to me. I only have an A level in law, and even I can see that your comments are all wrong. It doesnt matter that a case related to a flood or whatever. The same principles for claiming damages in tort apply whether it was negligence for a flood, a trespass, nuicance or conversion (which in case you dont know, theft is a conversion, shoplifting is theft so shoplifting is conversion). somebody who gets hurt in RTA is also different from a shoplifter, but they still can claim damages.It doesnt matter how old a case is. the law is the law. Of course a guard is disrupted from his job when he is arresting shoplifters and removing them and waiting for police and doing all the paperwork, and whatever else they have to do. Who is guarding the shop floor, protecting staff and customers and property when they are doing that. I got my wallett knicked in a shop once. probably wouldnt have happened if a security guard was there. bet he was writing forms in the office somewhere about a shoplifter.i dont get why you are going to all these lengths to defend shoplifters. i dont wanna pay extra on goods. I dont wanna be robbed in a shop. I dont want my aunty who works in a shop being hurt by a shoplifter. If my granny is attacked in the street, i dont want the police to be unable to come to the scene cos they are at tesco slapping the wrist of a shoplifter. i asked before what am i missing here?

[woody1066]

Dont know why you want continue to insult people who ask questions you dont like. You clearly have not seen the website lately. they are still involved with ACPO and also the National Business Crime Forum. That is a Parliamentary group. why would they say that if it wasnt true? and i ask again, why would all the big shops use them? they must have their own legal departments and advisersYour research looks like a waste of time to me. I only have an A level in law, and even I can see that your comments are all wrong. It doesnt matter that a case related to a flood or whatever. The same principles for claiming damages in tort apply whether it was negligence for a flood, a trespass, nuicance or conversion (which in case you dont know, theft is a conversion, shoplifting is theft so shoplifting is conversion). somebody who gets hurt in RTA is also different from a shoplifter, but they still can claim damages.It doesnt matter how old a case is. the law is the law. Of course a guard is disrupted from his job when he is arresting shoplifters and removing them and waiting for police and doing all the paperwork, and whatever else they have to do. Who is guarding the shop floor, protecting staff and customers and property when they are doing that. I got my wallett knicked in a shop once. probably wouldnt have happened if a security guard was there. bet he was writing forms in the office somewhere about a shoplifter.i dont get why you are going to all these lengths to defend shoplifters. i dont wanna pay extra on goods. I dont wanna be robbed in a shop. I dont want my aunty who works in a shop being hurt by a shoplifter. If my granny is attacked in the street, i dont want the police to be unable to come to the scene cos they are at tesco slapping the wrist of a shoplifter. i asked before what am i missing here?

 

Mostly good grammar and paragraphs

[ScarletPimpernel]

Dont know why you want continue to insult people who ask questions you dont like. You clearly have not seen the website lately. they are still involved with ACPO and also the National Business Crime Forum. That is a Parliamentary group. why would they say that if it wasnt true? and i ask again, why would all the big shops use them? they must have their own legal departments and advisersYour research looks like a waste of time to me. I only have an A level in law, and even I can see that your comments are all wrong. It doesnt matter that a case related to a flood or whatever. The same principles for claiming damages in tort apply whether it was negligence for a flood, a trespass, nuicance or conversion (which in case you dont know, theft is a conversion, shoplifting is theft so shoplifting is conversion). somebody who gets hurt in RTA is also different from a shoplifter, but they still can claim damages.It doesnt matter how old a case is. the law is the law. Of course a guard is disrupted from his job when he is arresting shoplifters and removing them and waiting for police and doing all the paperwork, and whatever else they have to do. Who is guarding the shop floor, protecting staff and customers and property when they are doing that. I got my wallett knicked in a shop once. probably wouldnt have happened if a security guard was there. bet he was writing forms in the office somewhere about a shoplifter.i dont get why you are going to all these lengths to defend shoplifters. i dont wanna pay extra on goods. I dont wanna be robbed in a shop. I dont want my aunty who works in a shop being hurt by a shoplifter. If my granny is attacked in the street, i dont want the police to be unable to come to the scene cos they are at tesco slapping the wrist of a shoplifter. i asked before what am i missing here?

 

 

I presume that your post is aimed at me, though you do not make it clear and do not appear to have fully got to grips with the complexities of the 'quote' button, or indeed, as pointed out above, paragraphs, spelling or grammar.

 

You also appear to be confused on some other points:

 

- It is a matter of fact that ACPO and PSNI required RLP to remove information from their website which could have misled readers into thinking that RLP's activities were approved or endorsed by them. It does not appear that either PSNI or ACPO had consented to the information being used in that way, though since you seem to be so well informed about RLP you will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

 

- being 'involved with ACPO' means nothing. In particular, it doesn't mean that ACPO endorses RLP, which is the meaning I'm sure they would like to be attached. I have been in correspondence with ACPO, so I've been involved with them too; does that mean they will approve if I send you a speculative invoice? (note: rhetorical question)

 

- the National Business Crime Forum is not a Parliamentary group; that is a matter of fact. On their website, the NBCF says 'The National Business Crime Forum supports the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Retail and Business Crime.' Supporting an organisation is not the same as being part of it, nor does it mean that that organisation endorses or encourages the supporter.

 

- you say that all the big shops use RLP (or is it civil recovery - your circumloquacious post seems to switch between the general and the specific). This is patently and risibly untrue, and I can prove it easily; there are several big shops near to where I work, and none of them use either RLP or civil recovery. The fact is that few large retailers in the UK and US utilise civil recovery; even fewer employ the 'services' of RLP. I know, because I've been there, that civil recovery is not used in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Iraq, or Afghanistan, in all of which locations there are big shops, but I cannot speak to the situation elsewhere. However, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Still, I suppose it depends upon your definition of a big shop, which you haven't bothered to give us.

 

- if it is not a shop security guard's job to deal with shoplifters, why is he becoming involved in such matters (and what is he there for otherwise)? The fact is that preventing and dealing with theft is exactly why security staff are employed, so there is no disruption if they have to deal with a shoplifter, and consequently no additional cost.

 

- I am sorry to hear that your wallet was stolen, but to say that it would probably not have happened if there had been a security guard there (who presumably was not looking dealing with his primary function), is both facile and asinine, because it is impossible to know.

 

- I am not defending shoplifters. Shoplifting, like all other forms of theft, is wrong. However, the correct process for dealing with shoplifters is through the criminal justice system, not, as I have already stated, by a commercial enterprise like RLP setting itself up as an alternative. Retailers already have a remedy to claim damages from those convicted of shoplifting - and they don't need creatures like RLP to do it. If retailers are unhappy with the police response to alleged shoplifting, then that is something they should take up with the police, and if necessary the Home Office, through the proper channels.

 

- You consistently ignore the fact that many of RLP's victims are not shoplifters; in fact, they have not been convicted of anything at all, so they are innocent in the eyes of the law. One of the most worrying aspects of RLP's activities is that they prey on people who are vulnerable for various reasons - age, mental health and so on. In the criminal justice system these things can be addressed, but justice does not feature in RLP's business - profit is the only motivation. RLP also appear to be spectacularly unsuccessful in dealing with the biggest source of retail loss - organised gangs of shoplifters; they seem quite happy to leave them to the police and criminal courts.

 

- You appear to be making a case for the police not to be involved in dealing with alleged shoplifters, so that they can attend to your granny when she is attacked in the street. Firstly, a serious assault would always be prioritised, as I'm sure you know, but there is a serious point. But what if the police weren't slapping a shoplifter's wrist in Tesco? What if they were informing someone of a fatality in a RTC? Or carrying out surveillance on a terrorist suspect? The fact is that these are matters for the police; retailers can't take the law into their own hands. If we decide that the police shouldn't deal with shoplifters, and leave them to badly-trained security guards and the likes of RLP, who have a financial interest in accusing people of wrongdoing, where does it end? And again, you ignore the point that RLP doesn't just target people who may have shoplifted; they also target people who have made an innocent mistake, and the vulnerable who may not have known what they were doing, and they do it in an aggressive way. Supposing the person who stole your wallet said he took it because he thought you'd stolen something in the shop, and he was just claiming damages? His statement would be just as valid as some of RLP's claims. If he was caught, would you want the police and criminal courts to deal with him, or should we say that it's a low level crime, let's let a gang of speculative invoicers have a go at getting him to pay damages? I suspect not, because as you said, the law is the law. You haven't touched upon what other measures retailers could take to protect their stock. Just as the police have to balance and prioritise use of their resources, so retailers have to decide how secure they want their stock to be, balanced against the ease with which it can be stolen, and the effect and cost of having everything behind the counter.

 

- I will defer to your A level knowledge of law in re tort - but I don't think I've questioned what tort is, or whether shoplifting is theft or not. I only wish you'd paid more attention in English.

 

I agree with one point you have made; I don't want to pay extra in shops either. Security is simply an overhead that is factored into retail prices, though, so I could just as well ask for savings to be made in heating and lighting shops, or for shops to reduce their profit levels. Anyway, I have the choice of where I shop, and what I buy, and my choice is influenced by many factors; whether they have security is not one of them.

 

Pray tell, incidentally, where you think I have insulted you? I think I have been at pains to be polite, though the truth may hurt.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Incidentally, I note that the Consumer Affairs Minister was on Radio 4 at luncheon time today, talking about CAB providing the future focus for consumer advice. That appears to me to demonstrate government confidence in CAB's abilities. The Law Commission, which is a government body, and CAB, both find that RLP's activities are at best questionable.

 

I think Frogboy really needs to ask himself why he doesn't know what he's missing...

[andydd]

A level in law !?. Really ?. They must hand them out to anybody these days ?. Have you ever set foot in a court room ?. I have (mostly Landlord & Tenant issues) and have been very succesful, and have helped many on here, as youll find if you have a quick browse.

 

Its unclear what exactly you want from this forum, we've all read the RLP site and most of us are extremly dubious with many of the points they raise, they HAVE been forced to retract comments they made about ACPO and others, this is a well known fact.

 

It is not in dispute that many businesses use RLP, thats not the point, it doesnt mean that everything they do is acceptable, many companies use DCA's that have been found to be using dubious tactis, some have even been find, put out of business, see the Cattles thread for a good example. Also read up about ACS Law as a good example of companies/solicitors, etc getting involved in a similarn 'business' to RLp only to see their empire crumble around them when challanged in court, their director was fined by the ICO and SRA and bankrupted.

 

If you want to carry on being the only member of the RLP fan club, fair enough, but I note your comments havn't persueded a single person here that what RLP do is acceptable.

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

Last year, ACPO had this to say to the BBC in a piece about RLP:

Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) says:

 

"Some retailers feel frustrated by the courts and the police who see shoplifting at the lower end of offending, and we support their efforts to remedy that, but the problem comes when some companies respond disproportionately.

 

"It would be wholly inappropriate if individuals were being brow beaten into an admission of guilt."

 

ACC Thomas says anyone subjected to continued and inappropriate approaches from civil recovery organisations should report the matter to the police.

 

Seems clear to me - ACPO aren't fans of civil recovery as practiced by RLP either...

 

So, that's ACPO, CAB and the Law Commission versus an A level in law and a gang of speculative invoicers. Wager on the outcome, anyone?

[dx100uk]

:bounce::bounce:

 

dx

[Sidewinder]

u sure you're not looking at old stuff from cab? cab endorses civil remedy for charities such as itself, insurers, government departments, NHS, police and businesses and the report from home office cab endorsed talks about billions of losses to retail through crime, so how can it say retailers cant claim when everybody else can? and the stuff you lot say about acpo isnt what it says on RLP website. and they say they been to some government business crime thing. if RLP is what you say, how come some of the biggest nationals work with them? it makes no sense. there is nothing from cab for ages. that cab man is publishing same old stuff from ages ago in other places and not through the cab. think you lot ought to do more research as i think you are misleading people giving old news which is looks wrong. and that cab man's interpretation of the law commission report is odd. the main gist of the report is to give better redress to consumers like people who dont read small print and sign stuff under pressure on doorstep and stuff, but the cab man reads into it that its all about criticising shops for civil recovery. where is that case the cab is on about? is public allowed in? would be interesting to see what its all about.

 

Thing is that RLP don't DO Civil Recovery, but rely on threats of Civil Recovery to try and bully people who have often done nothing wrong, and certainly in the majority of cases where the 'client' has suffered no genuine loss, into paying an inflated charge to line their own pockets.

 

Civil Recovery does have a place, where genuine losses have occurred, where the person is actually guilty of wrongdoing AND where those losses are recovered to the sole benefit of the organisation suffering the loss. What stinks is the fact that organisations like RLP make a profit out of the venture - speculative letters with fancy sounding legal jargon designed purely to shame or confuse the recipient into paying an amount that represents no genuine loss incurred as a result of that person's actions. Very selective legal authority, irrelevant case law and reliance on the individual's legal ignorance are used all too often to sidestep proper legal process.

 

Some of the biggest organisations, as you put it, use RLP as it provides a convenient revenue stream for very little outlay, and was no doubt sold to them on the basis of covering some of the security costs and offsetting losses caused by those who don't get caught, but equally those organisations will drop a case (and eventually RLP themselves) like a hot brick in the face of adverse publicity. You claim that you were convinced that you should just pay up - add the many others who have simply paid in order to make the problem go away and you have a tidy business built on a very dubious foundation. Even when RLP was set up, it was acknowledged that the legal justification for the process was somewhat lacking:-

 

"In spite of the fact that civil recovery procedures have shown their worth as a deterrent to potential thieves, it would be much easier to pursue if the Government was to introduce a specific civil recovery law.

 

"A law [on civil recovery] would provide retailers with the right to receive a set amount of money from a shoplifter without having to prove every single little expense incurred because of the theft, such as staff time taken up and the cost of using CCTV..." Professor Joshua Bamfield

 

This confirms the point that the principal of Civil Recovery procedures in attempting to claim a fixed amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss carries no legal backing.

 

Nobody here has time for shoplifters, nor is crime encouraged, and I am sure that we all resent the cost of shoplifting to society as a whole, but the correct way to deal with a thief is through the law, not a private business's interpretation of the law and using this to get those who are caught - or who may have actually done nothing wrong - to pay for those who have and aren't caught whilst making a few quid for themselves in the process.

[frogboy]

You lot dont know what you are talking about. Landlord & Tenant. You clearly dont have proper legal jobs or you wouldnt be sitting making defamatory false statements about major companies and their affiliates, and insulting people on your forum who questions your nonsence. You really are mising the point here. It is becaue the Police dont have resources that ACPO, the Home Office and Government are urging retailers to use civil recovery as a deterrent to crime. Many big businesses in the UK use CR. You seem to focus on Boots and TK Maxx, what about companies and organisations, like Tesco, Sainsburys, Ikea, Waitrose, Lidl, Debenhams, Iceland, Wilkos, Marks & Spencers, Asda, Co-op, Top Shop, B&Q, Argos, Railway companies, insurance companies, the NHS, Virgin, Energy Companies, internet companies, Starbucks & coffee shops, motorway service stations, airport shops, city centre schemes with police and local authorities, oil companies, H&M, bookmakers, Harods, Superdrug, Makro, need I go on?The CJS cannot cope with the level of crime against business. The civiljustice system is a route open to them. They are not vigilantes, a court will decide if there is a dispute. What in that can you not understand? CR is used widely in USA, Canada and in Europe.I have only been on holiday in the middle east. Perhaps the severe sanctions for theft and crime in those countries such as those you mention, means that there is no requirement for CR. Cant speak for Afghanistan, but I doubt you can either. CAB's figures are plucked from thin air: 10,000, then 450, then 4,000, then 93, now 15,000. Ask yourself why that CAB man is using his current channels to spread his propaganda, rather than with the CAB. I expect RLP probably do make a bit of profit. They arent going to offer a legal service for free are they. No doubt all the law firms who do civil recovery (including the major ones) how much they charge for doing civil recovery. As for the businesses, why shouldnt they be seek compensation. By the way, you do not appear to understand the different between compensation and profit - perhaps you should look in a dictionary. You talk about a new law. What is wrong with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and good old fasioned common law? Other than the fact of course that you and the CAB do not understand insofar as business crime is concerned. I'm not RLP's biggest fan. I just came across this and see that you there seems to be a witch hunt based on some obvious agenda you lot have. I therefore looked into it, and see the injustice of you are doing. It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime. (Yes very little profits. You lot not heard of Companies House?)You should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man. CAB v RLP - like David & Goliath, but we know what happened there. I think I'll go to the case in Oxford if they let me in. As that CAB man says through his dubious pubication - Watch this space!

[dx100uk]

:yawn:

 

dx

[andydd]

Nope I don't have a proper legal job, I work in IT Consultancy but as I pointed out I have helped many on here in my part time in an effort to help Litigants in Person (and on other sites such as LandlordZone) with legal disputes, I personally have been before a Leaseholder Valuation Tribunal and County Court now 4 times, being very succesful, you dont mention your legal experience apart from an A Level.

 

Show me an actual case where RLP have taken action against a shoplifter and won ?. (I dont mean the ones listed on RLP site that have fictional reference numbers and can't be checked and it is widely thought they may not be shoplifting cases at all).

 

Please explain the connection between the cases RLP claim to use as case law and shoplifting ?. It is very tenuos at best (this is the reason I started my RLP Cases Explained thread).

 

I'm at a loss as to why you are involved with this site, what do you expect people sent letter by RLP do ?. Pay up instantly, ?..even if there has been no crime ? or wrong doing or even 'damages' or loss.

 

Im glad that 99% of the people here offer great advice and help those who cant afford expensive legal advice, please point to something positive you have contributed to this forum.

 

Andy

Edited April 13, 2012 by andydd

[Sidewinder]

For somebody who is not RLPs biggest fan you seem to be rather loved up with the whole thing....

 

 

You also seem to be both blinkered and ignorant. If RLP stuck to recovering damages from those convicted after due process then there wouldn't be an issue, but the fact remains that this business finds it easier to target the easier prey who tend not to argue through shame and embarrassment.

 

You continue to spout legal arguments but as with RLP themselves you try to apply them completely inappropriately.....of course there are civil laws but you mention nothing of the fact that the remedies allow only for the recovery of actual losses not a fixed figure plucked out of thin air.

 

There is support for civil recovery but only where it is appropriate and lawful. What you advocate is tantamount to extortion. You have been accused of theft but instead of proving it we will bully and harass you until you part with money...it's little different from wheel clamping.

 

Suggest that you keep reading up and stop being so narrow minded in your interpretation of the law!

[woody1066]

Frogboy, what have you got against paragraphs? Did they say something rude about your mom?

[lbruk]

I'm interested in your comment about Companies House. I have access to all Companies House documents.

 

RLP only filed abbreviated accounts for the 2010/11 financial year. So how you can work out profit from that i don't know. They have not filed actual turnovers, which means that they could turn over up £6.5million and not legally have to disclose the figure.

 

Civil recovery is great, when used against criminals. When used against people that have made a mistake its not fair.

 

Having worked in retail for 16 years (which i no longer do), I am very sure that if the "thief" offers to pay, then you accept it and let them go. That's what i always did. I don't see what costs the retailer (not RLP) have incurred if the person then pays for the goods? Refusing to take that money and slap them with a load of other fee's is extortion.

[woody1066]

You lot dont know what you are talking about. Landlord & Tenant. You clearly dont have proper legal jobs or you wouldnt be sitting making defamatory false statements about major companies and their affiliates, and insulting people on your forum who questions your nonsence. You really are mising the point here. It is becaue the Police dont have resources that ACPO, the Home Office and Government are urging retailers to use civil recovery as a deterrent to crime. Many big businesses in the UK use CR. You seem to focus on Boots and TK Maxx, what about companies and organisations, like Tesco, Sainsburys, Ikea, Waitrose, Lidl, Debenhams, Iceland, Wilkos, Marks & Spencers, Asda, Co-op, Top Shop, B&Q, Argos, Railway companies, insurance companies, the NHS, Virgin, Energy Companies, internet companies, Starbucks & coffee shops, motorway service stations, airport shops, city centre schemes with police and local authorities, oil companies, H&M, bookmakers, Harods, Superdrug, Makro, need I go on?The CJS cannot cope with the level of crime against business. The civiljustice system is a route open to them. They are not vigilantes, a court will decide if there is a dispute. What in that can you not understand? CR is used widely in USA, Canada and in Europe.I have only been on holiday in the middle east. Perhaps the severe sanctions for theft and crime in those countries such as those you mention, means that there is no requirement for CR. Cant speak for Afghanistan, but I doubt you can either. CAB's figures are plucked from thin air: 10,000, then 450, then 4,000, then 93, now 15,000. Ask yourself why that CAB man is using his current channels to spread his propaganda, rather than with the CAB. I expect RLP probably do make a bit of profit. They arent going to offer a legal service for free are they. No doubt all the law firms who do civil recovery (including the major ones) how much they charge for doing civil recovery. As for the businesses, why shouldnt they be seek compensation. By the way, you do not appear to understand the different between compensation and profit - perhaps you should look in a dictionary. You talk about a new law. What is wrong with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and good old fasioned common law? Other than the fact of course that you and the CAB do not understand insofar as business crime is concerned. I'm not RLP's biggest fan. I just came across this and see that you there seems to be a witch hunt based on some obvious agenda you lot have. I therefore looked into it, and see the injustice of you are doing. It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime. (Yes very little profits. You lot not heard of Companies House?)You should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man. CAB v RLP - like David & Goliath, but we know what happened there. I think I'll go to the case in Oxford if they let me in. As that CAB man says through his dubious pubication - Watch this space!

 

Is that some kind of Brazilian thing?

[ScarletPimpernel]

You lot dont know what you are talking about. Landlord & Tenant. You clearly dont have proper legal jobs or you wouldnt be sitting making defamatory false statements about major companies and their affiliates, and insulting people on your forum who questions your nonsence. You really are mising the point here. It is becaue the Police dont have resources that ACPO, the Home Office and Government are urging retailers to use civil recovery as a deterrent to crime. Many big businesses in the UK use CR. You seem to focus on Boots and TK Maxx, what about companies and organisations, like Tesco, Sainsburys, Ikea, Waitrose, Lidl, Debenhams, Iceland, Wilkos, Marks & Spencers, Asda, Co-op, Top Shop, B&Q, Argos, Railway companies, insurance companies, the NHS, Virgin, Energy Companies, internet companies, Starbucks & coffee shops, motorway service stations, airport shops, city centre schemes with police and local authorities, oil companies, H&M, bookmakers, Harods, Superdrug, Makro, need I go on?The CJS cannot cope with the level of crime against business. The civiljustice system is a route open to them. They are not vigilantes, a court will decide if there is a dispute. What in that can you not understand? CR is used widely in USA, Canada and in Europe.I have only been on holiday in the middle east. Perhaps the severe sanctions for theft and crime in those countries such as those you mention, means that there is no requirement for CR. Cant speak for Afghanistan, but I doubt you can either. CAB's figures are plucked from thin air: 10,000, then 450, then 4,000, then 93, now 15,000. Ask yourself why that CAB man is using his current channels to spread his propaganda, rather than with the CAB. I expect RLP probably do make a bit of profit. They arent going to offer a legal service for free are they. No doubt all the law firms who do civil recovery (including the major ones) how much they charge for doing civil recovery. As for the businesses, why shouldnt they be seek compensation. By the way, you do not appear to understand the different between compensation and profit - perhaps you should look in a dictionary. You talk about a new law. What is wrong with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and good old fasioned common law? Other than the fact of course that you and the CAB do not understand insofar as business crime is concerned. I'm not RLP's biggest fan. I just came across this and see that you there seems to be a witch hunt based on some obvious agenda you lot have. I therefore looked into it, and see the injustice of you are doing. It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime. (Yes very little profits. You lot not heard of Companies House?)You should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man. CAB v RLP - like David & Goliath, but we know what happened there. I think I'll go to the case in Oxford if they let me in. As that CAB man says through his dubious pubication - Watch this space!

 

Ok then Frogboy... Show us where any statements here are defamatory and false, as you say.

 

Bearing in mind the quotation from ACPO I posted earlier, and the fact that they required RLP to remove misleading material about them from their website, and that the Government have just appointed CAB to be the official focus for consumer advice, please give us examples of where ACPO, the Home Office and Government have urged retailers to use civil recovery.

 

None of us have ever denied that the civil court system is open to retailers as a remedy against shoplifters. The retailer will be the claimant, so I don't see a need for parasitic companies like RLP. I particularly object to the methods used by RLP and their ilk, for exactly the same reasons that the Law Commission give in their recent report. I also find the way that RLP and the like target those who are innocent in law and the vulnerable to be repellent, ethically untenable and morally repugnant.

 

You talk about profit and compensation, but it is you who does not understand the fundamental principles. A retailer can bring a claim for damages - but this can only be for the amount they can prove they have lost. They cannot add a random sum for 'compensation' or for profit.

 

The only reason retailers use companies like RLP is because they percieve it as an additional revenue stream.

 

I said I speak from experience of Afghanistan. Since you appear to struggle with the lightest intellectual task, this means that I have been there.

 

I find this bit particularly risible:

It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime.

 

No-one forces RLP to be in business. If they find things to be disagreeable, they can simply close down - I doubt that there would be many mourners at the funeral. Their business has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing crime; it is wholly about generating profit, just like any other business. Want proof? Easy. Prof Joshua Bamfield, who started RLP originally, envisaged civil recovery only being used against convicted thieves (and no-one on CAG disagrees with that). However, he distanced himself from the company after it began to target people who had done nothing wrong. You can easily find this information with a bit of research. In the alternative, please provide the statistical evidence to prove that RLP is making an impact on crime.

 

Why do I liken RLP to vigilantes? Because they do not, as you suggest, leave matters to a court to decide, primarily because they have no cause of action so can't bring cases themselves. The miniscule number of cases (compared to the number of civil recovery episodes) that retailers have brought in which RLP say they have been involved (though in what capacity they remain silent about) were all default judgments or cases of employee theft. What RLP prefer to do is intimidate their targets into paying them by using aggressive methods - these are the methods on which the Law Commission commented, and which ACPO have suggested should be reported to police. There does not appear to be one case on record in which RLP were successful in a properly defended case.

 

I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man.

 

Which thieves are these? What proof do you have to support this ludicrous statement? I'm not sure why you assume that thieves are abusive, but in any case, remember that we aren't supporting thieves - what about the hardworking honest people who are targeted by badly trained security guards trying to meet targets (vide TK Maxx threads), and the hardworking honest people wrongly targeted by RLP and the like?Are you suggesting that the staff at RLP are hardworking and honest? They may well be, but what they do and the way they do is a matter for their consciences.

 

The only little man I see here is you. I don't think RLP need you to be their mouthpiece - a quick Google will show that they are quite capable of bumping their own gums in slippery defence of what they do. You talk about David and Goliath - but RLP surely have all those retailers, and various self-interest groups behind them, don't they? Earlier on you told us that ACPO, the Home Office and Government were all on side too, so which is David and which is Goliath? Or is it that you know deep down that the writing is on the wall; ACPO et al don't support RLP; the support groups and retailers will prove to be fair weather friends and not give a tinker's cuss if RLP cease trading. Most amazing of all, you waffle about David and Goliath and standing up for the little man, but the irony of the way RLP target innocent individuals escapes you completely.

 

When I was a child I enjoyed the stories of Robin Hood, an innocent man labelled as an outlaw by the Sheriff, who claimed to have the backing of the crown. As you may recall, the dodgy lawman came to a sticky end, along with his confederates. Quelle coincidence that the story was set in Nottingham!

 

I suspect that the writing is on the wall for civil recovery as practiced by RLP; the tanks are at the airport, and no amount of denials, posturing and grandiose but risible claims about court cases will change the outcome. RLP have perhaps learned that you can't polish a turd, so they are now trying desperately to roll it in glitter.

 

 

And finally...

 

During this most entertaining debate, I have had a nagging feeling that Frogboy reminded me of someone. One of the Sheriff of Nottingham's lickspittles, perhaps? Possibly. but no. Baldrick to Ms Lambert's Blackadder? No.

 

And then it came to me - Frogboy is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the former Iraqi Minister of Information, and I claim my ten guineas:

 

 

"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

 

"The CAB is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

 

 

Have a great weekend!

[frogboy]

Hilarious. Its your system that doesn't like paragraphs. I suppose that you are as good at IT as you are at the law. You dont seem to be able to understand accounts either. No surprise either. Surely a successful businessman knows how to interpret accounts.As I said you have no understanding about what you are talking about. Going to a court 4 times hardly qualifies you as an expert.As I also said, you are spouting old news previously spouted by the CAB based on a misunderstanding of the law. DO YOUR RESEARCH before misleading the public. That's up to date research. The CAB have not published anything for a long time, but the CAB man keeps banging on about it elsewhere. There is obvisously a reason for that. People used to believe the world was flat. A lot of people will have seen the positive postings on your website about RLP very quickly disappear. I've even seen somebody ask why

[lbruk]

I guess the enter button is too much hassle then.

 

Seems all you want to do is provoke lol...........

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hilarious. Its your system that doesn't like paragraphs. I suppose that you are as good at IT as you are at the law. You dont seem to be able to understand accounts either. No surprise either. Surely a successful businessman knows how to interpret accounts.As I said you have no understanding about what you are talking about. Going to a court 4 times hardly qualifies you as an expert.As I also said, you are spouting old news previously spouted by the CAB based on a misunderstanding of the law. DO YOUR RESEARCH before misleading the public. That's up to date research. The CAB have not published anything for a long time, but the CAB man keeps banging on about it elsewhere. There is obvisously a reason for that. People used to believe the world was flat. A lot of people will have seen the positive postings on your website about RLP very quickly disappear. I've even seen somebody ask why

 

Which positive postings are those?

 

Anyway, come on, I've challenged you to back up your statements, so stop waffling and get on with it.

[woody1066]

I still want to know why he thinks the CAB man has dubious pubes

[ScarletPimpernel]

I still want to know why he thinks the CAB man has dubious pubes

 

And how we've insulted him when he called us all shoplifters....

 

I feel slightly guilty about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but I'm sure it'll soon pass.