Help with RLP

[Myddelton]

I suspect that the percentage of people with mental health issues is probably much higher. People who do not disclose their health issue because of embarrassment and those not diagnosed, for example, as well as those with less serious mental health issues that nonetheless were a causal or contributory factor.

 

Another group that we have seen a number of on CAG are those for whom English is not their first language, who I suspect will be vulnerable to RLP tactics.

 

Absolutely, that's why I said "at least". And our data only includes SERIOUS mental health issues. Perhaps worth adding, that in 63% of the 550+ cases the police were not called, or were called and attended but took no formal action. The oldest recipient was 81 years old, and the youngest just 11 years old.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I note that in today's news the British Retail Consortium (who failed to answer my letter enquiring about the appearance of an apparent endorsement by them on RLP's website, which was later removed), have been defending the retail industry's failure to fulfil an undertaking it made not to display unhealthy snack foods near supermarket checkouts.

 

This leads me to wonder if the NHS, or by extension the taxpayers who support it, should not send a claim for damages to the retailer where an individual has required treatment due to the use of unhealthy substances purchased at supermarkets. For example, a man who has drunk cheap supermarket booze is admitted having fallen over drunk; should the NHS send a bill for the time taken by staff away from their normal duties? Should a bill be sent because supermarkets sell cigarettes? Or pies? The answer, of course, is no, but such a claim would be just as valid as RLP's.

 

Turning back to shoplifting, what we do not hear is what action shops are taking to make shoplifting harder. I suspect that the very determined thief (i.e. not the sort RLP are interested in) would be very difficult to deter, but it strikes me that shops like TK Maxx make it quite easy, with so much openly on display and often quite chaotic. Retailers must bear some responsibility.

[andydd]

Good point SP. *Prepares multi-million pound lawsuit against Caburys*

 

Damn you Mr Cadbury youve ruined my life .!...ha

 

Andy

[cerberusalert]

Same with the oil companies, if it weren't for them there wouldn't be all the traffic accidents.

[ScarletPimpernel]

If RLP is such an upstanding company as Frogboy suggests, why does it hide behind a PO Box address? Drydens don't.

[Myddelton]

Frogboy seems to have gone. Perhaps they've had to go and explain themselves to Shakespeares.

[lbruk]

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd.

Unit T5

Lenton Business Centre

Lenton Boulevard

Nottingham, NG7 2BY

United Kingdom

(Trading Address)

 

there is there actual address

[frogboy]

I note that in today's news the British Retail Consortium (who failed to answer my letter enquiring about the appearance of an apparent endorsement by them on RLP's website, which was later removed), have been defending the retail industry's failure to fulfil an undertaking it made not to display unhealthy snack foods near supermarket checkouts.

 

This leads me to wonder if the NHS, or by extension the taxpayers who support it, should not send a claim for damages to the retailer where an individual has required treatment due to the use of unhealthy substances purchased at supermarkets. For example, a man who has drunk cheap supermarket booze is admitted having fallen over drunk; should the NHS send a bill for the time taken by staff away from their normal duties? Should a bill be sent because supermarkets sell cigarettes? Or pies? The answer, of course, is no, but such a claim would be just as valid as RLP's.

 

Turning back to shoplifting, what we do not hear is what action shops are taking to make shoplifting harder. I suspect that the very determined thief (i.e. not the sort RLP are interested in) would be very difficult to deter, but it strikes me that shops like TK Maxx make it quite easy, with so much openly on display and often quite chaotic. Retailers must bear some responsibility.

 

More twaddle. You probably dont know, but the NHS operates civil recovery too. Not for shops selling pies (Gods knows what you are on) but for those who steal from them, defraud them, or assualt people and damage things. They recover all of their losses. Do you see the link? I suppose thats ok though, as they dont sell things. What are you suggesting? Stores should lock thier doors and pass goods through a cage like a beeroff in Liverpool? Or should they take steps to prevent theives from entering their stores?

[lbruk]

I agree that the NHS can and do prosecute thieves and abusive patients. However they do not use a company like RLP they use the police and the courts. The proper way of doing things.

 

RLP have nothing to do with justice, nothing to do with legalities, nothing to do with lowering shoplifting, they simply approach people and say "hey you stole something and got caught here is a £140 bill for it"

 

Taken from RLP's own site "If the goods are recovered fit for resale, no claim is made under this head. The additional costs of the disruption to the business, set out above are still however incurred as a result of the tort and are thus still recoverable. "

 

If a security guard is employed to stop shoplifters, he is doing the job he is paid for and would have been there if the theft had or had not taken place, therefore no loss is made to the company.

[Myddelton]

Welcome back, Frogboy, we were missing you. Have you anything nice to say about Civil Recovery Solutions yet? Or Drydens. Take your pick!

[rebel11]

If civil recovery is a saviour as you keep on spouting, why don't retailers do it themselves, after all it's just sending out a 'speculative invoice', these are big companies they have big resources. The reason is probably that they don't want to dirty their hands, they don't want to dirty their corporate image, so they give the job to low-level companies. Think about it, they could keep 100% of the monies collected.

[Myddelton]

Indeed. And why are the retailers so reluctant to advertise or even talk about their use of civil recovery? You'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, so as to maximise the deterrent effect on crime. Where are the warning signs in the doorway? They all have signs warning about CCTV. My local branch of Sainsbury's stuck up a hastily-produced sign about civil recovery soon after we published our first report on the issue, in December 2009, but it was taken down a few weeks ago.

[ScarletPimpernel]

More twaddle. You probably dont know, but the NHS operates civil recovery too. Not for shops selling pies (Gods knows what you are on) but for those who steal from them, defraud them, or assualt people and damage things. They recover all of their losses. Do you see the link? I suppose thats ok though, as they dont sell things. What are you suggesting? Stores should lock thier doors and pass goods through a cage like a beeroff in Liverpool? Or should they take steps to prevent theives from entering their stores?

 

I was posing a rhetorical question, as everyone else has clearly noted. I suspect that you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts for nefarious purposes, as no-one can be so stupid as to not understand.

 

It seems to me quite clear that retailers, when deciding how to market their goods, make a decision as to the balance that they must find between how open displays are (and thus vulnerable to theft), and security, and profitability. It would be interesting to know whether shop crime was at the same level in the days when goods were behind a counter and an assistant helped the customer to make a purchase, as opposed to todays self-service environment.

 

Anyway, back to the matters at hand. Any answers to our questions? Any evidence to support your claims? Able to cite any defended cases? Found a QC who does commercial work for nothing?

[Myddelton]

And, got anything nice to say about your rivals? (Oops. I obviously mean to say "the other little guys").

[Myddelton]

No, clearly not. Oh well, maybe another day. I'll look out for you (and your beard) in Oxford CC tomorrow.

[honeybee13]

No, clearly not. Oh well, maybe another day. I'll look out for you (and your beard) in Oxford CC tomorrow.

 

Have a good day, Mr Myddleton. I hope you'll let us know how it goes if you can please?

 

My best, HB

[Myddelton]

Trial in Oxford CC ran all day, and adjourned at 4pm until 10am tomorrow (Friday 27). All witnesses heard, just final submissions from both sides. Somewhat strangely, given that the CC claim was brought by A Retailer, it was Jackie Lambert and Vanessa Willett of RLP, not A Retailer' solicitors Shakespeares, who were calling the shots from the bench behind counsel. So I doubt you had any visits from Frogboy today ...

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

It has been quiet, yes, as you can see. Thank you for letting us know about today.

 

HB

[Sidewinder]

So I doubt you had any visits from Frogboy today ...

 

Funny that....

[ScarletPimpernel]

it was Jackie Lambert and Vanessa Willett of RLP, not A Retailer' solicitors Shakespeares, who were calling the shots from the bench behind counsel.

 

No surprise there.

 

If A Retailer lose, RLP's credibility will be straight down the tubes.

 

Has the defence reminded the judge of the Law Commission's view?

[cerberusalert]

This is an interesting read, particularly RLPs charges;

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35017[/ATTACH]

 

 

Yet they've made a statement in court that it is to cover staff wages & admin. I would have thought the admin etc would be exactly the same for a theft of something worth £3 as it would be for £300.

[rebel11]

I hope the Defence point out that security and staff costs are already budgeted for, so there is no extra cost for the retailer, also some companies have a target for the number of people they need to catch (TKMaxx), which is stupid because innocent people can get caught up in their 'one fits all policy', the overzealous security guard is only going to think about his 'Target' not the innocence of the person.

 

I wonder if A Retailer's security staff have targets or incentives?

[cerberusalert]

Many moons ago I worked in store security for the House of Frasers both in Glasgow & London (Harrods) and the last thing they wanted to do was bring a court case, if they got the items back they were more than happy. The irony was we were employed to watch the staff more than anything else as the bulk of thefts were made by the employees.

[cerberusalert]

It must be a nice little earner for RLP, after all their solicitor can afford to go on nice family holidays in Cuba & one of the directors to dressage events. RLP have two directors one of which is Cireco Limited http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05323529 again with one director who guess what?.... Is the director of RLP. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04802733

 

 

 

What a tangled web.

[Myddelton]

I hope the Defence point out that security and staff costs are already budgeted for, so there is no extra cost for the retailer, also some companies have a target for the number of people they need to catch (TKMaxx), which is stupid because innocent people can get caught up in their 'one fits all policy', the overzealous security guard is only going to think about his 'Target' not the innocence of the person.

 

I wonder if A Retailer security staff have targets or incentives?

 

Rest assured the Defence counsel are doing a fabulous job. One nugget from yesterday's witness evidence: RLP issue 11,000 civil recovery demands on behalf of A Retailer every year, but A Retailer have only ever issued "20-30" county court claims in pursuit of an unpaid demand, of which only "a handful" were defended. About "30-40 per cent" of the 11,000 demands are paid.

Edited May 3, 2012 by BankFodder
Edited to remove the identity of the cliamant - at the request of the claimant - and in response to an order of the court