The end of the road for civil recovery?

[silverfox1961]

The new regulations will give the consumer new rights. Previously the consumer had to either navigate some very complex rules should they have wished to pursue action in the courts or hope that Trading Standards would act on their behalf which unfortunately was not the case in the majority of complaints.

 

As the new regulations give the consumer more power, I thought it would be good if I applied these rules to Retail Loss Prevention (as they are the largest of the civil recovery companies around)

 

Misleading practice:

 

The following are statements from RLP.

 

1. Your wrongful actions diverted our clients staff from their normal duties.

 

What normal duties? Security staff duties include monitoring CCTV, walking the shop floor, apprehending shoplifters. These are normal duties for which no one can claim costs for as these costs are already factored into the stores running costs and are included within the price paid at the till so for RLP to claim these costs are recoverable are misleading.

 

2. Although the costs our client is entitled to recover are considerable, our client seeks only a proportionate contribution towards those losses.

 

What losses? Most times when a shoplifter is apprehended, the goods are recovered suitable for re-stocking and resale so, taking anto account that the security costs are non recoverable and the goods are returned fit for sale, what losses can they have incurred? Misleading?

 

3. Civil Law (persuant to the Practice Direction for Pre-action Disclosure in england and wales) encourages early exchange of information to promote settlement of claims.

 

As RLP can never take legal action on their own volition, this statement is misleading to the extreme. Also, no retailer has taken any action through the courts since 2012.

 

4. Whilst there is no legal obligation to consider mitigating circumstances in civil proceedings, our client adheres to core principles originally agreed with ACPO (the association of Chief Police Officers)

 

I have italicised 'originally' as ACPO have since asked RLP to remove references to them from their website. This statement gives you the impression that RLP have practices that ACPO agree with. they don't! Misleading.

 

5. (this is part of a letter sent to a 14 year old)

Given the value of the claim, it is not proportionate to issue proceedings whilst you are a minor, as there will be additional, disproportionate costs involved, in the appointment of a litigation friend ( an appropriate adult to assist you in the proceedings). Accordingly, we confirm that our client is willing to refrain from considering issuing proceedings until you reach the age of 18, when you are deemed legally competent to proceed.

 

This, in my opinion is aggressive practice. For a 14 year old getting this sort of letter and not knowing their rights, this would mean the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head for 4 years. can anyone imagine the stress this would cause.

 

_________________________ _________________________ ______________________

 

While this is just about one company, there are many other companies out there who mislead consumers. The list could be endless.

 

Companies saying the insurance covers all eventualities when in fact there are exclusions.

Double Glazing salesmen who pressurise a customer to get the sale.

'Sold as seen' (that speaks for itself)

 

plus many more.

[silverfox1961]

To follow on from my above post, I have a copy of a notice issued by Boots to a suspected shoplifter (nothing proven in a court of law of course) where they list key areas where the retailer can reclaim losses.

 

Of the 4 categories, only 1 is (IMO) true.

 

Losses:

Goods not recovered/not fit for resale

Goods/packaging damaged/destroyed

Cash stolen/pecuniary advantage

Services taken without remuneration

Criminal damage

 

The above is in my opinion correct as there is a quantifiable loss.

 

Investigation costs:

Staff and management time to observe, apprehend and detain suspects

Investigation into the offence

Reviewing CCTV/till data

Producing witness statements

Preparing evidence & writing reports

 

Where any of the above results in the diversion of staff time not related to the security staff then this 'could' be claimable but it would need to be shown that the diversion was substantial and only the actual costs would be covered (currently £5.03 for 18-21 year olds and £6.31 for over 21) so if a till staff member was diverted for one hour, only that cost could be recovered as that member was not part of the security personnel.

 

Security Costs:

CCTV system & operator time

Reproducing images for evidence

Electronic security devices

Maintenance of security devices

 

It is my opinion that none of the above are reclaimable as these are sytems already in place and paid for by the store as part of the security costs incurred in running any business. the costs are covered in the prices paid by customers at the till. Since the advent of self service stores, security costs have to be factored into any companies running costs and as such, these systems are in place irrespective of whether they apprehend a shoplifter or not.

 

Administrative Costs:

Data Processing & case reviews

Mileage

Photocopy/postage/telephone calls

Legal fees & court costs

 

Utter tripe. Data processing is integral to the running of the business. Basically it says that you will have to pay us for the privilege of putting your name on our database.

Mileage? Are we talking commuting to work here? In my experience, nobody from RLP or a retailer has visited an 'alleged' offender at home.

Would I charge you to send a demanding letter? No! Even if it was allowable, the costs would be minimal as RLP send out template letters (then criticise CAG for doing the same)

Legal fees and court fees. As it is the retailer that can instigate court action, why are RLP making this demand. As we know, no case has been brought to court since 2012 so to claim these costs is misleading as they can only be claimed once court action has been instigated.

[silverfox1961]

Steampowered had an opinion which I feel is very relevant

 

This is very strong stuff.

 

I am not so excited about Regulation 5 (misleading actions), as this was similar to the common law position anyway.

 

I am very excited about Regulation 6 (misleading omissions). I can see this being an extremely powerful tool to use when consumers are not told about the problems or disadvantages associated with a product.

 

Regulation 7 (aggressive trading practices) is very interesting. Especially this little section - 'any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken'. This is extremely broad. I think it would allow consumers to sue people like DCAs who threaten to take legal action they are not entitled to take. It is also potentially usable against law firms.

 

It is also very interesting that 'persistence' is mentioned as one of the characteristics of aggressive trading practices - in other words, if you tell someone something repeatedly, that could be seen as aggressive even if the statement is absolutely true or the threat is absolutely justified.

 

There is precedent for Regulation 7 type claims. It reminds me of an old case where a barrister successfully sued a firm of solicitors for contempt of court, who on behalf of their client threatened to report the barrister to the regulator at that time, when there was no justification for doing so. Contempt of court is very limited scope but the same basic principles would apply for consumers using Regulation 7.

 

Like with the FSA sourcebooks like COBS, the challenge is getting people to take up the mantle. The difference here is that the regulations are much simpler and much more accessible to your average joe ... the provision about claiming damages can be seen in the regulations itself without needing to cross-refer to the Financial Services and Markets Act or other pieces of financial services regulation.