The end of the road for civil recovery?

[silverfox1961]

I saw this the other day and I am in the process of doing a report including my take on the new regs. Hopefully published in due course on CAG.

 

Richard Dunstan knows his beans and his report is quite informative.

[silverfox1961]

I wonder if the RLP staff have had to start buying nappies yet? They must be wetting their pants by now.

 

I wonder why the RLP site has not made any reference to this news.

[silverfox1961]

Does this mean the end of RLP? Please say it does?! I got another letter from them last Fri asking to pay or they will send this on to their recovery agent.

 

I don't want them coming to MY door! :/

Don't worry about anyone coming to your door. It won't happen.

 

As for the poxy DCA, nothing to worry about there at all.

[silverfox1961]

Thank you SilverFox

Surly this is harassment? U lot must get SICK of people worrying over these bullys!

 

I do have to admit that I get a bit frustrated with some people who ask the same questions over and over again without actually reading the threads but I also tell myself, these people need help and it is my knowledge sphere to assist.

 

 

You should examine the indentations in my tongue from all the biting

[silverfox1961]

Hi snoopy69 and welcome (finally) to CAG

 

Your post is well intended and (IMO) well reasoned however things are not as they seem to appear. If we had a thread where we knew that the poster was a prolific shoplifter, you would see very little sympathy to them and would get very little help. We have to take the poster at their word that they are a first - timer who has been caught and as such is highly unlikely to do it again. If you were to search on the forum, there was one cocky little so and so who had so little help, he/she vanished.

 

There is already in place a system that allows a store to recoup there losses. this is called the civil courts. The problem there is that a company is only allowed to claim the actual losses incurred and any admin fees incurred, not the arbitrary amounts RLP demand.

 

I remember a while back reading something where RLP and the store has a 40/60% split of any money raised. How accurate this is, I have no idea. If the stores were to bring this in house, that cuts out the need for RLP (and their ilk) and it would be quite likely that the amounts claimed would be a bit more acceptable.

 

Imagine this, shoplifting suddenly stops entirely. Would the stores reduce their prices as they no longer have to factor this in to their prices? Of course not. they would be rubbing their hands with glee as they thought of the extra profit.

 

Going back to RLP, it is my suspicion that the stores are quite happy for some other body do their dirty work for them which is why they prosper. Also, if RLPs model was so good, why did B & Q dispense with their services?

 

I am all for recouping losses but not the inflated amount RLP demand. Their letters are full of misleading claptrap and 'mistruths' and there is no body to regulate their practices.

 

With the new rules coming in, RLP will find that the letters as they are now would be classed as misleading and aggressive giving the 'alleged' shoplifter an avenue to bring them to book for this. Please remember that very few of the threads we see have the criminal courts been involved and as such there is no absolute proof that anybody has shoplifted in the first place. RLP even chase people where a mistake has been made.

 

The same principle applies to RLPs 'dishonesty database' They place everyone who has been accused (but not found guilty in a court of law) on this database. Is this right? No is my opinion. If they want to place someone on this database, take them to court first and get a legitimate judgement.

 

The reason no court action has taken place since July 2012 is due to the slapping 'A Retailer' and RLP got slapped over the actual costs incurred as they could not prove they were actually incurred. If RLP were so sure that their actions were lawful, you have to ask, why are there no other cases ?

 

While a criminal record is detrimental to a shoplifters future prospects, the police usually use their common sense and either issue a caution or a fixed penalty for a person who is a first timer and in my opinion, that is a good way to do it. It also gives the police the information as to whether the shoplifter IS a first timer or someone who has been stopped before when proper court action can be instigated.

 

My apologies for the rambling nature of this post as I wrote it as it came to me.

[silverfox1961]

This was posted by Scarletpimpernel on a different thread

 

Originally Posted by ScarletPimpernel

 

Misleading practices include:

 

 

 

- falsely claiming that their client's overheads are losses

 

- using legal jargon to give the impression that a RLP speculative invoice has the status of a legal claim

 

- giving the impression that RLP decide whether or not a claim is taken to court, when they have no legal standing to do so

 

 

- claiming an association with ACPO that does not exist, to give the impression that RLP's activities are in some way endorsed by ACPO, which is not the case

 

- quoting court cases on the RLP website, without providing sufficient detail for the case to be verified, falsely suggesting that retailers invariably win cases

 

- falsely suggesting that consumer websites cannot provide helpful advice to individuals targeted by RLP

 

- falsely suggesting that certain consumer websites are, or have been, investigated by the police for criminal activity

 

 

Aggressive practices include:

 

- sending repeated spurious demands for payment after the victim has made their position clear

 

- writing to parents of minors without consent (more on that later)

 

- threatening to wait until a minor is 18 before commencing legal action

 

- using terms such as 'offender' and 'wrongful actions' when an individual has not been convicted of any offence

 

- threatening to affect an individual's job prospects by claiming that their data will be held on a database of offenders.

[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.