A thought or two about SCC

[Bookworm]

Ok, so we know that RLP threaten to institute civil proceedings if the victims, sorry, people don't pay up, but do we know that they actually carry out that threat at all?

 

I know they rely on a couple of cases where they did do it (I should have a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it) to justify themselves, but has anyone on here? It seems to me they just pass it to a DCA instead which would seem to indicate they do not want to go to court.

 

Discuss.

[MARTIN3030]

I dont know of any Bookie-and the internet does not seem to throw up anything-in fact its this forum that comes up now (unsuprisingly)

They do cite some precadents but its unclear if they have ever needed them in Court.We know many precadents-but it does not mean that we have had to use them in evidence !

 

I understand that they used to be in Scotland-also that they have used JB Collections-the case we know about was mysteriously dropped once the OP began an offensive and threatened action against THEM.

Then there is the matter of the Consumer Credit Licence-RLP have recently informed people who hae asked about it-that it is irrelevant to their work in civil recovery.If thats the case,then why did they have one in the first place ?

[Bookworm]

http://www.proactivestrategies.com.au/library/Civil%20Recovery/Churchill%20Fellowship%20Report%20-%20To%20undertake%20a%20study%20of%20Reta%85.pdf

 

Sorry for the image, couldn't copy/paste from the .pdf.

 

The interesting thing about those is that, even though RLP uses them as yardstick to claim they are entitled to those costs, these were cases where there also were criminal proceedings and those costs were awarded on finding the person guilty, which is right and proper... and of course those costs had been quantified for all to see. And whilst the above document claims that "legal precedent had been achieved", if it was in SCC (and they all seem to be), of course no legal precedent has been set at all.

[Bookworm]

I also found this:

 

Centre for Retail Research, Nottingham UK

 

What about juveniles?

 

Many offenders are children. Under English civil law parents or guardians cannot normally be held responsible for the civil wrongs of their offspring. However it can be assumed that for many juveniles (and younger children) the parents will pay in the first instance*(1) and later recover the amount from their children, eg by odd jobs or birthday money. In the USA most states make parents responsible for civil recovery monies. Parental responsibility of this kind could well be a worthwhile principle to incorporate into English law.*(2)

 

*(1) In other words, don't worry about the law and pressure the parents, that will work.

*(2) Which means it isn't, and won't be until a bill gets proposed, passed and ratified to that effect.

[midnightminky]

you are right bw. if you are found guilty of the crime of course they are entitled to seek compensation through thge civil courts. as you so rightly point out, it is the people who are NOT guilty and whom the police have not prosocuted whom fall victim to these sharks. rlp say that it has nothing to do with the police but who made them judge and jury?

[MARTIN3030]

I have seen at least 3 high court precadents they have cited-will try to find them.

[JonCris]

http://www.proactivestrategies.com.au/library/Civil%20Recovery/Churchill%20Fellowship%20Report%20-%20To%20undertake%20a%20study%20of%20Reta%85.pdf

 

Sorry for the image, couldn't copy/paste from the .pdf.

 

The interesting thing about those is that, even though RLP uses them as yardstick to claim they are entitled to those costs, these were cases where there also were criminal proceedings and those costs were awarded on finding the person guilty, which is right and proper... and of course those costs had been quantified for all to see. And whilst the above document claims that "legal precedent had been achieved", if it was in SCC (and they all seem to be), of course no legal precedent has been set at all.

 

 

I agree If this is what they are quoting to justify their action it's meaningless. It's simply a claim for damages from CONVICTED thief. The type of action that is available to all of us

 

The contention is that they demand money from people who have NEVER been committed of an offence

[midnightminky]

in the last one,theft by employee,it doesnt actually state how and whom found him guilty. i wonder if te police did or just the company.