RLP-- think they have had a blessing from the pope

[snowy101]

CAB seem to be getting to RLP , got this from their website. I notice it say`s Judge Mawrey "advised" RLP , was this independent free advice ? , or is he on the payroll?.. Pathetic really, that a company that`s so sure:lol: of its legal footing would feel the need to poke its tongue out at CAB.

 

Mr Mawrey, has not previously advised RLP. He therefore brought an entirely fresh mind to the problem.

The propositions of basic law advanced by Mr Mowry are, as he says, not matters of personal opinion on a controversial or novel point of law: they are black-letter law to be found in students’ textbooks. RLP assert, for a body whose remit is to advise its clients on the law, it is therefore disconcerting that the CAB should persist in misrepresenting the basic law in its publications.

 

Richard Mawrey QC – A Deputy High Court Judge – advises that Civil Recovery is lawful

 

Richard B. Mawrey QC

 

 

• A Deputy High Court Judge
  
• An advocate and legal scholar of 45 years experience
  
• Rated as a leading silk in Consumer Law by both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500, the 2 main Legal Directories
  
• Author and specialist editor of several leading practitioners’ text books including Blackstone’s Guide to the Consumer Credit Act 2006 and Goode: Consumer Credit Law and Practice
  
• Has appeared in many high level cases which form valuable precedents in Consumer Law and elsewhere including the case of Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd 2001 where he acted for the successful claimant. The Holman Case (which is referred to in the leading authority Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd, which RLP use for civil recovery) concerns the claim for lost staff time and administrative costs arising from a tort or breach of contract. Richard Mawrey QC – A Deputy High Court Judge – advises that Civil Recovery is lawful
   
  1 December 2010
   
  Retail Loss Prevention Limited
   
  Dispute with the Citizens Advice Bureau
   
  Opinion
  
  • Civil recovery is itself inherently lawful.
    
  • A person who steals goods or money thereby commits the tort of conversion: if that person is a member of the public stealing from retail premises, he may also commit trespass: if he is an employee of the loser, his theft will be a breach of his contract of employment.
    
  • A thief in either category may thus lawfully be sued in tort and/or in breach of contract in the civil courts.
    
  • If the cause of action is established, the claimant is entitled to damages.
    
  • Those damages are not limited to the value of the goods or money stolen but may include damages based on the cost of diverted staff time and administrative costs incurred in dealing with the thief and on the apportioned cost of maintaining systems to discourage and detect theft.
    
  • Damages for these ancillary costs will be awarded when they are proved by credible evidence and when they are reasonable: if these conditions are met, it is irrelevant that they may exceed (even substantially exceed) the value of the item stolen.
    
  • The personal circumstances of the wrongdoer, while undoubtedly relevant to the penalty imposed by a criminal court on conviction for theft, are wholly irrelevant in a civil court either to the liability of the wrongdoer to damages or to the quantum of those damages: damages are compensatory of the victim and not punitive of the offender.
    
  • The propositions in paragraphs a) to g) may be taken to be black-letter law: it would take legislation (almost certainly primary legislation) to alter them.
    
  • It is therefore legitimate for the victim of a theft to advance a claim in tort and/or breach of contract against the wrongdoer either itself or through an agent such as RLP and to inform the wrongdoer that he may be sued in the civil courts in respect of that claim.
    
  • In advancing such a claim, it is legitimate (indeed advisable) for the claim to be quantified in the same way as it would be quantified in court proceedings: provided the claimant is confident that it could, if called upon, substantiate its claim by hard evidence, it is entitled to advance that claim in correspondence.
    
  • In making any genuine and bona fide claim against a potential defendant, any claimant is entitled (indeed in the present judicial climate is encouraged) to indicate that he is prepared to compromise the claim if the defendant is willing.
    
  • It is thus permissible for a claimant to indicate that he will accept a discounted version of his stated claim if the sum is agreed and paid promptly.
    
  • It is also permissible for a claimant to enter into an agreement with a potential defendant whereby, in consideration of the claimant not bringing (or, if brought, not continuing) legal proceedings, the claimant will accept a sum of money payable by agreed instalments: such an agreement, being an agreement for forbearance to sue, is a well-known type of agreement of which many thousands are made every day: it has never been disputed that such an agreement is valid and enforceable.
    
  • An agreement compromising a legal claim in consideration of the payment of agreed damages by instalments is not, and has never been, treated as an agreement for the provision of credit whether at common law or under the more refined definition of ‘credit’ in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA’) s 9(1): in expressing this view, I am in accord with the views of the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’), the consumer credit regulator.
    
  • An instalment agreement of this type is not an agreement regulated by the CCA.
    
  • Consequently, for the purposes of making or enforcing such agreements, neither the retailer nor RLP requires a licence under the CCA: on this aspect also, my views are in accord with those of the OFT expressed in its letter of 26 August 2010.
    
  • Both the retailers and RLP may thus legitimately take the CCA as having no application to their activities in this field.
    
  • Thieves are not ‘consumers’.
    
  • ‘Consumer’ is not a status: it is a function. The function of ‘consumer’ does not exist at common law: it is entirely a creation of legislation.
    
  • A person is only a ‘consumer’ if he is doing something where legislation provides that, in doing that thing, he is acting as a consumer and is entitled to the rights of a consumer: thus such a person is not a ‘consumer’ at large – he is a consumer for the purposes of a particular piece of legislation (eg the CCA, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 etc).
    
  • A employee is not, as such, a consumer for any relevant purposes.
    
  • A person who enters a store, makes a legitimate purchase but then steals goods may well be a consumer for the purposes of his legitimate purchase but is not a consumer for any other purpose, a fortiori any illegal purpose.
    
  • The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 do not apply to civil recovery by retailers or RLP: assertions that they are in breach of those Regulations are unfounded and misconceived.
    
  • Insofar, therefore, as CAB is asserting that civil recovery by retailers or RLP contravenes any existing legislation designed for the protection of consumers, such a claim is also unfounded and misconceived.
    
  • Consequently, whereas it might properly be within the remit of CAB (if such are its views) to suggest to politicians that these activities are socially undesirable and should be curbed by legislation, it is not properly within its remit to suggest that the retailers or RLP are currently breaking the law when they are not.
    

  Richard B. Mawrey QC

  2 Harcourt Buildings

  Temple, EC4Y 9DB

   

Edited March 13, 2011 by snowy101

[rebel11]

If he's a Deputy Hgh Court Judge, surely there is a conflict of interest.

[Zamzara]

CPUT regs regulation 2:

 

“consumer” means any individual who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes which are outside his business.

 

RLP is clearly a commercial practice.

 

In relation to the costs that can be claimed, that just seems to be inconsistent with the case law, especially as to causation.

 

The credit bit is more or less right, but that isn't what they're doing. They're telling people the debt is due as a debt, not negotiating, and even passing it off as a fine in some instances.

 

People running lawful businesses don't have popups on their websites insisting that the business is lawful!

[rebel11]

Heres some info on judges:- http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...pdate_2008.pdf