Law Commission critical of RLP-style tactics

[BankFodder]

Read the full report here:-

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/publications/Consumer-redress.htm

 

And an excellent summary by Richard Dunstan of the CAB here:-

http://thejusticegap.com/News/unreasonable-demands-supermarkets-criticised-over-shoplifter-allegations/

[BankFodder]

Analysis of civil recovery cases reported to and examined in detail by Citizens Advice to date (545+)

 

This note sets out the key findings of an analysis of the more than 545 cases of a ‘civil recovery’ demand reported in detail to Citizens Advice by CABx and others since 2007 (the great majority since 1 January 2009). Since 2007, CABx in England and Wales have dealt with more than 15,000 such cases.

 

 

Civil recovery agent

 

Agent

% of all cases

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd

79

Drydens Lawyers

14

Civil Recovery Solutions

2

Palmer, Reifler & Associates/Goddard Smith, sols.

2

DWF, solicitors

1

Stephens Scown, solicitors

Others

 

 

Alleged offence type: shoplifting or employee theft

 

Offence type

% of all cases

Alleged shoplifting

83

Alleged employee theft

16

Other alleged offence

 

 

Age of recipient of demand (at time of alleged offence)

 

Age

% of all cases

Under 17

12

17 to 24

30

25 to 34

20

35 to 49

25

50 to 64

11

65 and over

Teenagers (11-19)

22+

 

The youngest recipient was aged 11, and the oldest was aged 81.

 

 

Gender of recipient of demand

 

Gender

% of all cases

Female

61

Male

39

 

Retailer client

 

Retailer

% of all cases

% of shoplifting cases

TK Maxx

19

20

Boots

17

15

Asda

11

11

Tesco

9

9

Debenhams

6

7

Wilkinson

5

6

Superdrug

4

5

Primark

4

4

Iceland

3

4

B&Q

3

3

Morrisons

2

1

Sainsbury’s

2

1

Marks & Spencer

1

1

 

Just three major retailers (TK Maxx, Boots and Asda) account for almost half of all demands, and just five major retailers for two-thirds of all demands.

 

Other retailers (all less than 1% of cases) include: Argos; Bookers; B&M; Harrods; H&M; Lidl; Makro; Matalan; Mothercare; Netto; Next; Poundworld; Quality Save; Roadchef; Somerfield; Toys R Us; Travelodge; Travis Perkins; Waitrose; and WH Smith.

 

 

 

Police involvement/action taken in relation to incident

 

Police action

% of all cases

Not called

42

NFA

21

Caution/reprimand

11

Fixed Penalty Notice

14

Prosecution

11

 

 

 

 

Richard Dunstan

Citizens Advice

23 March 2012

[andydd]

Interesting stuff, RLP do love to quote 'their' barrister, but he appears to be alone in his views and I believe his views wernt as part of a legal process, they just asked him what he thought, they may of asked 100 barristers before and didnt like their opinion so ended up with Mr Mawrey.

 

Despite what RLP say the whole area of civil litigation is grey at best, if they genuinely believed in it, they would publish the actual cases were they have won (and lost) for all to see instead of their vague untraceable ones on their websites, even the case law they quote is hardly conclusive, I also note that the recent 'Ive been sent court papers' threads on here are somewhat suspicious.

 

Andy

[citizenB]

The report follows a consultation paper last year, in which the Commissions sought views on whether demands for payment against alleged wrongdoers – including demands for payment following alleged parking offences, copyright infringement and shoplifting – should be covered by the proposed Consumer Bill of Rights.

 

Consumer protection

 

All but two of the 71 respondents to the consultation were in favour,the two exceptions being the most prolific civil recovery agent, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), and their barrister, Richard Mawrey QC.

 

[Sidewinder]

Ah - Richard Mawrey QC

 

http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/barristers/barrister-profiles/qc/richard.mawrey.qc

 

"...The Silk of choice for Consumer Credit Litigation..."

 

"...He acts for major banks, building societies, finance companies and other lending institutions on all forms of credit..."

 

Not noticeably on the side of the consumer!

[andydd]

If |I were sued by RLP I would take the above reports (and the two CAB ones as part of myu defence).

 

As CAB point out, if you are employing a security gaurd already and if the goods are recovered where is the extra cost ?

 

Andy

[rebel11]

I wonder if he did his report Pro Bono?

 

Ah - Richard Mawrey QC

 

http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/barristers/barrister-profiles/qc/richard.mawrey.qc

 

"...The Silk of choice for Consumer Credit Litigation..."

 

"...He acts for major banks, building societies, finance companies and other lending institutions on all forms of credit..."

 

Not noticeably on the side of the consumer!

[ScarletPimpernel]

I wonder if he did his report Pro Bono?

 

I doubt it; more like pro-stitute - give the client what they want, because they're paying. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, because RLP paid for his opinion as a barrister, and no doubt they consider they got their money's worth. They will have gone to him because he specialises in working for financial institutions. I do not doubt that if RLP had gone to a pro-consumer barrister they'd have got a very different opinion, but that wasn't what they were looking for. Remember that RLP were made to take down various items from their website relating to ACPO and PSNI because they were misleading; obviously RLP realised that the only way to get someone to give them a supportive quote was to pay for it.

 

Ultimately, though, these are just opinions and the only way to know if they are correct is by way of a trial in court, with both sides' arguments being heard - but that is something RLP seem rather keen to avoid, for some reason.

Edited June 11, 2012 by alanfromderby

[Zamzara]

RLP's web-site is becoming increasingly shrill and ridiculous, with pop-ups proclaiming how legitimate they are, giving exactly the opposite impression. It reminds me so much of private parking companies and other specualtive (in a lot of cases) invoicers like TV licensing.Their QC's advice is clearly the best possible argument that could be advanced from one side. It does not consider obvious counter-arguments (such as the very obvious problem of lack of causation). The part about being a consumer in paragraph 50 is simply wrong because he is ignoring the fact that RLP's invoices are a 'product' for the purposes of CPUTR.

[rebel11]

Exactly my point, he must of been paid handsomely and exactly what RLP wanted to hear.

 

I doubt it; more like pro-stitute - give the client what they want, because they're paying. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, because RLP paid for his opinion as a barrister, and no doubt they consider they got their money's worth. They will have gone to him because he specialises in working for financial institutions. I do not doubt that if RLP had gone to a pro-consumer barrister they'd have got a very different opinion, but that wasn't what they were looking for. Remember that RLP were made to take down various items from their website relating to ACPO and PSNI because they were misleading; obviously RLP realised that the only way to get someone to give them a supportive quote was to pay for it.

 

Ultimately, though, these are just opinions and the only way to know if they are correct is by way of a trial in court, with both sides' arguments being heard - but that is something RLP seem rather keen to avoid, for some reason.

 

Edited June 11, 2012 by alanfromderby

[Zamzara]

Exactly my point, he must of been paid handsomely and exactly what RLP wanted to hear.

 

 

Or to look at it another way, there are two legitimate functions of a lawyer:-

1. To give accurate and frank advice to his or her client, considering both strengths and weaknesses in the client's case, and looking for ways to rebut counter arguments. I will call this advice.

2. To present the client's case to the other side, and put it in the best possible light. This I would call representation.Giving representation is of course perfectly proper even if clearly a partisan activity. But RLP's "opinion" from Mr Mawrey is clearly not normal legal advice as in case 1, but rather an odd mixture of 1 and 2. It seems to be more like advice to the world, but with the purpose of furthering the goals of representation. I am not at all sure that barristers are supposed to do this.

[maxxer]

I'm not surprised tk maxx are the top / close to the top of the table - simply because of the number of cases they deal with as stores of shoplifters and fraudsters.

 

A lot of other retaillers have dumped their security function, and their store detectives. There's simply nobody in their stores stopping and reporting people. Tk maxx loss prevention have targets of numbers of people to apprehend per year, and there's a fair bit of pressure from head office to achieve them.

[rebel11]

I'm not surprised by this, it's clearly wrong, where there is a 'genuine mistake' those individuals are being labeled as

thieves to fill the company's quota, as you say 'they have targets', common sense goes out of the window.

 

I'm not surprised tk maxx are the top / close to the top of the table - simply because of the number of cases they deal with as stores of shoplifters and fraudsters.

 

A lot of other retaillers have dumped their security function, and their store detectives. There's simply nobody in their stores stopping and reporting people. Tk maxx loss prevention have targets of numbers of people to apprehend per year, and there's a fair bit of pressure from head office to achieve them.