Retail Loss Prevention is running a racket, abusing defamation law, bullying and their clients are hiding behind them

[cerberusalert]

Maybe it's part of their new business matrix that there is no such thing as bad publicity?

[Michael Browne]

Today most corporate clients prefer us to work with them under the radar and without publicity, using the law to protect reputations without drawing attention to the issue.

http://www.schillings.co.uk/services...on-protection/

 

Cag newsletter reaches 250.000+, Private Eye circulation 230,000, hits on BBC, LB, Justice Gap and other websites. I think you could conservatively say Schillings have drawn half a million peoples attention to RLP.

 

Not bad, all it took was a couple of letters.

[citizenB]

http://www.schillings.co.uk/services...on-protection/

 

Cag newsletter reaches 250.000+, Private Eye circulation 230,000, hits on BBC, LB, Justice Gap and other websites. I think you could conservatively say Schillings have drawn half a million peoples attention to RLP.

 

Not bad, all it took was a couple of letters.

 

[MARTIN3030]

http://www.schillings.co.uk/services...on-protection/

 

Cag newsletter reaches 250.000+, Private Eye circulation 230,000, hits on BBC, LB, Justice Gap and other websites. I think you could conservatively say Schillings have drawn half a million peoples attention to RLP.

 

Not bad, all it took was a couple of letters.

 

Not seen such savvy marketing since Guy Bell defending Never Paint Again.

[BankFodder]

Blimey, maybe we should ask Schillings to become our publicists as well.

 

Certainly if they launch an action against us, we will make sure that the news goes out to all of our members, our journalists database - whcih must have over a thousand addresses in it.

 

Very strange though, what on earth has happened to Frogboy and Jonny46? They have been silent ever since this thing broke open.

 

Schillings want to know the identities of those two mystery Caggers. Actually I don't think that they really want to know because if they knew what we know about the source of their IP addresses, I think that Schillings would regret ever asking.

 

That really would put the cat among the pigeons.

 

This reminds me a bit about ACS Law.

 

It seems that anyone who gets involved in this kind of civil recovery business eventually gets their come-uppance. Quite right too. McShane made it clear what a nasty little business it all is.

 

The bounty hunting business relies on the weak and the vulnerable and the silly to make mistakes so that they can cash in.

Actually it is the same with banks and their overdraft charges.

Who else ....? Actually the private parking industry comes to mind. Broadly the same business model.

 

I think that these are all symptomatic of Cameron's Big Society. It encourages government and the justice system to abdicate responsibility in favour of money-grabbing racketeers.

 

The Civil Recovery industry is predicated upon riding on the backs of the mistakes of ordinary people. It exploits and is unforgiving of human fallibility.

This is the type of business which Jackie Lambert has chosen to make her living in.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I do get the feeling someone at RLP has pressed the self-destruct button.

 

Actually, I think it's symptomatic of the bullying way RLP and La Lambert do business.

 

Bullies think they're invincible, and that's why they react disproportionately when someone stands up to them; that's why La Lambert has started all this nonsense - she wants to pretend that the Oxford case never happened. Bullies don't accept responsibility for their bad behaviour, and often try to shift the blame - pretending that what they do is a form of crime prevention, for example. Bullies will often try to convince others that they are the victim - vide La Lambert's allegations of death threats, which, if true, are very unfortunate, but note that she doesn't appear to have made the link with the way she behaves and the threats her company makes.

 

Let us not forget which company ACPO said used letters in a misleading way, or which company described default judgements in a highly imaginative manner on its website.

 

It is interesting to note that research shows that the average serial bully is a female in her mid to late 40s. Anyone we know?

[BankFodder]

I've just seen this on the Boots website - http://www.boots-uk.com/Corporate_Social_Responsibility.aspx

 

So we must not just be seen as a leader in social responsibility, but be recognised as one.

Hmmm. Do they think that paying RLP to engage in this bullying of vulnerable people fits in with social responsibility?

 

Shame!

[comebackjimmy]

How is this for an orchestrated campaign. Why not organize a boycott of one of RLP's clients. We can post mass complaints on their Facebook account(s), twitter etc as well as not frequent that shop. It would take about five minutes for them to announce they were not doing business with RLP anymore and we can then move onto the next one. I have nothing against Boots as such but as they have been mentioned in this thread, why not start with Boots?

[ScarletPimpernel]

How is this for an orchestrated campaign. Why not organize a boycott of one of RLP's clients. We can post mass complaints on their Facebook account(s), twitter etc as well as not frequent that shop. It would take about five minutes for them to announce they were not doing business with RLP anymore and we can then move onto the next one. I have nothing against Boots as such but as they have been mentioned in this thread, why not start with Boots?

 

I think RLP and Schillings are doing a splendid job of showing retailers how using civil recovery can damage their reputation. There's no need for an organised boycott.

[bedlington83]

Schillings want to know the identities of those two mystery Caggers. Actually I don't think that they really want to know because if they knew what we know about the source of their IP addresses, I think that Schillings would regret ever asking.

That's obviously quite an oblique reference that you won't be able to clarify but if what I'm thinking is even close; ROFL

[Michael Browne]

 

Cag newsletter reaches 250.000+, Private Eye circulation 230,000, hits on BBC, LB, Justice Gap and other websites. I think you could conservatively say Schillings have drawn half a million peoples attention to RLP.

 

Not bad, all it took was a couple of letters.

 

Posted on LB:

And a huge thanks to Dara O Briain who just tweeted our threat letter to 971,000 followers!

 

So that's 1.4 million and counting.

[davidashbyash]

why do they use firms like rlp from what ive seen anyone could setup a similer business for a few quid send out invoices if 1 in 10 pay your rich oops have given rlps plan away

[MARTIN3030]

Just a reminder of what Simon Hughes and Tom Brake had to say in March 2011.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-03-22b.248.0#g250.1

 

 

This session covered lots and you can see here Jonathan Djanogly refer to the need for a test case,which

the Oxford case was presumed to be since they threw absolutely everything into it.

[MARTIN3030]

What should not happen is that people who often are young—that is, under the age of majority—vulnerable, mentally ill, distressed or disturbed are intimidated, charged extortionate fees or threatened with what are, bluntly, bogus actions, either by the shops themselves or more frequently nowadays by those who are employed by shops to act for them.

 

 

 

 

In some cases, there was clearly an innocent mistake; in other cases, there was an error; and in other cases there was confusion. However, it matters not, because these stores have behind them a small but growing army of lawyers and other companies that are making a hefty profit from this business.

 

 

There is a common feature in these cases. If the sum demanded is not paid, the threat of county court action is often repeated. There is a second threat and then a third threat, giving ever closer dates of notice. However, at the end of all these threats county court action does not materialise, because it was invalid and unjustified in the first place.

 

 

The most prolific civil recovery agent, a firm called Retail Loss Prevention, is the biggest player among a small army of players in this sector.

 

 

 

The CAB has also received advice, which I have seen, suggesting that there is no obvious legal authority for most of these demands. Taken together, those two facts suggest that the practice of threatened civil recovery relies on fear and/or shame, as well as ignorance of the law, for its effectiveness.

 

 

 

There is no way that that we should continue to permit this system of civil recovery

 

 

Obviously, there is a Home Office interest in this issue and there is also an interest for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as an interest for the Ministry of Justice, in trying to ensure that we shut down this business and make those who are involved, which are otherwise reputable major retail outlets, behave in a much more reasonable way.

 

 

 

The company has also clearly misrepresented the position. Until last November, RLP’s website stated that

 

“we have established operating procedures for Civil Recovery and agreed guidelines with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS)”.

 

However, in October last year, the assistant chief constable who leads on retail crime for ACPO wrote to Jackie Lambert at RLP stating:

 

“Whilst there may have been agreements in the past about exchanging data and operating civil recovery with ACPO…there are no such agreements in place now and indeed on several occasions over the last few years I and my colleagues have asked that such references be deleted. Please remove from your website any and all references which state or imply that RLP operates its civil recovery in agreement or cooperation with the Police Service. Clearly if you have an agreement with an individual force you could make reference to that, but I know of none.”

 

Most of all, it is clear to me that the practice has become an opportunity for great profit-making by a few at the risk of improperly influencing and intimidating people who ideally should not be in the criminal process, unless they are regular offenders, and certainly should not be the victims of communications that distort the facts, misrepresent the law and often put the fear of God into people who certainly do not have the money to pay large sums.

 

I am very grateful to all those people who have brought the issue to the public’s attention, and I hope that there will be continued significant public reporting, until the practice is ended.

 

 

So its not just CAB and Consumer sites then.....but as far as we know Schillings have not sent any letters to Simon Hughes !!

[MARTIN3030]

Only just saw this one too;

 

http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=24157&pcid=2&cid=15&archive=yes

 

note the last line;

 

RLP referred queries to the law firm Schillings, which did not comment.

[MARTIN3030]

http://topsy.com/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18595023

[MARTIN3030]

http://topsy.com/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18595023

[cerberusalert]

Well it seems as if things may have back-fired somewhat as a simple web search using the terms 'RLP, Schillings and the CAB' throws up a plethora of posts which will no doubt keep a certain solicitor representing a company with a fatally flawed business matrix extremely busy.

 

Maybe time for them to re-order some stationary because it looks as if they are going to need it.

 

'There's no such thing as bad publicity' ???

[extrobe]

Maybe it's part of their new business matrix that there is no such thing as bad publicity?

 

Oh dear - they've not been to the Ryan Air School Of Business have they?

[DBC]

Just a thought. Just as a tax tribunal ruled that a PPC cannot make a claim because they have no proprietary interest in the land, couldn't the same argument be made for these loss prevention companies who do not actually own the goods which had been allegedly stolen ?

[cerberusalert]

Journalists will be allowed defences against defamation where they can show the material is based on ‘honest opinion’ or is in the public interest. And websites will be protected if they publish readers’ comments.

Justine Roberts, co-founder and chief executive of the Mumsnet website, welcomed the proposed new protections for websites.

 

She said: ‘Websites and hosts of user-generated comment risk becoming tactical targets for those who wish to clamp down on criticism or investigation of their activities.’

 

The Bill will also end the presumption in favour of jury trial in defamation cases, which currently adds significantly to the cost of cases and the time taken to resolve claims.

 

In future, most cases could be settled by a judge sitting alone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142707/New-law-stop-libel-tourism.html

[BankFodder]

Yes, you are right. A judge in a recent private parking case dismissed a claim after coming to the same conclusion. Maybe some one can flag up the case.

The owner of the company - Simon Renshaw (Rickshaw) Smith has been ordered to appear before the court to explain why he breached the so-called "code of practice" and also why he brought an action when he had no basis for doing so.

 

However in the case of RLP - their actions are brought by the retailer concerned. RLP sits in the background and eggs them on

[cerberusalert]

Yes, you are right. A judge in a recent private parking case dismissed a clim after coming to the same conclusion. Maybe some one can flag up the case.

The owner of the company - Simon Renshaw Smith has been ordered to appear before the court to explain why he breached the so-called "code of practice" and also why he brought an action when he had no basis for doing so.

 

However in the case of RLP - their actions are brought by the retailer concerned. RLP sits in the background and eggs them on

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150551/Thousands-beat-parking-fines-judge-tackles-766k-Mr-Clampit-landmark-penalty-claim-case.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2012/04/excel_parking.html

[2Grumpy]

Should all who have posted in this forum be forming a disorderly queue outside of Schillings offices to hand ourselves in?

 

Perhaps we could hold placards while queuing outside and arrange for a TV crew or two

 

Would that placate RLP/Schillings?

[Crocdoc]

In my view and assuming that freedom of speach is still accepatable, I would say that it is high time that commercial companies who impose penalties for whatever reason should be outlawed, we have a perfectly satifactory legal system for dealing with criminal activity. Turning away from the criminal aspect for a second we have very recently heard horror stories in a house of commons debate surrounding wheel clamping companies, so much so that this practice is about to be banned in England and Wales as it has been in Scotland since 1991. Private Parking companies in my opinion is another industry that uses questionable tactics to extract money from people who may be ignorant of the law or indeeed too frightened to take them on. This is not to say that property owners should not have the right to control their land, however there are ways of achieving this aim without the involvement of commercial companies who's interest is purely to maximise their income.

 

In conclusion, I would like to thank Retail Loss prevention for highlighting this highly contentious issue, which I understand has now reached parliamentary level, I can only hope that the elected members will broaden their investigation and look at all commercial arrangements which assume the right to impose fines or penalties.