"Civil recovery" demands from shops

unholyangel

IMO I dont agree with it (as above) but if they are going to be allowed to do this, they should HAVE to include that they MAY report it to the police and then give the recipient details of what organisations can help them (such as citizens advice) along with telling them that dependant on circumstances, it may never go to court.

bluelight

I am a retired policeman and worked in the retail trade before joining the police force, so I've seen shoplifting from both sides, so to speak.

In order to prove theft, in common with all criminal offences under English Law, there are what are known as "Points to Prove". The most important of these "Points to Prove", where theft is concerned, is 'Intent to Permanently Deprive'. If this cannot be proven, there is no offence. The majority of shoplifting is carried out by drug addicts, looking to finance their next fix, and organised gangs who, more often than not, steal to order. Major retailers, sadly, have a cynical disregard for the safeguards built into criminal justice legislation and believe everyone who walks in through their doors are potential shoplifters. This is known as Corporate Paranoia and reflects in the way they deal with those they accuse of shoplifting, that is, guilty, regardless of the circumstances.

Civil Recovery, at its worst, is a scam designed to unjustifiably enrich those retailers who use it and defraud those shoppers who become ensnared in situations arising out of crass ineptitude and gross incompetence on the part of poorly-trained and badly-disciplined retail security staff. At its best, Civil Recovery makes those who are genuinely stealing from shops pay the cost of dealing with their misconduct.

The manner in which Civil Recovery agents operate has been a matter of concern for sometime and, more often than not, the allegations made in their letters would not stand up to examination or cross-examination in a court of law. Non-compliance with the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 by Civil Recovery agents is commonplace.

Retailers and Civil Recovery Agents who engage in making demands of doubtful merit run a very real risk of being exposed to civil litigation and criminal prosecution. And it is not just the companies involved who are liable, but their directors, officers, company secretaries and managers are also. However, the problem with Civil Recovery is that retailers and Civil Recovery agents are often advised by commercial lawyers, who are not familiar with the peculiarities of the English Criminal Justice System and English Criminal Law. Until this is addressed, the problem will not go away.

mo786uk

Civi lrecovery only really exists ebcause the criminal system doesnt deal with thefts properly.

You might find this interetsing reading, it explains the law around civil recovery - http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/pdf/RLP~opinion.pdf

antrobus

Hintza wrote: »

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving. Pay the fine and avoid a trip to court (and a criminal record) is the way I read it.

By definition civil recovery does not involve the criminal courts and therefore no criminal charges are involved.

robtruscott wrote: »

seems its the same as the unenforceable invoices that private parking companys send out.

Essentially, yes.

mo786uk wrote: »

Civi lrecovery only really exists ebcause the criminal system doesnt deal with thefts properly.

You might find this interetsing reading, it explains the law around civil recovery - http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/pdf/RLP~opinion.pdf

No, it's merely an opinion issued by Retail Loss Prevention in response to the CAB's document Uncivil Recovery. As far as the actual law is concerned, the Law Commission has stated, "These “fixed sums” have no legal basis".

mo786uk

The writer of that opinion is a very experienced legal professional (especially in consumer issues) he has explained the issues very clearly. I cannot see any problems with what he has said, he mentioned the Law Comissions points in his second opinion and doesnt necessarily disagree with their comments. His second comments are available on the same site.

The fact is RLP can do what they are doing (to the extent described in that opinion) - the problem people have is that they probably do overstate what might be owed. But as the writer of the opinion says, said 'victims' have the option to go to court.

antrobus

mo786uk wrote: »

The writer of that opinion is a very experienced legal professional (especially in consumer issues) he has explained the issues very clearly.

You misunderstand the nature of the opinion of counsel. It isn't an explanation of the law, it's a statement by a legal professional along the lines of 'well if this ever got to court these are that kind of arguments that are available to me should I be acting on your behalf'. RLP have asked counsel to provide them with a legal justification for their actions and that is what was provided. It is really of no particular relevance to anyone other than RLP.

mo786uk wrote: »

But as the writer of the opinion says, said 'victims' have the option to go to court.

It's RLP that have the option to go to court. And as is well known, they are generally reluctant to do so. Presimably they will be even more reluctant now that the Law Commission have stated that the fixed sums that they are demanding "have no legal basis".

fluffnutter

Hintza wrote: »

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving. Pay the fine and avoid a trip to court (and a criminal record) is the way I read it.

If it's so cut and dried then the shop should be pushing for a proper resolution within our existing legal framework.

These 'fines' are little more than extortion. If shop-lifting's a criminal act (which it is) then deal with it using the law, not spurious little invoices. My suspicion is that these 'fines' are issued much of the time primarily because they know they're on dodgy ground in the first place, e.g. accusing a group of teenagers because they think a crime's happened but having no real proof of who did what. Rather than involve the police, they just intimidate people into paying instead.

mo786uk

antrobus wrote: »

You misunderstand the nature of the opinion of counsel. It isn't an explanation of the law, it's a statement by a legal professional along the lines of 'well if this ever got to court these are that kind of arguments that are available to me should I be acting on your behalf'. RLP have asked counsel to provide them with a legal justification for their actions and that is what was provided. It is really of no particular relevance to anyone other than RLP.



It's RLP that have the option to go to court. And as is well known, they are generally reluctant to do so. Presimably they will be even more reluctant now that the Law Commission have stated that the fixed sums that they are demanding "have no legal basis".

We will have to agree to disagree.

The opinion does a number of things (which RLP have asked for)

1) it clarifies that the Consuemr Credit Act doesnt apply
2) it clarifies that the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs don't apply
3) provides an explanation of the legal reasoning RLP are using to try and get money from members of the public (tort)

Yes, it is not a full summary of the law and indeed it is somewhat biased towards RLP but I think he has covered the most important issues.

I think both reports combined are of a lot of use to anyone being chased for money because it provides
a) the reasoning RLP are using
b) the options available should you disagree with RLP

mo786uk

fluffnutter wrote: »

If it's so cut and dried then the shop should be pushing for a proper resolution within our existing legal framework.

These 'fines' are little more than extortion. If shop-lifting's a criminal act (which it is) then deal with it using the law, not spurious little invoices. My suspicion is that these 'fines' are issued much of the time primarily because they know they're on dodgy ground in the first place, e.g. accusing a group of teenagers because they think a crime's happened but having no real proof of who did what. Rather than involve the police, they just intimidate people into paying instead.

The shop is probably going to lose out either way.

They would rather get a few quid back via civil recovery than waste time with the Police, which will probably result in !!!!!! all happening from their point of view.

esuhl

Hintza wrote: »

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving...

So why not allow any old citizen to fine other people?

If I see someone drop a crisp packet, I should be able to fine them £20. There's no need for it to go to court and waste taxpayer's money -- I'll happily collect the revenue.

I mean... what could possibly go wrong? If you obey the law you have nothing to fear from a kangaroo court, right?