"Retail Loss Prevention" - Echoes Of PPC's Demands

Stephen_Leak

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

What exactly is a "register of dishonesty"?

The BPA's membership list?

It sounds like a perfect new empty threat for a PPC letter, "... and you may be placed on the Register of Dishonesty."

PS. If they'd stolen Colman's mustard and aspirin, would they have been threatened with a Norwich Pharmaceutical Order?

poppy10_2

Interesting... seems like RLP are trying to sue people who report or comment on the Oxford court case they recently lost.

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

The law firm Schillings has sent letters on behalf of RLP to websites including Legal Beagles and the Consumer Action Group.

It accused some contributors to their forums of harassing RLP and its leading staff by their comments over the past few years, and also of defaming them.

The law firm's letters demand that not only should all the defamatory and threatening posts be taken down, but that the websites should reveal to RLP the identities of all the contributors who made the comments.

Nick Spooner of Legal Beagles said: "We are shocked because it appears to us that far from having any genuine complaint about the nature of the comments it appears RLP want to stifle the reporting of the adverse judgement at Oxford County Court because it puts into question their business model.

"We are refusing to comply with any of their demands," he added.

Schillings also wrote to the solicitors Bates, Wells and Braithwaite (BWB), demanding that it take down from its own website its report of the Oxford court case in which it had acted for the two teenage girls.


And Schillings even demanded that the CAB withdraw all its previous publications on civil recovery, including two reports published in 2009 and 2010 which are available on its website.
"We are definitely not taking anything down," Mr Dunstan said.


In a debate in Parliament on Tuesday on the defamation Bill, Denis MacShane MP criticised the recent actions of RLP and Schillings.
He attacked the law firm for ''showering defamation writs'' on consumer groups.


And he described the civil recovery business as an ''extremely unpleasant practice'' and a ''£15m racket''.

trisontana

Just a thought. Just as the 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 ?

bargepole

trisontana wrote: »

Just a thought. Just as the 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 ?

Looking at RLP's website, it seems that the Claimant in each of their quoted cases is the retailer, not RLP. Otherwise the claim would have to be thrown out, because RLP haven't suffered any loss themselves.

This is exactly the same as debt recovery specialists threatening court, but the actual court claim can only be issued in the name of the creditor.

So the UTT ruling isn't really anything new, it merely confirms what was already the case, namely that a third party (PPCs) can't sue the second party (driver) on behalf of the first party (landowner).

Dublindel

There used to be a se tion for RLP on here, but can't find it now,

[Deleted User]

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

What exactly is a "register of dishonesty"?

Sounds similar to TVL's "National Enforcement Database".

HardWorker2010_2

Perhaps the PPCs should set up a 'Knowns the Score and Ignores our Scam' database?

fermi

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?35554-A-Retailer-v-Ms-B-and-Ms-K-Approved-Judgment-09-05-12

Amethyst wrote: »

Read the Oxford CC case Judgment http://www.legalbeagles.info/ApprovedJudgment.pdf

And the Appeal - http://www.legalbeagles.info/ARetailervMsB09052012.pdf

With huge thanks to the ConsumerActionGroup for obtaining the transcripts.

Coupon-mad

I read about this only the other week and it's a scam so similar to the PPCs it's unbelievable.

Shocking that this Country allows such 'businesses' to leach money like parasites on the back of real firms, stalking and harassing the most vulnerable and uninformed people.

trisontana

Yet another example of a law firm trying to stifle news stories about scammers came to light this week. This time it involved Private Eye's favourite lawyers Carter-Ruck:-

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/07/tullett-brown-scammers-net-32m.html

Last year, libel lawyers Carter-Ruck told freelance journalist Tony Levene he "personally" would be sued if he continued to warn about Tullett Brown on Twitter and via the net.

Tony was forced to back down and we can only guess how many more people were ripped off as a result of Carter-Ruck's threats. The firm now says: "The partner who dealt with Tullett Brown is no longer at Carter-Ruck," adding: "We have no instructions to respond to your questions."