• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Collapse
Loading...
Important !
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

    MACSHANE CALLS FOR END TO CORPORATE LIBEL BULLYING

    26Jun12 – 5:17 pm
    by Jo Glanville
    Denis MacShane MP today called for an end to corporate libel bullying of consumer groups and criticised the law firm Schillings for “showering writs” on consumer groups, websites and lawyers.
    Speaking in support of the introduction of a new clause in the defamation bill that would bar corporations from suing for libel, the MP for Rotherham and former Europe Minister criticised the practice of “civil recovery”, where retailers hire firms to pursue shoplifters for compensation, describing it as “a £15-million-pound racket”.
    Schillings has been sending intimidating letters to consumer forums, solicitors and consumer advice groups. The consumer website Legal Beagles today published a letter it received from the law firm.
    Acting on behalf civil recovery firm Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), Schillings accused Legal Beagles of a ”vindictive campaign of harassment” and ”defamation” and demanded that the site supply the personal information of some of their members who posted comments on the site.
    In May RLP lost a landmark case — the first “civil recovery” case to be contested. Two teenage girls were caught shoplifting, but although the goods were recovered and put on sale, the retailer claimed that its total losses amounted to almost £300. On cross-examination, this was demonstrated to be an exaggeration. The case represents a serious blow to RLP’s business, now that the amounts demanded in compensation have been challenged.
    However, instead of retiring gracefully, RLP employed Schillings to threaten not only Legal Beagles but the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), along with one of its employees and solicitors representing the defendants in the case.
    According to research by CAB, more than 750,000 people have been asked to make substantial payments to civil recovery firms since 1998 — and there are concerns that it is the vulnerable who are most at risk.
    MacShane pushed for a new clause that would signal to Retail Loss Prevention that “their little game is over”. The Libel Reform Campaign, which includes Index on Censorship, is calling for measures to restrict corporations from using libel laws to silence criticism. Corporations would still be able to use malicious falsehood legislation and company directors could sue in their own name.
    The clause was put to the vote in the last session of the public bill committee on the defamation bill today, but was defeated. But the House of Lords can still push this urgent reform through.





    This entry was posted by Jo Glanville, on at 5:17 pm, filed under Uncategorized and tagged Denis MacShane, Legal Beagles, libel reform, Schillings.
    Bookmark the permalink.
    Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
    Post a comment
    or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
    "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

    I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

    If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

    If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

      Originally posted by miliitant View Post
      by what right has a firm of solicitors got in sending such a defamatory and bullying letter to the addmin of legal beagles
      A lawyer may send whatever he/she likes on behalf of a client - vide the letter sent by Goodman Derrick & Co, on behalf of James Arkell (Arkell v Pressdram)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

        Thanks everyone for all your support on this crucial issue.

        If the Citizens Advice Bureau can be threatened in such a manner and is unable to 'defend' itself for fear of a costly libel action (wasting valuable time & resources), then we are in a very frightening situation indeed.

        In essence, to deal with a defamation threat, you either have to be very wealthy....or like us penniless. There is NOTHING for anyone in between. Except to quietly comply and try not to provoke further attack.

        Scientific debates, research and consumer groups are vulnerable to this disgraceful attempt to silence reasonable discussion.


        Tomorrow, I have been asked to address the Libel Reform Campaign Meeting at The Houses of Parliament, to demonstrate that we are a live, current and ongoing victim of
        a libel/defamation threat from an industry trying to protect its profitable racket.

        The parallel 'justice' system that is Civil Recovery needs to be stopped and reasonable, responsible consumer groups like Legal Beagles, The Justice Gap and the CAB need better legal protection from heavy handed censorship of our right to discuss an issue that affects many many people.

        Cel x
        "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

        I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

        If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

        If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

          Originally posted by Crispybacon View Post
          1) That consumer forums such as this one must be having a massive impact on the operations of companies such as RLP, otherwise why feel the need to send such letters threatening legal action, not just against forums, but its individual members
          I rather doubt that my comments would have any measurable effect on the activities of RLP.

          2) That the advice being given on these forums MUST be sound, otherwise the recent court case reported on this website would not have gone in the favour of the defendants
          That case showed the difference between Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water, and the cases pursued by RLP. In Aerospace Publishing, the claimant could clearly demonstrate that its staff had been diverted from revenue producing activity in reasonable efforts to mitigate the company's losses caused by the flooding for which the defendant company was responsible. Therefore, the claimant was - rightly - entitled to damages.

          But security goons are not employed in any revenue producing activity, therefore no damages should be payable merely for them performing their usual job. They would be paid exactly the same regardless of whether any alleged theft had occurred.

          3) That as consumers we must stay aware that our forums are read by the same people we are campaigning against
          I am not "campaigning against" RLP - or anyone else!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

            http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...enceagenda.pdf
            Last edited by Tools; 26th June 2012, 22:27:PM.
            "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

            I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

            If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

            If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

              Unaccustomed as i am for making complimentary remarks, and for what it is worth, i think the Admin should be congratulated for the way they have handled this, thus far.
              It would have been so easy just to shy away from this, but it has been approached head on, which as we all know is the best way to confront a bully. Well done.

              D
              Last edited by davyb; 26th June 2012, 22:30:PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                The issue was raised by Denis MacShane MP in yesterday's House of Commons Committee's Defamation Bill debate.

                He criticized Schillings tactics of ''showering defamation writs'' on consumer groups such as CAB and Legal Beagles and described the civil recovery business as an ''extremely unpleasant practice'' and a ''£15 million racket''. He also challenged the claim from RLP's only shareholder, Jackie Lambert, that her business is ''thoroughly legal''. ''It isn't'' he said.

                You can watch coverage of the debate here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Pl...eetingId=11063 Fast forward to 16.46 to see Denis MacShane's contribution.

                Obviously as his comments were made in a HoC Committee debate they are covered by Parliamentary privilege and so is the reporting of them.

                Schillings and RLP have made a complete pig's ear of this. If it was their intention to demonstrate to the world and his wife just what bully's they are, they have succeeded. If however (and as I suspect) their intention was to sweep criticism of RLP under the carpet in a desperate attempt to retain at least some degree of integrity, they have failed miserably and in fact have achieved the polar opposite.
                Last edited by EXC; 27th June 2012, 05:06:AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                  Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                  I rather doubt that my comments would have any measurable effect on the activities of RLP.
                  Can the real CleverClogs please stand up! Such modesty! But Cloggy don't underestimate yourself! Shillings letter mentioned you by name! Such heinous comments you made!

                  Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                  That case showed the difference between Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water, and the cases pursued by RLP. In Aerospace Publishing, the claimant could clearly demonstrate that its staff had been diverted from revenue producing activity in reasonable efforts to mitigate the company's losses caused by the flooding for which the defendant company was responsible. Therefore, the claimant was - rightly - entitled to damages.

                  But security goons are not employed in any revenue producing activity, therefore no damages should be payable merely for them performing their usual job. They would be paid exactly the same regardless of whether any alleged theft had occurred.
                  Yes, and thats where Consumer forums offer the lay person the opportunity to gain understanding of these things, without the need of engaging a solicitor. Its the costs of getting this advice that generally then frighten people into coughing up the 'charge' rather than challenging it. Its impossible for companies to abuse consumer rights when a collective knowledge exists and is freely available.

                  Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                  I am not "campaigning against" RLP - or anyone else!
                  Hah! :tung:

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                    Originally posted by Crispybacon View Post

                    1) That consumer forums such as this one must be having a massive impact on the operations of companies such as RLP, otherwise why feel the need to send such letters threatening legal action, not just against forums, but its individual members
                    And just an aside to the RLP case, last week I received letters from BOS and Wescot in relation to one of the accounts on my DMP. Both companies 'advised' that I should not follow information given on 'various consumer forums' but instead seek 'professional legal advice'.

                    Now if thats not a nod of recognition to consumer forums I don't know what is!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                      Originally posted by EXC View Post
                      The issue was raised by Denis MacShane MP in yesterday's House of Commons Committee's Defamation Bill debate. ... He also challenged the claim from RLP's only shareholder, Jackie Lambert, that her business is ''thoroughly legal''. ''It isn't'' he said.
                      That is not entirely accurate, as the claims made which he summarily dismissed included the assertion once made by RLP that they were operating with the approval of the Association of Chief Police Officers. From what I have read, any approval by ACPO was rescinded a year or two ago, yet the RLP website still seems to suggest they enjoy the full approval of the police - link.

                      On another page on their site - link - they even seem to give the impression that they are operating with the blessing of the government!

                      I sincerely hope that they are not.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                        All these peoples mentioned in despatches - we are honoured.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                          Originally posted by Celestine View Post
                          Tomorrow, I have been asked to address the Libel Reform Campaign Meeting at The Houses of Parliament, to demonstrate that we are a live, current and ongoing victim of
                          a libel/defamation threat from an industry trying to protect its profitable racket.

                          The parallel 'justice' system that is Civil Recovery needs to be stopped and reasonable, responsible consumer groups like Legal Beagles, The Justice Gap and the CAB need better legal protection from heavy handed censorship of our right to discuss an issue that affects many many people.

                          Cel x
                          Good luck today with this Celestine. It is clear to anyone who reads Shillings letter to LB how RLP conducts its business. Personally I think this issue is more serious than just consumer rights as it also has a direct bearing on civil liberties and freedom of speech to discuss such issues without fear of censorship of reasonable debate or reporting.

                          Best

                          Crispy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                            RLP's claim of backing by lots of areas have been removed or softened considerably since we wrote to the CPS, PSNI, ACPO, They used to tell people that

                            ‘The CPS have agreed that where a civil claim is to be raised against an ''offender'' NO criminal compensation will be claimed in the Criminal court.’
                            Back in May 2009 I asked the CPS to confirm this statement.

                            I can confirm that the CPS is not responsible for determining the compensation in criminal cases, this falls outside the remit of the Department and is a matter for the Courts to decide. Furthermore, the CPS has no involvement in civil cases.
                            and

                            I can confirm that having made enquiries with our HQ Policy Directorate and Business Development Directorate, the CPS is not aware of any agreement with RLP and therefore does not hold the information requested.


                            That statement is no longer on their website.




                            and also the Police


                            They have also removed this statement

                            We are working with Criminal Justice Development Department in Northern
                            Ireland to establish protocols for Civil Recovery with the PSNI.
                            since I received this letter;
                            D/Inspector David Connery BSc(Hons) PGCE MA
                            Head of Crime Prevention


                            Police Service of Northern Ireland





                            Dear Amethyst,

                            In relation to your query about the PSNI and Retail Loss Prevention Ltd.
                            In May 2007 we set up a meeting between the Public prosecution service, Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Branch to discuss the implications of pursuing a policy of support for civil recovery.
                            The main issues raised were how to deal with Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967, which requires certain offences to be reported to the police, and the juxtaposition of a process where civil remedy replaces prosecution, but does not necessarily include and involve the civil courts.

                            It was felt by the PPS that the problems were not insurmountable, however no resolution was reached. This was the last communication we had with RLP Ltd. It is important to note that this was not an exclusive arrangement or negotiation merely an examination of the legal parameters required to set up a scheme for any interested party. This means of recompense is well established in England and Wales.

                            The PSNI are generally supportive of the principle of civil recovery as a means of crime prevention, but rather than prosecution being the default position, if a civil action fails, we feel that once the decision has been taken to pursue a civil remedy, this should be the avenue for case disposal. This is notwithstanding a case where circumstances may substantially change during the course of a civil investigation.

                            A draft policy is currently being prepared which encompasses the foregoing principles.

                            In closing it is perhaps over emphasising the relationship in the website, however as an agent of some of the major retailers we consulted during this endeavour, they are a 3rd party to the policy development, although they are not now directly involved in the research.
                            I hope this helps and I would be delighted to answer any further queries you have.

                            Regards




                            David Connery
                            This was all reported on in the Uncivil Recovery report by CAB. So now if RLP make claims on their website or in press releases they should be truthful, which is probably why they no longer say outright 'we are supported by', because, they aren't. Notice a few of their statements are past tense as well. But the intimation is still there.

                            eg.

                            RLP continues to work in conjunction with the Criminal Justice System to promote maximum effect of civil recovery, working hand in hand with the Criminal Justice System in the prevention and detection of crime.
                            Could really mean anything from 'we've spoken to a couple of policemen' to 'we're in the MOJ policy unit daily' - or maybe they word with the Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) - who know's ??? it's a nothingness statement but to the casual observer could be taken to mean everything.
                            Last edited by Amethyst; 27th June 2012, 08:07:AM.
                            #staysafestayhome

                            Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                            Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                              Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                              RLP's claim of backing by lots of areas have been removed or softened considerably since we wrote to the CPS, PSNI, ACPO, ... So now if RLP make claims on their website or in press releases they should be truthful, which is probably why they no longer say outright 'we are supported by', because, they aren't. Notice a few of their statements are past tense as well. But the intimation is still there.
                              Does this mean that they are not in cahoots with Sandwell Police or the British Transport Police?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

                                I believe someone over on CAG is gathering that information Cleverclogs, sadly it's a bit tricky co-ordinating work with them.

                                I'd guess it's easy enough to say 'working with' when you mean 'sent round a sales rep a few times' but that's just my thoughts.

                                I've seen the BTS stuff, where's the Sandwell Police comment ?
                                #staysafestayhome

                                Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                                Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X