Orlandorecovery教程

December2010CABevidencebriefing:UncivilrecoveryMajorretailers'useofthreatenedcivilrecoveryagainstthoseaccusedofshopliftingoremployeetheftContents1.
Executivesummarypage32.
Introduction:heavydemandspage53.
Unreasonabledemandspage84.
Hollowdemandspage135.
Threatenedcivilrecovery:theagentspage176.
Civilrecovery:thelawpage197.
Civilrecovery:thepracticepage208.
Persistentdemandspage249.
Conclusionspage4010.
Recommendationspage44Uncivilrecovery2UncivilrecoveryUncivilrecovery3ExecutivesummaryIneachofthepastthreeyears,some100,000peoplehavereceivedoneormorelettersdemandingasubstantialsumofmoneyas'compensation'fortheirallegedshopliftingoremployeetheft,andthreateningcivilcourtaction(andassociatedextracosts)ifthesumdemandedisnotpaidpromptly.
Since2000,atotalofmorethan600,000peoplehavereceivedsucha'civilrecovery'demand,issuedbyoneofahandfulofagentsactingforhighstreetretailerssuchasAsda,Boots,Debenhams,TescoandTKMaxx.
InthegreatmajorityofCAB-reportedshoplifting-relatedcases,thevalueofthegoodsorcashallegedlystolenisrelativelylow–sometimesjustafewpounds–andinfouroutoffivecasesthegoodswererecoveredintactforresale.
Inemployeetheft-relatedcases,thesumdemandedisusuallysomewhatgreater,sometimesinexcessof5,000.
AmongCAB-reportedcases,oneinfouroftherecipientsareteenagers,ofwhommostareaged14,15or16.
Manyothershaveseriousmentalhealthproblems,orareotherwiseespeciallyvulnerable.
And,inmanyoftheCAB-reportedcases,theallegedtheftisstronglydenied.
Insomecases,theallegedoffenceappearstohavebeennomorethananinnocentmistake,ortheresultofconfusionorgenuineerrorwhenusingaself-servicecheckout.
Butamongthemorethan10,000suchcasesdealtwithbyCitizensAdviceBureauxsince2007,includingmorethan300casesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvice,thereisonecommonfeature:ifthesumdemandedisnotpaid,thethreatenedcountycourtactiondoesnotmaterialise.
Andthemostprolificcivilrecoveryagent–RetailLossPrevention–hasconfirmedthatithasneversuccessfullylitigatedafullycontestedcountycourtclaiminrespectofanunpaiddemand.
This–togetherwithformallegaladvicethatthereisinfactnoobviouslegalauthorityformostsuchdemands–suggeststhatthepracticeofthreatenedcivilrecoveryreliesonfearand/orshame,andignoranceofthelaw,foritseffectiveness.
InDecember2009,aCitizensAdvicereport,Unreasonabledemands,concludedthatsuchcivilrecoverydemands,andtheirseeminglyhollowthreatofcourtactionandassociatedescalatingcostsandinterest,constituteunfairbusinesspractice(asdefinedbytheOfficeofFairTrading).
CitizensAdvicedoesnotcondonecrimeofanykindorlevel,anddoesnotunderestimatethecostofretailcrime,whichastheBritishRetailConsortiumnotesis"metbyhonestcustomerswhoenduppayingmore.
"However,theendsofdeterringcrimeorrecoveringitscostdonotjustifyanymeans.
Ifretailers,dissatisfiedwiththelevelofgovernmentalactionagainstretailcrime,aretotakemattersintotheirownhands,theymustdosousingmeansthatarelegitimateandtransparentlyfair.
UnreasonabledemandssetoutrecommendationstotheMinistryofJustice,theHomeOfficeandothersthatcivilrecoverybelimitedtocasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentoffencesforwhichtherehasbeenacriminalconviction.
SincethepublicationofUnreasonabledemandsinDecember2009,CitizensAdvicehasobtainedbothaconsiderableamountofnewinformationonthepracticeofthecivilrecoveryagents,andaformalCounsel'sopinionontherelevantcaselaw.
AndCitizensAdviceBureauxhavereporteddealingwithdemandsissuedbytwonewcivilrecoveryagents,includingaUS-basedlawfirm.
Itwouldappearthatthreateningcivilrecoveryincasesoflow-valueallegedtheftisalucrativeandgrowingbusiness.
Thisreport–Uncivilrecovery–thereforesetsout30detailed,longitudinalcasestudiesdrawnfromthemorethan300CAB-reportedcasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvicetodate,togetherwiththekeyfindingsofaquantitativeanalysisofthesecases.
Anditdrawsonthekeyelementsoftheabove-mentionedCounsel'sopinionontherelevantcaselaw.
Indoingso,Uncivilrecoveryaimstoassistthosewhohavereceivedsuchacivilrecoverydemandtocometotheirowndecisiononhow–ifatall–torespond.
Uncivilrecovery4UncivilrecoveryUncivilrecovery–whichisendorsedbytheLawCentresFederation,theLegalActionGroup,andJustice–alsore-iteratesthekeypolicyrecommendationssetoutinUnreasonabledemands:TheMinistryofJusticeshouldasktheLawCommissiontoundertakeanurgentreviewofthelawrelatingtocivilrecovery,withaviewtoeventuallyensuring–bylegislativemeansifnecessary–thatcivilrecoveryislimitedtocasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentcriminalactivityforwhichtherehasbeenacriminaltrialandconviction.
TheGovernmentshouldworkwithretailers,thePoliceandotherstoidentifyanddeveloparangeoflegitimateandfairalternativestocivilrecoveryaimedatreducingtheincidenceandcostofretailcrime,andinparticularthatcommittedbycriminalgangsandotherdeterminedand/orpersistentoffenders.
TheSolicitorsRegulationAuthorityshouldconsiderwhetheritneedstotakefurtheractiontoensurethatthecivilrecoverypracticeofsolicitorsisconsistentwiththeSolicitorsCodeofConduct.
TheOfficeofFairTradingshouldconsiderwhetheranyofthepracticeshighlightedinthisreportconstitutebreachesoftheConsumerProtectionfromUnfairTradingRegulations2008.
However,theimplementationoftheserecommendationswouldbeobviatediftheretailerswhopractisethreatenedcivilrecoverydecidedtoceasesuchpractice,andinsteadlimitedactualcivilrecoverytothosecasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentcriminalactivityforwhichtherehasbeenacriminaltrialandconviction.
Thiswouldnotcausesignificantdetrimenttotheretailsectorasawhole.
Forthetotalamount'recovered'bytheagentsfortheirretailerclientseachyear,afterdeductingtheagents'feesorshareofthemoney'recovered',seemsunlikelytobemorethan16million–thatis,lessthan0.
4percentofthe"over4billion"thatoneoftheagentssayscrimecoststheretailsectoreachyear.
Furthermore,amongCAB-reportedcases,fouroutoffivedemands(80percent)wereissuedonbehalfofjusteightmajorretailers:Boots,TKMaxx,Asda,Tesco,Debenhams,Wilkinson,B&Q,andSuperdrug.
Inshort,thepracticeofthreatenedcivilrecovery,asdescribedinthisreport,isnotonlyunfair(andarguablyillegitimate),butprovidesnopanaceaforthe(undoubtedlysubstantial)costofretailcrime.
Itdoesnottargetthoseresponsibleformostretailcrime–criminalgangsandotherpersistentoffenders–andit'recovers'lessthantwopercentofthe977millionannualcostofthe"securityandlossprevention"measuresreportedlytakenbyretailers.
Indeed,theprincipalbeneficiariesofthepracticewouldappeartobethecivilrecoveryagents,whocollectivelyprofitbymillionsofpoundsandhavenoobviousinterestinseeingthereductioninretailcrimesoughtbypublicpolicy.
Uncivilrecovery5Introduction:heavydemandsOpeninghispostonedayinApril2009,William(nothisrealname)wassurprisedtofindalegalisticallywordedletterfromaNottingham-basedcompanycalledRetailLossPrevention(RLP),accusinghimofhavingcommitted"awrongfulact"–thetheftofunspecifiedgoodsworth12.
00fromShell–anddemandingpaymentof149.
50as"damagestocoverlossesfromthisincident.
"Aswellas12.
00forthe"value"ofthegoods,thissumincludedatotalof137.
50for"staff/managementtimeinvestigatingand/ordealingwith[the]incident","administrationcostsresultingfromyourwrongfulactions",and"apportionedsecurity&surveillancecosts.
"Theletterconcludedbywarningthat"failuretorespondwithin21dayswillresultinfurtheractionbeingtakenagainstyou.
"Knowingthathehadnotcommittedany'wrongfulact'againstShell,Williamignoredtheletter.
Threeweekslater,hereceivedasecondletterfromRLP,statingthat"ourclient[Shell]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14days.
"Suspectingtheletterstobesomesortofscam,Williamtookthemtothelocalpolicestation,whereanofficeradvisedhimtosimplyignorethem.
HealsocomplainedinwritingtoNottinghamTradingStandards.
Twoweekslater,hereceivedathirdletterfromRLP,warningthat"youhaveafinal7daystomakepaymentof149.
50.
Failuretodosowillresultinyourcasefilebeingpassedforfurtheractionwithoutfurthernotice.
"Thisletteralsostatedthat"allpersonalinformationregardingyourwrongfulactisnowheldonanationaldatabaseofincidentsofdishonesty",andthat"whilstthisdebtremainsunpaiditisaccruinginterestonadailybasisattherateof8%perannum.
"Williamfollowedthepoliceofficer'sadviceandignoredthislettertoo.
HehassincenotheardfurtherfromRLPorShelland,19monthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
ThepoliceforceinquestionhasconfirmedtoCitizensAdvicethatitsinvestigationofthisallegedincidentconcludedthat"nocrimehadbeencommitted".
Overthepasttenyears,morethan600,000peoplehavereceivedsucha'civilrecovery'demandfromRLPoroneoffourothercivilrecoveryagents(seesection5,below),actingonbehalfofhigh-streetretailerssuchasAsda,Boots,B&Q,Debenhams,H&M,Morrisons,Primark,Superdrug,TescoandTKMaxx.
Inmostcasesthedemandhasrelatedtoallegedshoplifting,butinothersithasrelatedtoallegedtheftbya(bynowdismissed)employee.
CitizensAdviceestimatesthat,since2007,CitizensAdviceBureauxinEnglandandWaleshavedealtwithmorethan10,000suchcases.
InthegreatmajorityofCAB-reportedcases,thevalueofthegoodsorcashallegedlystolenisrelativelylow–oftenjustafewpounds,andaslittleas49pence–butasinWilliam'scasethelettersdemandsignificantsumsascompensationfor"damagescausedbyyourwrongfulactions"or"securitycosts",andthreatencountycourtproceedingsifpromptpaymentisnotmade.
Inshoplifting-relatedcases,thesumdemandedisusuallyapre-determined,'fixedsum'suchas87.
50,137.
50or150,plusthevalueofanygoodsorcashnotrecoveredintactforresale(oftengivenas'nil').
Inemployeetheft-relatedcases,thesumdemandedisusuallysomewhatgreater–sometimesinexcessof2,000andoccasionallyinexcessof5,000.
AmongCAB-reportedshoplifting-relatedcases,forexample,thetotalvalueofthegoodsallegedlystolenwaslessthan20intwooutofthreecases(67percent).
Furthermore,infourUncivilrecovery6Uncivilrecoveryoutoffiveofcases(79percent)thegoodswererecoveredintactandfitforre-sale.
And,amongtheother21percentofshoplifting-relatedcases,themedianvalueofunrecoveredgoodswas11.
98.
Yetthemediansumdemandedamongallshoplifting-relatedcaseswas137.
50,andtheaveragesumdemandedwas147.
69.
AmongCAB-reportedemployeetheft-relatedcases,themediansumdemandedwas584.
25,andtheaveragesumdemandedwas1,692.
77.
Thesumdemandedwasmorethan2,000in20percentofthesecases,andmorethan5,000inninepercentofcases.
Caseof'Sheena'Sheena,awomaninher40swithseriousmentalhealthproblems,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor87.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninDecember2009,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofaneye-linerworth2.
92fromTesco.
Sheenacontendsthatthealleged'offence'wassimplytheresultofagenuinemisunderstandingbetweenherselfandherfriendwhenpackingandpayingforhershoppingatthecheckout.
Thepolicewerenotcalledtotheincident(or,atleast,didnotattend)and,afterbeingissuedwithasix-monthstoreban,Sheenawasallowedtoleavethestore.
Afterreceivingthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRLP,whichgivesthe"valueofunrecoveredgoods"as'nil',SheenasoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB.
ShethenwrotetoRLP,denyingliabilityfortheclaim.
RLPreplied,stating:"Ourclient[Tesco]willrelyoneyewitnessevidencefromstoreandsecuritypersonnel,anyfurtherwitnessstatementsplusadditionalinformationfromCCTVtoprovethisclaim.
ThisevidencewillbepreparedattheappropriatetimeandsubsequentlyconfirmedinCourt.
Thecostsappliedinyourparticularcasearefixedcosts.
Thisiscalculatedasanaveragecostperincident.
Assuchthisaverageincludesthetimetakentowatch,apprehend,interviewandcompletedocumentation,theassociatedadministrationcostsforphonecalls,stationery,printingandaproportionofthesecuritymeasurestotryandreducethefts.
Becauseofthefrequencythatincidentssuchasthisoccur,[Tesco]havelittleoptionbuttotakepreventativemeasuresandtherebymitigatetheselosseswhereverpossible.
ThesecostshavesubsequentlybeentestedthroughthecivilCourts,whichhaveestablishedthefigurestobefairandreasonable.
"1InextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPhasrepeatedlydeclinedtoprovidedetailsofanycasesinwhichthe'fixed'sumsitdemandsinmostifnotallshoplifting-relatedcases(andsomeemployeetheftcases)havebeen"testedthrough"andfoundtobe"fairandreasonable"bythecivilcourts.
AndCitizensAdvicehasbeenunabletofindanyindependentevidenceofthesealleged'testcases'(seealsopage18).
TheletterfromRLPconcludedbywarningthat:"Ifyoufailtoresolvethismatter…within21daysfromthedateofthisletter[thatis,by22December2009],wewillassumeyouhavenodesiretoreachanamicablesettlementandwillreferthismattertoacollectionagency[sic]torecovertheamountclaimed.
"Sheenadidnotrespondtothisletterand,asof15November2010,shehasnotheardfurtherfromRLPorTesco;furthermore,11monthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
Caseof'Tess'Tess,ayoungsinglemotherwithseriousmentalhealthproblems,receivedademandfor103.
93fromtheNottingham-basedCivilRecoverySolutionsinJune2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofapackofnailfilesworth79pencefromB&M.
Thepackofnailfiles1.
Letter,dated22December2009,fromSoniaJohnson,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery7wasfoundonthehoodofTess'syoungchild'sbuggyafterTesshadpaidforhershopping.
Stronglydenyinganyintenttosteal,Tesscontendsthatthepackofnailfilesmusthavefallenthroughhershoppingbasketwhensheplaceditonthehoodofthebuggyafterherchildbecameupset.
Thepolicewerenotcalled(or,atleast,didnotattend),thepackofnailfileswasrecoveredintact,and–afterbeingissuedwithaB&Mstoreban–Tesswasallowedtoleavethestore.
Afewdayslater,however,shereceivedthedemandfromCivilRecoverySolutions(CRS).
Thisstates:"Thedemandvalue[103.
93]isacalculatedamountandincludes,butisnotlimitedto:losses,investigationcosts,securitycosts,administrationcostsandcivilrecoverycosts.
B&MRetailLtdispreparedtoofferareducedsettlementfigureof83.
14ifthisdemandissettledwithin21daysofthisnotice,inaccordancewiththeMinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol.
"2Infact,thereisnosuch"MinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthatmadebyCRSinthisandothercases.
UndertheCivilProcedureRules1998(CPR),therearetenpre-actionprotocols,buteachoftheseappliesonlytoaspecifictypeoflegalclaim,suchasforpersonalinjury,defamation,professionalnegligence,andhousingdisrepair.
ThereisaCPRPracticeDirectiononpre-actionconduct,butitisatleastquestionablewhetherthetemplatedemandlettersissuedbyCRS(andtheotheragents)complyfullywiththisPracticeDirection.
3TheletterfromCRScontinues:"Ifthecivildemandisnotsettledwithin21daysofthisnoticewewillmakefulluseofcivillawtorecoverourclient'slosseswhichmayincludecourtproceedings.
Wherecourtproceedingsareissued,thecourtwillconsideranyfailuretorespondtocorrespondencewhentheymakeordersforcostsandinterest.
"TesssoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB,whichwrotetoCRSonherbehalf,settingouthercontentionthatthealleged'offence'wasinfact"entirelyaccidental"andnotingthatTesssuffersfrom"seriousdepressionandanxietywhichareexacerbatedbythespuriousclaimsbeingmadeinthisinstance".
TheCABdidnotreceiveanyresponse,butoneweeklaterCRSwrotetoTess,indicatingthatthedemandhadnowbeendropped.
Caseof'Martha'Martha,awomaninher60swithseriousmentalhealthproblems,wasaccusedofshopliftinginWilkinsoninJune2009.
WhenMarthadeniedtheallegedoffence,thepolicewerecalledandMarthawasarrested.
However,afterthepolicehadestablishedthatMarthawasaninpatientofalocalpsychiatrichospital,shewasreleasedwithoutchargeorcaution.
Afewweekslater,onavisithomefromthehospital,Marthafoundtwotemplatedemands(TL1andTSL2)fromRetailLossPrevention.
Thesedemandedatotalof89.
15,including1.
65forthegoodsallegedlystolenandRLP'sstandardsumof87.
50forstaffandmanagementtime,administrationcosts,andapportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts(seepage17).
Withtheassistanceofhercarer,MarthasoughtadvicefromthelocalCAB,whichtelephonedRLPandexplainedMartha'sposition,includingthatshesuffersfrom"memoryproblems,clinicaldepressionandanxiety".
However,afewdayslaterRLPsentMarthaafurthertemplatedemand(TSL3),statingthat"ourrecordsindicatethatyouhavestillfailedtomakepaymentorprovideawrittendefence"andthreateningcourtactionifpaymentwasnotmadewithin"afinal14days".
Martha'scarertookthisfurtherdemandtotheCAB,whichthenwrotetoRLP,enclosingaletterfromMartha'sconsultantpsychiatrist.
RLPreplied,stating:"Underthecivillaw,ifliabilityisestablished,2.
Letter,dated15June2010,fromJohnBurton,CivilRecoverySolutions.
3.
InNovember2010,afterbeingsentadraftofthisreport,CRSstatedtoCitizensAdvicethatithasnowremovedtheterm"MinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol"fromitsdemandletters.
Uncivilrecovery8Uncivilrecoverydamageswillbeawarded.
Thesedamageswillbeassessedinaccordancewithestablishedcivillawprinciples,andwillnotbereducedbecauseofany'mitigatingcircumstances'.
Followingareviewofthecasefile,wehaveadvised[Wilkinson]thattheyhavesufficientevidencetoproceedwiththiscivilclaimagainst[Martha].
However,afterconsiderationoftheinformationsubmittedbyyourclient,[Wilkinson]wishestobelenientonthisoccasionbyusingthecivilclaimasadeterrentandassuchispreparedtosuspendthiscaseindefinitely.
Thisisproviding[Martha]isnotinvolved,orsuspectedtobeinvolved,inanyfurtherincidentson[Wilkinson's]premises,orthepremisesofourclientmembersoftheNationalCivilRecoveryProgramme.
Should[Martha]becomeinvolved,oraresuspectedtohavebeeninvolvedinanyfurtherincidents,[Wilkinson]reservestherighttore-callandre-activatethiscivilclaimforcompensationagainstthem.
PleasebeawarethatsubsequentincidentsmaythenformpartoftheCourtproceedingsandfurtherleniencywillnotapply.
Unlesstheabovetermsarebreached,wenowconsiderthiscivilclaimtobeinactive.
Nofurthercorrespondencewillbeenteredintoregardingthismatter.
"4Twomonthslater,however,MarthareceivedaletterfromaGlasgow-basedandOFT-licenceddebtcollectionagency,JBDebtRecovery,towhichRLPsometimespassesanunpaiddemand.
Headed"RetailLossPreventionv[Martha]",thisletter(dated6November2009)demands89.
15andstates:"Ourclients[RetailLossPrevention]haveinstructedustocollecttheaboveoutstandingdebt[sic]asyouhaveignoredallpreviouscorrespondence.
Shouldwenothearfromyouwithin7daysofreceiptofthisletter,thenourclientwillhavenoalternativethantoconsiderlegalaction.
Asuccessfullegalactioncouldresultinalllegalcostsbeingaddedtotheamountdueplusinterest.
Wethereforerequiretheimmediatesettlementinfullofthisdebt.
"TheCABthenwrotetoJBDebtRecovery,drawingattentiontotheaboveletterfromRLP,andMarthadidnothearfurtherfromJBDebtRecovery.
UnreasonabledemandsAmongthemorethan300CAB-reportedcivilrecoverycasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvicetodate,almostoneinfour(23percent)oftherecipientsareteenagers,and60percentoftheseteenagerswereaged14,15or16atthetimeoftheincident.
Manyotherrecipientshaveseriousmentalhealthproblems,orareotherwiseespeciallyvulnerable.
And,inmanyoftheseandothercases,theallegedtheftisstronglydenied.
Insomecases,thesupposed'attemptedtheft'appearstobenomorethananinnocentmistake,ortheresultofconfusionorgenuineerrorwhenusingaself-servicecheckout.
Inothers–especiallythoseinvolvingyoungteenagers–therecipientofthedemandwaspresentinthestoreatthetimeoftheallegedoffence,havingenteredaspartofagroupincludingthesubsequentlyaccusedperson,butwasnotthemselvesaccusedofanyoffence.
Caseof'Charlie'Charlie,asinglemaninhis40swithAsperger'sSyndromeandAttentionDeficitandHyperactivityDisorder(ADHD),receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor150fromBradford-basedlawfirmDrydensLawyersinMay2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–offenceoffailingtopayforhisshoppingafterusingaself-servicecheckoutinAsda.
Thepolicewerenotcalledtotheincident(or,atleast,didnotattend),andCharliecontendsthatthestoremanagereventuallyacceptedthathisfailuretopaywassimplyagenuineerror.
Charliecontends4.
Letter,dated4September2009,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery9that,asaresultofhisconditions,heis"forgetfulandlosesconcentrationeasily".
Charliefurthercontendsthathewasthenallowedtopayforhisshopping,andthatbythetimeheleftthestoreheunderstoodthistobetheendofthematter.
Afewdayslater,however,hereceivedthetemplatedemandfromDrydens.
Thisgivesthe"costsofgoodsstolenordamaged"as"0.
00".
CharliethensoughtadvicefromhislocalCAB,whichwrotetoDrydensonhisbehalf,challengingthedemand.
Afewdayslater,DrydensrepliedtotheCAB,indicatingthatthedemandhadnowbeendropped.
Caseof'Jane'Jane,acancerpatientinher30sundergoingchemotherapytreatment,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninDecember2009,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftof(recovered)goodsworth10.
00.
JanehadbeenshoppinginTescowithhertwoyoungchildren,havingundergoneaggressivechemotherapytreatmentearlierthatday,andhadusedaself-servicecheckouttopayforhershopping.
Shehadthenbeenstoppedbysecuritystaff,andaccusedoffailingtopayfortwoidenticalitemsworth5.
00each.
Thepolicewerecalled,andissuedJanewithan80FixedPenaltyNotice(FPN).
However,Janecontendsthattheallegedfailuretopayfortheitemswassimplyagenuinemistakeonherpart,andthatsheacceptedtheFPNfromthepoliceoutoffearandconfusion.
Afterreceivingtheinitialtemplatedemand(TL1)–whichgivesthe"valueofunrecovered(orunfitforresale)goods"as'nil'–and,twoweekslater,asecondtemplatedemand(TSL2),JanewrotetoRLP,simplyrequestinga"breakdownofhowyouhavecometothetotalsoutstanding,e.
g.
staffmanagementcosts,admincostsandsurveillancecosts.
Iamunsurehowthesefigureshavebeencalculated".
Oneweeklater,RLPreplied,stating:"Irrespectiveofthefactyoureceivedafixedpenaltyfineitisstill[Tesco's]righttobringthiscivilclaimagainstyouforfinancialcompensation.
Itisnotnegatedbytheoutcomeofanycriminalinvestigation.
Whereabusinessissubjectedtowrongfulacts,theyareentitledtoclaimthevalueofthelosscaused,plusthecostsinvolvedininvestigationormitigatingtheattemptedwrongfulact.
Decidedcase-law[sic]providesauthorityforclaimingthecostsofinvestigatingormitigatingawrongfulactwithouttheneedtoprovelossofprofitorrevenue.
"5Theletterdidnotgiveanyfurtherinformationon,orevenanycitationsfor,the"decidedcase-law".
Nordiditgivethemoredetailedbreakdownofthesumsdemandedinthetemplateletter,asrequestedbyJaneandrequiredbytheCPRPracticeDirectiononpre-actionconduct,insteadstatingsimply:"pleaserefertoourinitiallettersenttoyou,whichdetailsabreakdownofthesumsclaimed".
Thelettercontinued:"Incasesoflowvalueitissimplynoteconomicalforourclientstospendfurthertimeandexpenserecordingeveryactionthattheytake.
Itisthereforereasonableandproportionateforourclientstoclaimanaveragecostbasedonthetimetakentoconductallnecessaryelementsoftheirinvestigation,whichincludesbutisnotlimitedtothefollowing:surveillance;apprehension;interview;reportandwitnessstatementpreparation,recordingoftheincidentforcompanyrecords,reviewingCCTVwhereappropriate,reportingincident,preparinggoodsforre-saleifapplicable,retagging/pricing,concludingwithseniormanagement.
Wehaveonlyaddressedtheissuesraisedwhichhavealegalbasis,anyotherpointsnotansweredarenotrelevanttothiscase.
Ifyoufailtoresolvethismatter…within21days,wewillassumeyouhavenodesiretoreachanamicablesettlementandwilltake[Tesco's]5.
Letter,dated3February2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery10Uncivilrecoveryinstructionsonnextactionagainstyou.
"Infact,asnotedabove,Jane'sletterhadsimplyaskedforamoredetailedbreakdownofthesumssetoutintheinitialtemplatedemand(TL1).
AfterseekingadvicefromherlocalCAB,JanewroteagaintoRLP,enclosingdocumentaryevidenceofhercancerandthetreatmentshehadreceivedinhospitalonthedayoftheallegedtheftfromTesco,andaskingthatthedemandbedropped.
Afewweekslater,JanereceivedaletterfromRLP,indicatingthatthedemandhadnowbeendropped.
Caseof'Faye'Faye,a17yearoldschoolstudent,receivedafixed-sumdemandfor150fromtheWigan-basedlawfirmGoddardSmith(actingas'agent'forPalmer,Reifler&Associates)forthealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofunspecifiedgoodsfromH&MinMarch2010.
Fayecontendsthat,whenshoppinginH&Mwithtwogirlfriends,oneofthefriendswasapprehendedandaccusedoftheft;Fayeandthesecondfriendwerethenalsodetainedbysecuritystaff.
Thepolicewerecalled,butquicklyallowedFayeandthesecondfriendtoleaveafterconcludingthattheywerenotinvolvedintheattemptedtheft;thefriend(aged15)whowasaccusedoftheoffencewaslaterallowedtoleaveafteracceptingapolicereprimand.
Fourmonthslater,inJuly2010,FayereceivedthetemplatedemandfromGoddardSmith.
Thisstates:"WeareinstructedtoactasagentforPalmer,Reifler&AssociatesPAwhichisafirmofUnitedStatesattorneysbasedinOrlando,Florida.
Palmer,Reifler&AssociatesrepresentH&MHennes&Mauritz.
Asyouareaware,youwerepreviouslywrittentoinrelationtodamagesarisingfromanincidentatH&M[inMarch2010].
IncompliancewiththegeneralPre-actionProtocol,wewritethisletterbeforeaction[sic]todemandpaymentoftheabovementioneddamagesarisingoutoftheincidentreferredtoabove,whenyouadmittedoritisallegedthatyouunlawfullystolepropertyofH&M.
"6FayecontendsthatshehadnotreceivedanypreviousdemandletterfromPalmer,Reifler&Associates,orGoddardSmith.
And,asalreadynotedinthecaseof'Tess',above,thereisno"generalPre-actionProtocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthis,anditisatleastquestionablewhetherthedemandlettersissuedbyGoddardSmithcomplyfullywiththeCPRPracticeDirectiononpre-actionconduct.
TheletterfromGoddardSmithcontinues:"Theabovefigure[150]includesexpensesaccruedbyH&Masaresultofyouractions.
ThedamagesrepresentlosssufferedbyH&Masaresultoftheaforementionedincident.
Paymentofthedamagesclaimedshouldbemadeinaccordancewiththeinstructionssetoutbelow.
Partpaymentswillonlybeacceptedonaccountofthetotalsumclaimedevenifyoustatethattheyareinfullandfinalsettlement.
Ifyoudonotpaytheamountclaimedwithin14daysproceedingsmaybeissuedagainstyouintheCountyCourt.
IfH&Missueproceedingsagainstyoutheywilllikelyclaimanyotherreliefthecourtdeemsfairandjustagainstyou,inadditiontotheabovementionedsum.
Atthemomentwehavenoinstructionstodiscussthisclaimwithyouortoagreetoanyreductionoftheamountclaimedoranyinstalmentplansoyoushouldnotcontactus.
NeithershouldyoucontactH&M.
AnyqueryshouldbeaddressedtoPalmer,Reifler&Associates.
"AfterseekingadvicefromtheirlocalCAB,Fayeandherparentsdecidednottorespondtothisdemand.
Faye'sparentstoldtheCABthatthefriendwho,withFaye,wasquicklyreleasedbythepolicewithoutchargeor6.
Letter,dated14July2010,fromGoddardSmith,solicitors.
Uncivilrecovery11cautionhadalsoreceivedacivilrecoverydemandfor150fromGoddardSmith,butthefriendwhohadbeendirectlyaccusedoftheattemptedtheft(andreprimandedbythepolice)hadnotreceivedacivilrecoverydemand.
Threeweekslater,inearlyAugust,FayereceivedaseconddemandletterfromGoddardSmith.
Headed"FinalDemand",thisstates:"WearedisappointedtonotethattheOfficesofPalmer,Reifler&Associateshasnotyetreceivedfullpaymentortimelypartialpayment(s)regardingthismatter.
Ourclients[H&M]maynowconsidertheissueoflegalproceedingsagainstyou.
Thisisyourfinalopportunitytoavoidpotentialcourtproceedings.
Iflegalproceedingsareissuedyoumayberesponsibleforadditionalamountsassociatedwiththisclaim.
Therequestedbalanceis150.
Pleasenotethatifwedonotreceivepaymentwithin7daysofthedateofthisletterproceedingsmaybeissuedagainstyouwithoutfurthernotice.
WelookforwardtoreceivingconfirmationfromPalmer,Reifler&Associatesthatpaymenthasbeenmade,therebyavoidingtheneedforlegalproceedings.
"7ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromtheirlocalCAB,FayeandherparentsdecidedtoignorethisandanyfurtherlettersfromGoddardSmith,andthefamilydidnothearagainfromGoddardSmith,PalmerReifler,orH&M.
On8November2010,shortlyafterCitizensAdvicesentPalmerReifler,GoddardSmithandH&Mafinaldraftofthisreport,H&MnotifiedCitizensAdvicethatithadnow"instructedPalmerReiflertocancelthecivilrecoveryactionagainst[Faye]"asshe"didnotactuallycommitacrime".
8Caseof'Paula'Paula,awomaninher40s,receivedafixed-sumdemandfor87.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninJune2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofcosmeticsitemsworth9.
99fromTKMaxx.
Paulacontendsthat,whilstshoppinginTKMaxx,sheselectedtwoitemsfromashelfofdamaged(shop-soiled)cosmetics,advertisedassuchandatspeciallyreducedprices.
AsthefirstitemthatPaulaselectedwasina(broken)boxclearlydesignedtocontaintwoitems,Paulaselectedanotheritemofthesamebrandandputthisintothebox.
Paulathentooktheboxtothecheckout,whereshepresentedittotheassistantwiththerestofhershopping.
Paulacontendsthattheassistantthenconsultedwithasupervisorabouthowmuchtochargefortheboxofdamagedcosmetics,andthat–afterexaminingboththeboxanditscontents–thesupervisorstatedthatPaulacouldpurchasetheboxofcosmeticsfor9.
99.
Paulathenpaidforthecosmeticsandtherestofhershopping.
However,onleavingthestorePaulawasapprehendedbyasecurityguardand–afterbeingledtoasmallroomatthebackofthestore,whereasecondsecurityguardwaswaiting–wasaccusedofstealingthetwoitemsofcosmetics.
Paulacontendsthatthetwosecurityguardsmadenoattempttoinvestigateher'sideofthestory'by,forexample,consultingthecheckoutassistantandsupervisor.
Shecontendsthattheguardspresentedherwithtwooptions:havingthepolicecalledandgetting"acriminalrecord",orprovidinghernameandaddresstotheguardsandacceptingastoreban.
Paulafurthercontendsthat,afterprovidingevidenceofhernameandaddress–herphotocarddrivinglicence–thesecurityguardstoldherthattheywouldalsolevya"fine"ofbetween100and200.
Shecontendsthattheythenbegantoaskherwhatshedoesforaliving,wheresheworks,whethershehasaNationalInsurancenumber,whethersheisontheelectoralroll,andwhichpoliticalpartyshevotedforintheMay2010GeneralElection.
Shecontendsthat,laughingatherdrivinglicencephoto,7.
Letter,dated4August2010,fromGoddardSmith,solicitors.
8.
Email,dated8November2010,fromTimHazelden,RiskManagerUK&Eire,H&M.
Uncivilrecovery12Uncivilrecoveryoneoftheguardsthenstated"youlooklikeaConservative".
Afterbeingissuedwithanindefinitestoreban,anda'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'which(falsely)statesthatRLP'sdata-screeningschemehasbeen"approvedbytheOfficeoftheInformationCommissioner",Paulawaseventuallyallowedtoleave.
(Seealsothecaseof'Peter'and'James',onpp25-27,below).
Thefollowingday,PaulatelephonedTKMaxxtocomplainabouthertreatmentinthestore,settingouttheaboveaccount.
Afewdayslater,shereceivedthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRLP,whichgivesthevalueoftheallegedlystolen(butrecovered)boxofcosmeticsas9.
99–i.
e.
theveryamountthatPaulahadinfactpaidforthem.
Twoweekslater,PaulareceivedaletterfromTKMaxx,stating:"Whilstwehavesecurityproceduresinplaceweexpectthemtobecarried[out]inapleasantandprofessionalmanneratalltimes.
Itisnotatallappropriateforourassociatestoaskquestionsregardingamemberofthepublic'svotingpreferences.
ThisissomethingourDistrictLossPreventionManagerwillbetakingupwiththetwopeopleconcernedandIhopeyouacceptmysincereapologiesfortheobviousupsetthiscausedyou.
Thatsaid…wearesatisfiedthatdespitethematternotbeinghandledaswellaswewouldexpect,thecorrectdecisionwasmadeinregardstoyourdetention.
Inviewofthatthe[indefinitestore]banwillremaininplaceaswemustbeconsistentwithourpolicies,howeverwewillstoptheCivilRecoveryactiononthisoccasion.
"9Onemonthlater,PaulareceivedabriefletterfromRLP,stating:"Ourclient[TKMaxx]hasadvisedthattheynolongerwishtopursuethiscivilclaimforcompensationagainstyou.
Youarefurthernotifiedthatyourdetailswillnotbeheldon[our]nationaldatabase[ofcivilrecoveryincidents]asyourcasewasclosedandexemptedfromthedatabase.
"10Caseof'Jim'Jimreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninMay2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–offenceofswitchingthepackagingonaTVcablehehadpurchasedinB&Q,soastoobtainapricesavingoflessthan2.
Jim–whowasshoppingwithhisthreechildren–contendsthathehadtakentwosimilarbutslightlydifferentlypricedcablesoutoftheirpackaginginordertodecidewhichtopurchase,andthat–distractedbyhischildren–hemusthaveinadvertentlyputthetwocablesbackineachother'spackagingbeforetakingthecablehehadselected–thelowerpricedofthetwo,accordingtothepackagingitwasnowin–tothecheckout.
Jimisadamantthatthiswasagenuinemistakeonhispart,andthathehadnointentiontoobtaintheresultantpricesavingof1.
82.
Thepolicewerecalledtothestore,but–havingviewedtheCCTVtapeoftheincident–decidedtotakenoactionafteracceptingJim'sversionofeventsandhisassertionthatthemix-upofthetwocablesandtheirpackagingwasagenuinemistake.
However,whenthepoliceofficerthenrealisedthattheB&QsecuritystaffwerenonethelessproceedingwithtakingJim'snameandaddress,shedemandedanexplanationfromthesecuritystaff.
Whenthesecuritystaffexplainedthatthiswasforcivilrecoverypurposes,theofficerpromptlyarrestedJimbut–assoonassheandJimhadleftthestore–'streetbailed'him.
Jimcontendsthatthepoliceofficerindicatedtohimthatshewasconcernedabouttheproposedcivilrecoveryaction,andhadarrestedhimwithaviewtostoppingthatprocess,asshewouldnowhavetosubmitacrimeinvestigationreporttoB&Q(whichwouldconcludethatthealleged'offence'wasnomorethanagenuinemistake).
TheofficeraskedJimtoattendthepolicestationthefollowingday,andwhenhedidsohewastoldthat9.
Letter,dated14July2010,fromCarlyTobin,CustomerService,TJXEurope.
10.
Letter,dated20August2010,fromHannahSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery13thepoliceinvestigationoftheincidenthadconcluded'nofurtheraction'.
11Afewdayslater,however,Jimreceivedthe'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRLP.
Inthistemplatedemand(TL1),the'valueofgoods'allegedlystolen(andrecoveredintact)isgivenas19.
98,i.
e.
thepriceofthemoreexpensiveofthetwocables,ratherthantheactual'value'toJimofhisallegedoffence(thepricedifferentialof1.
82).
Thisissignificantas,ifRLPhadtakenthe'valueofgoods'tobejust1.
82,ratherthan19.
98,the'fixedsum'demandwouldhavebeenfor87.
50,ratherthan137.
50(seeSection5,below,andinparticularthetableonpage17).
And,whilstitisnoteasytoseehowthecosttoB&Qof'dealingwith'theincidentwouldhavebeenanydifferent,theamountretainedbyRLP–whichretainssome40percentofallmoniespaid–wouldhavebeenjust35,insteadof55.
AfterseekingadvicefromhislocalCAB,JimdidnotrespondtothedemandfromRLP.
However,hedidwritetoB&Q,torequestanapologyforhistreatment;asof15November2010,hehasnotreceivedanyresponse.
InearlyJune,Jimreceivedasecondtemplatedemand(TSL2)fromRLP,andtwoweekslaterhereceivedathirdtemplatedemand(TSL3);thelatterwarnedthat"itisinyourbestintereststosettleourclient'sclaimnow,beforeanyadditionalaction,suchasCourtproceedings,incursfurthercosts.
Youhaveafinal14daystomakepaymentof137.
50.
"12Jimdidnotrespondtothesefurthertemplatedemandsand,asof15November2010,hehasnotheardfurtherfromRLPorB&Q;fivemonthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
However,on11November,twoweeksafterCitizensAdvicesentadraftofthisreporttoRLPandB&Q,Jimreceivedaletter(dated4November)fromtheGlasgow-basedandOFT-licenceddebtcollectionagency,JBDebtRecovery,towhichRLPsometimespassesanunpaiddemand(seealsothecaseof'Martha',above).
Headed"RetailLossPreventionv[Jim]",thisletterstates:"Ourclients[RLP]haveinstructedustocollecttheaboveoutstandingdebt[sic]asyouhaveignoredallpreviouscorrespondence.
Shouldwenothearfromyouwithin7daysofreceiptofthisletter,thenourclient[RLP]willhavenoalternativethantoconsiderlegalaction.
Asuccessfullegalactioncouldresultinalllegalcostsbeingaddedtotheamountdue[137.
50]plusinterest.
Wethereforerequiretheimmediatesettlementinfullofthisdebt[sic].
"ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromhislocalCAB,JimwillnotberespondingtothisandanyfurtherlettersfromJBDebtRecovery.
HollowdemandsIndeed,amongthemorethan10,000civilrecoverycasesdealtwithbyCitizensAdviceBureauxsince2007,includingthemorethan300casesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvice,thereisonecommonfeature:ifthesumdemandedisnotpaid,thethreatenedcountycourtproceedingsdonotmaterialise.
And,ofthemorethan600,000demandsseeminglyissuedsince2000,asfarasCitizensAdvicecanestablishonlyfourunpaiddemands(lessthan0.
0007percent)haveeverbeensuccessfullypursuedinthecountycourtbymeansofacontestedtrial–andnoneofthesefourcasesinvolveda'fixedsum'demandrelatingtoallegedlow-valueshoplifting.
13InextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,theagentsandtheirretailerclientshaverepeatedlydeclinedtoprovideevidenceofanymoresuccessfullylitigatedcourtclaimsinrespectofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemand.
Yet,clearly,itwouldbeverymuchin11.
ThepoliceofficerinquestionhasverballyconfirmedthisaccounttoCitizensAdvice.
12.
Templatedemandletters,dated8Juneand23June2010,fromJMoorhouse,RLP.
13.
AllfourcasesinvolvedanunpaiddemandissuedbyDrydensLawyers,andintwo(decidedinNovember2005andDecember2008respectively)theclaimwasformorethan4,000pluscosts.
Suchcountycourtjudgmentsdonotsetanylegalprecedent.
Forfurtherinformationonthesefourcases,seepp12-14ofUnreasonabledemands.
Uncivilrecovery14Uncivilrecoverytheirfinancialandotherintereststoprovidesuchevidence,shoulditexist.
Caseof'Kate'Kate,adisabled,full-timecarer(forherelderlymother)inher50slivingondisabilitybenefitsandsufferingfromlong-termclinicaldepression,receivedaletterfromRetailLossPreventiondemanding165.
48inearlyMay2010.
ThisfollowedanincidentinBootsafewdayspreviously,whenKatewasapprehendedbysecuritystafffortheattemptedtheftofonepacketofNicorettechewinggum,worth13.
99andrecoveredintact.
Thepolicewerecalled,andKatewasarrestedandtakentothepolicestation,butwasreleasedwithoutchargeafteracceptingacaution.
Feeling"guiltyandwicked"abouttheattemptedtheft,whichKateputsdowntoherdepressionandtheadditionaltraumaofhermotherhavingrecentlyhadastroke,KatesoughtadvicefromherlocalCABwithaviewtoofferingtopaythesumdemandedinsmallinstalments.
TheCABtelephonedRLPonKate'sbehalf,toclarifytheminimummonthlyamountthatRLPwouldaccept,givenKate'sfinancialcircumstances,andalsotopointoutthat–inadditiontothestandard'fixedsum'of137.
50forstaffandmanagementtime,administrationcosts,andapportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts–thesumdemandedincluded27.
98(i.
e.
twotimes13.
99)for"unrecovered(orunfitforresale)goods/monies/services".
TheCABwastoldthatthiserrorwouldbe"lookedinto",andthatRLPwouldnotacceptlessthan10permonthfromKate.
Afterconsideringthisinformation,aswellasadviceprovidedbytheCAB,KatedecidednottopayanymoneytoRLP.
Threeweekslater,shereceivedafurthertemplatedemand(TSL2)fromRLP,warningthat"ourclient[Boots]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
Whereproceedingsareissuedthenthecourtwillbeaskedtoconsideranyfailuretorespondtoletterswheretheymakeordersforcostsandinterest.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14daysfromthedateofthisletter".
Katedidnotrespondtothedemand.
Twoweekslater,inearlyJune2010,shereceivedafurthertemplatedemand(TSL3)fromRLP,warningthat"itisinyourintereststosettleourclient'sclaimnow,beforeanyadditionalaction,suchasCourtproceedings,incursfurthercosts.
Youhaveafinal14daystomakepaymentof165.
48.
"14Then,on17June2010,KatereceivedanunsolicitedtelephonecallfromRLP,butquicklyputthephonedown.
Yet,incorrespondencewithCitizensAdviceinlate2009,RLPwasinsistentthatit"doesnottelephoneindividualsregardingcivilrecoveryclaims,unlessreturningacall".
15Asof15November2010,KatehasnotheardfurtherfromRLPorBoots,andnocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
However,on4November2010,oneweekafterCitizensAdvicesentadraftofthisreporttoRLPandBoots,KatereceivedatelephonecallfromtheOFT-licenceddebtcollectionagency,JBDebtRecovery,towhichRLPsometimespassesanunpaiddemand(seethecasesof'Martha'and'Jim',above).
Again,Katequicklyputthephonedown,sothepurposeofthetelephonecallisnotclear,butitseemsreasonabletoassumethatRLPhasnowpassedtheunpaiddemandtoJBDebtRecovery.
Caseof'Neisha'Neisha,a14-year-oldschoolgirl,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor87.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninDecember2009,inrelationtotheattemptedtheftofaneyepencilworth2.
93fromBoots.
Thepolicehadbeencalledtothestore,andNeishahadacceptedapolicereprimand;theeyepencilhadbeen14.
Templatedemandletter(TSL3),dated11June2010,fromJMoorhouse,RLP.
15.
Letter,dated27November2009,fromJuliaJolley,thenCompanySolicitor,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery15recoveredintact.
Headed'withoutprejudice',thetemplatedemand(U16LIE)stated:"Undercivillaw,fromtheageof14,apersonisconsideredtobelegallyresponsiblefortheiractions.
Civilproceedingsareentirelyseparatefromanyactiontakencriminallyregardingthisincident.
Ourclient[Boots]hasinstructedusthatasaresultofyourwrongfulactionstheyhaveincurredcostsinadministration,securityandsurveillancemeasurestoinvestigateanddealwiththeincident.
Thesecostsarelegallyclaimable,sinceiftherewerenowrongdoersthen[Boots]wouldnotincurthesecostsinthefirstinstance.
Thelegalbasisforyourliabilityinthisregardisthatbyattemptingto,orbytakinggoodswithoutintendingtopayforthem,youwrongfullyinterferedwithourclient'srightsinthegoods.
Althoughourclient'sclaimisfor87.
50,onanentirely'withoutprejudice'basis,ourclient[Boots]ispreparedtobereasonableandseekstouseCivilRecoveryasadeterrentagainstfurtherincidents.
Asaresult,theyarepreparedtocontributealargeproportionofthecostsincurredthemselvesinconsiderationofyourage.
Ourclientwillacceptasubstantialreductioninthetotalclaim,infullandfinalsettlementofthismatterprovidedthefollowingisreceivedwithin21daysfromthedateofthisletter:-Paymentinthesumof35.
00AND-Proofofage–Aphotocopyofyourbirthcertificate,passportoranyotherofficialdocumentclearlyshowingyouragetobeunder16atthetimeoftheoffence.
Bylawweareobligedtowritedirectlytoyou.
Wedo,however,stronglyadviseyoutoshowthislettertoyourparents/guardians.
"16Neishashowedthedemandtoherfather.
HethenwrotetobothRLPandBoots,notingthathewas"furiouswithmydaughterformakingwhatwasthemistakeofayoung,easilyinfluencedandfoolishperson",butthatRLP's"interpretationofthelawisatbestquestionableandpossiblydownrightdeceitful".
MakingclearthatheandNeishahadnointentionofpaying35.
00,letalone87.
50,hefurtherstatedthathewouldbe"morethanhappytomeetBootsincourtoverevery,orany,aspectofthismatter".
Twoweekslater,RLPrepliedtoNeisha'sfather,onceagaindemandingpromptpaymentof35.
00andwarningthat"weshallnothesitatetocommencedefamationproceedingsagainstyou"should"yourepeatyourstatements[aboutRLP'sinterpretationofthelaw]tothewiderpublic".
17Onceagain,Neisha'sfatherwrotetobothRLPandBoots,indicatingthathewouldnotbepayinganymoneytoRLPandwoulddefendanycourtclaim.
Onemonthlater,inFebruary2010,Bootsreplied,statingthat"afullreviewiscurrentlyunderwayandinlightofthatweatBootshavedecidedthatnofurtheractionshouldbetakenagainst[yourdaughter]".
18And,afewdayslater,RLPwrotetoconfirmthatithadnowdroppeditsdemandand"archived"itsfileonNeisha.
19Caseof'Randall'Randall,amarriedmaninhis40s,wasdismissedfromhisjobasacashierataBPpetrolstationinSeptember2009.
Thedismissalwasfor'grossmisconduct',namelya"seriousbreachoftillprocedure"inrespectofgoodsworthapproximately7.
00intotal,butintheBPmanager'sdetailednotesofthedisciplinaryhearingthereisnosuggestionofanydishonestyonRandall'spart,letaloneanyallegationoftheft(s).
Twoweekslater,however,Randallreceivedatemplateletter(ST1)fromRetailLossPrevention,demandingatotalof1,207.
02,madeupof:990.
60for"thevalueofunrecoveredgoods,moniesorservices";207.
02for"staff/managementtimespentinvestigatingand/ordealingwiththeincident";9.
40for"administrationcosts";and'nil'for"apportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts".
Thedemanddidnot16.
Templatedemandletter,dated18December2009,fromJMoorhouse,RLP.
17.
Letter,dated8January2010,fromIzabellWinter,LegalDepartment,RLP.
18.
Letter,dated12February2010,fromHeatherRayner,AllianceBoots.
19.
Letter,dated16February2010,fromVanessaWillett,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery16Uncivilrecoveryspecifythenatureofthe'goods,moniesorservices'inquestion,anddidnotgiveanydatesorotherinformationabouttheunspecifiedallegedoffence(s).
Randalldidnotrespondtothedemand.
Threeweekslater,inearlyNovember2009,hereceivedasecondtemplatedemand(TSL2)fromRLP,warningthat"ourclient[BP]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
Whereproceedingsareissuedthenthecourtwillbeaskedtoconsideranyfailuretorespondtoletterswheretheymakeordersforcostsandinterest.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14daysfromthedateofthisletter.
"AfterseekingadvicefromhislocalCAB,Randalldidnotrespondtothesedemands.
Twomonthslater,inearlyJanuary2010,hereceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,stating:"Ithasnowbeen4monthssinceyoucommittedawrongfulactatourclientBP'spremises.
Ourclient[BP]isnotpreparedtoforegothisclaimagainstyou.
Youhavefailedtosettlethiscase.
Theamountstated[1,207.
02]remainsoutstanding.
Wenowrequireyourproposalsforsettlement.
FurtherourLegalDepartmentwouldbewillingtodiscussthiscasewithyou,inordertoavoidlitigation.
Youcandiscussthiscasebytelephoning08701672181andaskingtospeaktoamemberoftheLegalDepartment.
Westronglyurgeyoutoreplywithin14days.
FailuretodosowillresultinourLegalDepartmentpreparingyourcaseforcourtaction.
Donotignorethisletter.
"20Randalldidnotrespondtothisletterand,asof15November2010,hehasnotreceivedanymoredemandsfromRLP;tenmonthson,and14monthsaftertheinitialdemand,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
InDecember2009,aCitizensAdvicesocialpolicyreport,Unreasonabledemands,concludedthat–intheabsenceofanyevidencethatthecountycourtshaveexplicitlyandconsistentlysupportedtherecoverabilityofthesumsroutinelydemandedinsuchlow-value,allegedshopliftingoremployeetheftcases–suchcivilrecoverydemands,andtheirseeminglyhollowthreatofcourtactionandassociatedescalatingcostsandinterest,constituteunfairbusinesspractice(asdefinedbytheOfficeofFairTrading).
CitizensAdvicedoesnotcondonecrimeofanykindorlevel,anddoesnotunderestimatethecostofretailcrime,whichastheBritishRetailConsortiumhasnotedis"metbyhonestcustomerswhoenduppayingmore".
21However,theendsofdeterringcrimeorrecoveringitscostdonotjustifyanymeans.
Ifretailers,dissatisfiedwiththelevelofgovernmentalactionagainstretailcrime,aretotakemattersintotheirownhands,theymustdosousingmeansthatarelegitimateandtransparentlyfair.
UnreasonabledemandssetoutrecommendationstotheMinistryofJustice,theHomeOfficeandothersthatcivilrecoverybelimitedtocasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentoffencesforwhichtherehasbeenacriminaltrialandconviction.
InresponsetothepublicationofUnreasonabledemands,theSolicitorsRegulationAuthorityissuednew'ethical'guidancetosolicitors.
Thisprovidesthat,beforetakinganycivilrecoveryactiononbehalfofaretailer,asolicitor"shouldconsiderwhethertheactionbeingproposedisproportionate,havingregardtothecircumstancesofthe'offence'andoftheproposeddefendant.
"22And,notingthe"influenceandfinancialinterests"ofthecivilrecoveryagents,theHomeOfficestatedtoCitizensAdvicethat"itisimportantthattheuseofcivilrecoveryinresponsetocrimeisbothappropriateandproportionate.
"23SincethepublicationofUnreasonabledemands,CitizensAdvicehasobtainedbothaconsiderable20Letter,dated11January,fromSoniaJohnson,LegalDepartment,RLP.
21.
BritishRetailConsortiumnewsrelease,7January2010.
22.
See:www.
sra.
org.
uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/guidance/questionofethics/December-2009.
pageandalso:www.
sra.
org.
uk/sra/news/sra-update/issue-12-civil-recovery.
page23.
Letter,dated2February2010,fromthethenHomeOfficeministerforcrimereduction,AlanCampbellMP;andletter,dated15February2010,fromStephenRimmer,DirectorGeneral,CrimeandPolicingGroup,HomeOffice.
Uncivilrecovery17amountofnewinformationonthepracticeofthecivilrecoveryagents,andaformalCounsel'sopinionontherelevantcaselaw.
24Thisconcludesthatthecaselaw–includingtheHighCourtandCourtofAppealcasescitedbyRetailLossPreventiononitswebsiteandinmanyofitsdemandletters–doesnotprovideanyobviouslegalauthorityforthe'fixedsum'demandsroutinelyissuedbytheagentsinlow-valueshopliftingcases(andsomeemployeetheftcases),andlittleifanylegalauthorityformanyoftheagents'employeetheft-relateddemands.
And,ofcourse,thislegaladvicesuggestsonepossibleexplanationfortheapparentdearthofsuccessfullylitigatedcourtclaimsinrespectofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemand:theagentsknowthattheywouldmostlikelynotsucceedwithanycontestedcourtclaim,sodonotevenriskdefeat.
Furthermore,sinceDecember2009,CitizensAdviceBureauxhavereporteddealingwithdemandsissuedbytwonewcivilrecoveryagents:CivilRecoverySolutions;andtheUS-basedlawfirmPalmer,Reifler&Associates.
Itwouldappearthatthreateningcivilrecoveryincasesoflow-valueallegedtheftisalucrativeandgrowingbusiness.
Thisreportthereforesetsout30detailed,longitudinalcasestudiesdrawnfromthemorethan300CAB-reportedcasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvicetodate,togetherwiththekeyfindingsofaquantitativeanalysisofthesecases.
Anditdrawsonthekeyelementsoftheabove-mentionedformalCounsel'sopinionontherelevantcaselaw.
Indoingso,Uncivilrecoveryaimstoassistthosewhohavereceivedsuchacivilrecoverydemandtomaketheirowndecisiononhow–ifatall–torespond.
25Threatenedcivilrecovery:theagentsRetailLossPreventionIneightoutoftenCAB-reportedcivilrecoverycases,thedemandwasissuedbytheNottingham-basedRetailLossPrevention(RLP),whichsince1999hasissuedmorethan550,000demandsonbehalfofdozensofretailersincludingArgos,EHBooths,Debenhams,Harrods,Iceland,Lidl,Matalan,Morrisons,Mothercare,Netto,Primark,andWaitrose.
Thecompanyretainssome40percentofanymoneyit'recovers',theremaindergoingtotheretailerclient.
Itsownerandmanagingdirector,JackieLambert,hasbeenquotedassayingthatRLPis"passionateinourbeliefthatwearehelpingthecommunitybygoingafterthe'soft'criminalswhoareoftenseenaslowerprioritybythepolice".
26InsevenoutoftenoftheCAB-reportedcasesinvolvingademandissuedbyRLP,thedemandwasissuedonbehalfofoneofjustsixretailers:Boots,TKMaxx,Tesco,Wilkinson,B&Q,andSuperdrug.
Thepre-determined,'fixed'sumdemandedbyRLPinmostifnotallshoplifting-relatedcases(inadditiontotheclaimedvalueofanyunrecoveredgoodsorcash)variesaccordingto,andisdeterminedby,thetotalclaimedvalueofthegoodsorcashinvolved,asfollows:ValueofgoodsSumdemanded21-day'settlementoffer'0-9.
9987.
5070.
0010-99.
99137.
50110.
00100-299.
99187.
50150.
00Over300250.
00200.
0024.
KindlyprovidedprobonobyEdmundTownsendandMatthewHodsonofFarrar'sBuildingChambers,Temple,LondonEC4Y7BD.
25.
However,anyoneinanydoubtastohow–ifatall–torespondtoacivilrecoverydemand,andanyonewhohashadacountycourtclaimissuedagainsttheminrelationtoanunpaidcivilrecoverydemand,shouldseekadvicefromtheirlocalCAB.
26.
Seepage5andendnote7ofUnreasonabledemands.
Uncivilrecovery18UncivilrecoveryAmongtheshoplifting-relatedcasesinvolvingademandissuedbyRLPandexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvicetodate,thefixedsumdemanded(notincludingthevalueofanyunrecoveredgoods)byRLPwas87.
50in31percentofcases,137.
50in56percentofcases,and187.
50insixpercentofcases.
Asnotedinthecaseof'Sheena',above,RLPhasrepeatedlyclaimedthatthepre-determined,'fixed'sumsinthetableabovehavebeen"testedthroughthecivilcourts,whichhaveestablishedthefigurestobefairandreasonable".
However,inextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPanditsretailerclientshaverepeatedlydeclinedtoprovidedetailsofanycasesinwhichthese'fixed'sumshavebeen"testedthrough"andfoundtobe"fairandreasonable"bythecivilcourts.
AndCitizensAdvicehasbeenunabletofindanyindependentevidenceofthesealleged'testcases'.
InextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPhasalsorepeatedlydeclinedtoevidenceitsclaimstohave"regularly"and"successfully"pursuedunpaiddemandsbymeansofcountycourtproceedings.
CitizensAdviceunderstandsthatRLPhasneversuccessfullylitigatedafullycontestedcountycourtclaim.
But,inanycase,countycourtjudgmentssetnolegalprecedent,socannotbecitedas'legalauthority'.
ManydemandlettersfromRLPhavestatedthat"thepersonalinformationthatwehold[onyou]"willnowbe"heldonanationaldatabaseofcivilrecoveryincidents"that"maybeusedinthepreventionofcrimeanddetectionofoffendersincludingverifyingdetailsonfinancialandemploymentapplicationforms".
IncorrespondencewithCitizensAdvice,RLPhasstatedthatitdoes"notoperatethedatabasetoobtainpaymentof[demands]".
However,itisclearfromsomeCAB-reportedcasesthatfearofbeingincludedonthedatabasewasakeyfactorinadecisiontopaythesumdemanded,especiallywheretherecipientwasayoungteenager.
Infact,suchmoneywaspaidinvain,asRLPhasrecentlyconfirmedthataperson'snameisaddedtoitsdatabaseevenifthesumdemandedispaid.
Asnotedinthecaseof'Paula',above,someoftheRLP'noticesofintendedcivilrecovery'handedoutbyretailershavefalselystatedthattheabovedata-screeningschemehasbeen"approvedbytheOfficeoftheInformationCommissioner".
(Seealsothecaseof'Peter'and'James',onpp25-27).
Untilabout10November2010,RLP'swebsitestatedthat"wehaveestablishedoperatingproceduresforCivilRecoveryandagreedguidelineswiththeAssociationofChiefPoliceOfficers(ACPO)andAssociationofChiefPoliceOfficersScotland(ACPOS)".
However,on26October2010,AssistantChiefConstableAllynThomasofKentPolice,wholeadsonretailcrimeforACPO,wrotetoJackieLambertatRLP,stating:"WhilsttheremayhavebeenagreementsinthepastaboutexchangingdataandoperatingcivilrecoverywithACPO(andACPOS),therearenosuchagreementsinplacenowandindeedonseveraloccasionsoverthelastfewyearsIandmycolleagueshaveaskedthatsuchreferencesbedeleted.
PleaseremovefromyourwebsiteanyandallreferenceswhichstateorimplythatRLPoperatesitscivilrecoveryinagreementorcooperationwiththePoliceService.
Clearlyifyouhaveanagreementwithanindividualforceyoucouldmakereferencetothat,butIknowofnone.
"And,inNovember2010,ACPOSstatedtoCitizensAdvice:"AtnotimehaveACPOSenteredintoanyformalagreementwithRLP,orassistedtheminanycivilrecovery,andthisnon-cooperationwillcontinue.
"27DrydensLawyersInafurther17percentofallCAB-reportedcivilrecoverycases,thedemandwasissuedbytheBradford-basedlawfirmDrydensLawyers,whichsince2002hasissuedtensofthousandsofdemandsonbehalfofAsda,Debenhams,Marks&Spencer,Sainsbury'sandothers.
28Inmostif27.
Letter,dated16November2010,fromAssistantChiefConstableCliffAnderson,GeneralSecretary,AssociationofChiefPoliceOfficersinScotland.
28.
InextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesincelate2009,DrydensLawyershasrepeatedlydeclinedtoconfirmthetotalnumberofdemandsissuedbythefirm.
Uncivilrecovery19notalllow-valueshoplifting-relatedcases,itissuesa'fixed-sum'demandfor100or150(plusthevalueofanygoodsnotrecovered/unfitforresale).
InfouroutoffiveoftheCAB-reportedcasesinvolvingademandfromDrydens,thedemandwasissuedonbehalfofAsda.
AsofOctober2009,Drydenshadissuedacountycourtclaimin687casesofanunpaiddemand,butonlyfourofthese(noneinvolvinga150'fixed-sum'demand)hadresultedinajudgmentinfavouroftheretailerfollowingacontestedtrial;theremainderhadallbeensettledorwithdrawn,orhad(itseems)resultedinadefaultjudgmentonly.
29InAugust2010,DrydensdeclinedtoprovideCitizensAdvicewithupdatedfiguresforthenumberofcountycourtclaimsithasissuedinpursuitofanunpaiddemandtodate,andtheoutcomeofthosecourtclaims.
OtheragentsIntheremainingCAB-reportedcivilrecoverycases,thedemandwasissuedbyoneofthefollowingagents:TheNottingham-basedCivilRecoverySolutions,whichbeganoperationsinlate2009orearly2010.
Itsmorethan20retailerclientsincludeB&MandTravisPerkins.
Untilmid-2010,itsnon-executivechairmanwasProfessorJoshuaBamfield,whofoundedRetailLossPreventionin1998,butsoldthecompanyin2003.
InAugust2010,CRSstatedtoCitizensAdvicethatithasnotevenissuedanycountycourtclaimsinrespectofanunpaiddemand.
30TheFlorida-basedlawfirmPalmer,Reifler&Associates,whichisamajorplayerontheUScivilrecoveryscene.
31AsthefirmisnotactuallyregulatedtopractiselawintheUK,itcouldnotitselfpursueanunpaiddemandinthecourts.
ItusesaWigan-basedlawfirm,GoddardSmith,toactasits'agent'inpursuingunpaiddemandswithfurtherdemandletters.
ItsretailerclientsincludeH&MandWilkinson.
TheLondon-basedCivilRecoveryLimited,whichactedonlyforTescoandwhichwascloselyrelatedtoasecurityguardingcompany–TotalSecurityServices(TSS)–thatsuppliessecurityguardstoTesco,Bootsandotherretailers.
InJuly2010,TSSemployeesstatedtoCitizensAdvicethatCivilRecoveryLtd.
ceasedtradingon11June2010.
Civilrecovery:thelawAswellasbeingacriminaloffence,theftisatort(i.
e.
acivilwrong)of'trespassagainstgoods'and/or'conversion'.
Inthecaseofemployeetheft,itisalsoabreachofcontract(namely,oftheemployee'sdutyofgoodfaith).
Andthereisnoquestionthat,ingeneral,apartycanusethecivilcourtstotryandrecoverlossesresultingdirectlyfromthecommissionofsuchatort.
32So,inthecurrentcontextofallegedshopliftingoremployeetheft,itisclearthat,inprinciple,aretailer(oritsagent)couldusethecivilcourtstotryandrecoverboththevalueofanygoodsorcashstolen(wherenotrecoveredintact),andany'consequentiallosses'directlyattributabletocommissionofthetort.
However,whereanallegedtheftisdenied,itwouldbeamatterofevidence(onthebalanceofprobabilities)astowhetherthetortwasactuallycommitted.
Iftheretailercannotprovethis,thenanyclaimforlosseswillbedefeated.
Intermsofthevalueofthegoodsorcashinvolved,thereisnoquestionthat,wherecommissionofatortismadeout,thevalueofunrecoveredgoodsorcashstolenwouldberecoverableincourt.
However,wherethegoodsorcasharerecoveredundamagedandfitforre-sale,theretailerwouldnotbeabletorecoveranythingunderthis'headofloss',forthesimplereasonthattheywillhavesufferednoloss.
Asalreadynotedabove,in79percentofCAB-reportedshoplifting-relatedcases,thedemandgavethevalueofunrecoveredgoodsas'nil',the29.
Ofthese687courtclaims,212relatedtoallegedshoplifting,and475toallegedemployeetheft.
Only29ofthe687courtclaimsweredefended.
Forfurtherinformation,seepp12-14ofUnreasonabledemands.
30.
Letter,dated6August2010,fromJonO'Malley,ManagingDirector,CRS.
31.
See:http://online.
wsj.
com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB120347031996578719.
html32.
Thepracticeofthreatened'civilrecovery'describedinthisreportshouldnotbeconfusedwiththeunconnected,statutory'civilrecovery'regimeprovidedforbytheProceedsofCrimeAct2002,whichpermitstheStatetopursueacivilproceduretoeffectivelysue,intheHighCourt,fortheproceedsofcrimeofnotlessthan10,000.
Currently,thesepowersareonlyavailabletotheSeriousOrganisedCrimeAgencyandmainprosecutionagencies,suchastheCrownProsecutionService.
Uncivilrecovery20Uncivilrecoverygoodshavingbeenrecoveredintactbytheretailer.
Andintwooutofthreeoftheother21percentofshopliftingcases,thevalueofunrecoveredgoodswaslessthan20;itwouldnotbeeconomicforaretailer(oragent)topaytoissueacourtclaimforsuchamodestsum.
Intermsof'consequentiallosses',inanyonecasetheretailer/agentwouldneedtoevidencetheamountoflossessuffered,andprovethattheseclaimedlossesweredirectlycausedbythedefendant'scommissionofthetort.
Inshort,whetherornotalosshasbeencausedbythetortwouldbeassessedbythecourtbyreferencetothe'butfor'test.
Foreach'headofloss',theretailer/agentwouldhavetoshowthat,butforthecommissionofthetort,theretailerwouldnothavesustainedthelossclaimed.
So'apportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts',forexample,wouldnotberecoverableincourt.
Asfore.
g.
'staff/managementtimeinvestigatingand/ordealingwith[the]incident',itisclearfromrelevantcaselawthatthecostofstafftimespentinvestigatingandmitigatingatortisrecoverableinprinciple.
33However,thematterisnotselfproving.
Itwouldbefortheagent/retailertoprove,first,thatstafftimewasdivertedbythecommissionofthetort(andhowmuchtimewasdiverted)and,second,thatthisdiversioncausedasignificantdisruptiontotheretailer'sbusiness.
Inshort,theagent/retailerwouldneedtoshowthatthestaffmembersinvolvedweresignificantlydivertedfromtheirnormalduties.
Clearly,theamountofstafftime(ifany)divertedandthevalueofthattimewillvarygreatlyfromonecasetoanother.
Forthisreason,itwouldbeentirelyinappropriateforanagentorretailertoadvanceacourtclaimonthebasisofapre-determined,fixedsumsuchas87.
50,137.
50or150.
00.
Inshort,acivilrecoveryagent(oritsretailerclient)wouldbemostunlikelytosucceedwiththeprincipal'headsofloss'ofacountycourtclaiminrespectofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemandofthesortdescribedinthisreport.
And,ofcourse,thismaywellexplaintheapparentdearthofsuccessfullylitigatedcountycourtclaimsinrespectofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemand.
34Civilrecovery:thepracticeAsalreadynoted,inmanyofthemorethan300CAB-reportedcasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvicetodate,therecipientofthedemandrobustlydenieshavingcommittedtheallegedoffence.
Insomeofthesecases,thesupposed'attemptedtheft'appearstohavebeennomorethananinnocentmistakeormisunderstanding,ortheresultofconfusionorgenuineerrorwhenusingaself-servicecheckout.
Inotherstheallegationappearstobenomorethanoverzealousnessonthepartofstoresecuritystaff.
Andinsomecases–especiallythoseinvolvingyoungteenagers–therecipientofthedemandwaspresentinthestoreatthetimeoftheallegedoffence,havingenteredaspartofagroupthatincludedthesubsequentlyaccusedperson,butwasnotthemselvesaccusedofcommittinganyoffence.
Insuchcases,thecivilrecoveryagent/retailerwouldmostlikelyfacegreatdifficultyinproving,tothesatisfactionofacivilcourt,thatanytorthadbeencommitted.
And,ifunabletoprovethatthedefendanthadcommittedtheallegedtort,theagent/retailerwouldsimplynotbeabletoclaimincourtforany'losses'or'damages'arisingfromtheallegedincident.
Caseof'Matt'Matt,anemployeeofasmallbuildingfirm,visitedhislocalB&QstoretobuysomeplasterboardinSeptember2009.
Mattcontendsthatheaskedpermissionfromacashiertoborrowtheirtapemeasuretomeasurehisvantoensurethattheplasterboardshehadchosenwouldfitinside.
However,havingdoneso,andhavingthenpurchasedtheplasterboards,Mattwasstoppedbyasecurityguardandaccusedofattemptingtostealthetapemeasure.
Mattcontendsthatthesecurityguardrefused33.
BritishMotorTradeAssociationvSalvadori[1949]Ch556[2006];R+VVersicherungAGvRiskInsuranceandReinsuranceSolutionsSA[2006]EWHC42;AerospacePublishingLtdvThamesWaterUtilitiesLtd[2007]EWCACiv3;andBridgeUK.
comLtdvAbbeyPynfordPlc[2007]EWHC728.
34.
Foramoredetaileddiscussionofthecaselawapplicabletothepracticeofthreatenedcivilrecoveryasdescribedinthisreport,see:Dunstan,R.
&Skipwith,G.
'(Un)civilrecovery',Adviser142,November/December2010.
Uncivilrecovery21toconsultwiththecashierwhohadlenthimthetapemeasure,andignoredMatt'srepeatedrequeststhatthepolicebecalled.
Eventually,afterbeingissuedwithbotha'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'andanindefinitebanonenteringB&Qstores,Mattwasallowedtoleave.
Afewdayslater,however,MattreceivedademandfromRetailLossPreventionfor88.
40,including90penceforthevalueofthetapemeasureandthestandard'fixedsum'of87.
50forstaffandmanagementtime,administrationcosts,andapportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts.
Withthesupportofhisemployer,MattwrotetoRLP,denyingthealleged'offence',settingouthisversionofevents,andrequestinganapologyfromB&Q.
Afewweekslater,RLPreplied,statingthatMatthadbeen"observedbysecuritypersonnel"selectingandremovingthepackagingfromatapemeasureworth8.
98[sic],andleavingthestorewithoutmakingpayment.
TheletterfromRLPcontinued:"ourclient[B&Q]willrelyoneyewitnessevidencefromstoreandsecuritypersonnel,anyfurtherwitnessstatementsplusadditionalinformationfromCCTV,dataminingandothersystemreportstoprovethis[civilrecovery]claim.
ThisevidencewillbepreparedattheappropriatetimeandsubsequentlyconfirmedinCourt.
"Andtheletterconcludedbywarningthat,shouldthefullamountdemanded–still88.
40,despitethe(unexplained)increaseinthevalueofthetapemeasurefrom90penceto8.
98–notbepaidwithin21days,RLPwould"takeourclient'sinstructionsonnextactionagainstyou".
35Onceagain,MattwrotetoRLP,vigorouslydenyingthealleged'offence',contestingRLP'sstatedversionofevents,andexpressinghisconcernthattheentireincidenthadbeenhandledin"anunprofessionalandcavalierway".
And,inlateNovember2009,afterreceivingafurthertemplatedemand(TSL2)fromRLPstatingthat"ourrecordsshowthatyouhavefailedtomakepaymentordisputeliability",MattwrotetoRLPoncemore,enclosingacopyofhispreviousletter.
Finally,twomonthsaftertheincidentinB&Q,MattreceivedabriefletterfromRLP,statingthat"wehavetakenintoconsiderationthepointsraisedand,followingareviewofyourcasefile,wehaveadvisedourclienttonolongerpursuethiscivilclaimforcompensationagainstyou.
Aswenowconsiderthiscivilclaimtobeconcluded,nofurthercorrespondencewillbeenteredintoregardingthematter.
"36However,MatthasnotreceivedanyapologyfromB&Q,orRLP,andthebanonhimenteringB&Qstoresremainsinplace.
Caseof'Sam'Samhadjustpaidforabout100ofshoppinginAsdaonChristmasEve2009,whenhewasstoppedbyAsdasecuritystaffandaccusedofattemptingtostealtwopasties–worth4.
00–thathehadselectedfromakiosksitedbeyondthemaintillsandplacedonthetopofhistrolleyof(paidfor)shopping.
AfterSamstronglydeniedtheaccusation,thepolicewerecalledbutdecidedtotakenoactionafteracceptingSam'sexplanationthatitwasanhonestmistakewithnointenttosteal.
Afterbeingissuedwithastoreban,Samwasthenallowedtoleave,andunderstoodthistobetheendofthematter.
Afewdayslater,however,Samreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor154.
00fromDrydensLawyers,madeupof4.
00forthe"costsofgoodsstolenordamaged"and150for"securitycosts".
SamthenwrotetoDrydens,stating:"IamdisgustedthatthishasbeentakensofarbyAsdaforsomethingthatonmypartwasaveryhonestmistake.
Ihaveneverinmylifebeeninanytroublewithanyauthorities…IhavetriedtoconversewiththemanagerattheAsdastore,haveleftseveralmessages35.
Letter,dated19October2009,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
36.
Letter,dated25November2009,fromAlishaReed,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery22Uncivilrecoveryforhimtophonemeback,buthedoesnotreturnmycalls.
Iamleftwithnoalternativebuttoseeklegaladviceonthismatter,asIfeelIwastreatedveryunfairlyforsomethingthatwasanhonestmistake.
"SamthensoughtadvicefromhislocalCAB,whichwrotetoDrydensonhisbehalfaskingforthedemandtobedroppedandthestorebantobelifted.
Drydensreplied,statingsimply:"wearecurrentlyobtaining[Asda's]instructionsandwillrevertbacktoyouassoonaspossible.
"37Intheevent,Drydensdidnot'revertback'totheCABand,asof15November2010,SamhasnotreceivedanyfurtherdemandsfromDrydens;tenmonthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
Caseof'Bella'Bella,asinglewomaninher20s,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninMarch2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofacoatworth20.
00fromTesco.
Bellacontendsthatthealleged'offence'wassimplyagenuinemistakeonherpart,duetoherbeingdistractedbyafriendcallingheronhermobilewhileshewasatthecheckoutpayingforhershopping.
Thepolicewerecalledandattendedthestorebut,afterviewingtheCCTVtape,decidedtotakenoactionagainstBella.
Afterreceivingthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRLP,whichgivesthe"valueofunrecovered(orunfitforresale)goods"as'nil',BellasoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB.
ShethenwrotetoRLP,denyingliabilityforthe"unreasonableandexcessive"claimandaskingforittobedropped.
RLPreplied,warningthat"ifyoufailtoresolvethismatterwithin21days,wewillassumeyouhavenodesiretoreachanamicablesettlementandwilltake[Tesco's]instructionsonnextactionagainstyou.
"38Onceagain,BellawrotetoRLP,denyingliabilityfortheclaim.
Onemonthlater,RLPreplied:"Asyourcorrespondencefailedtosetoutavaliddefenceorraiseananswerablelegaldisputeweareunabletorespond.
Ourclient[Tesco]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14daysfromthedateofthisletter.
"39Onceagain,BellawrotetoRLP,denyingliabilityfortheclaim.
Onemonthlater,inMay2010,RLPreplied:"Weareinreceiptofyourletterandacknowledgeitscontentstherein.
However,asyourcorrespondencefailedtosetoutavaliddefenceorraiseananswerablelegaldisputeweareunabletorespond.
Assuch,furthercorrespondenceisbeingsenttoyourequiringyoutosettlethisvalidclaimorprovideavaliddefencewithalegalbasisoradviseofmitigatingcircumstancesyouwish[Tesco]toconsider.
Youhaveafinal14daystomakepayment.
Failuretodosowillresultinyourcasefilebeingpassedforfurtheractionwithoutfurthernotice.
"40AfterseekingfurtheradvicefromherlocalCAB,Belladidnotrespondtothisletterand,asof15November2010,shehasnotheardfurtherfromRLPorTesco;and,sixmonthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
However,Bellareportsthat,sincelateSeptember2010,shehasreceived25-30telephonecallsandtextsfromtheOFT-licenceddebtcollectionagency,JBDebtRecovery,towhichRLPsometimespassesanunpaiddemand(seethecasesof'Martha','Jim'and'Kate',above).
Caseof'Marion'Marion,aphysicallydisabledwomaninher30s,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor143.
91fromCivilRecoveryLimitedinNovember2009,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–theftofoneitemofmake-upworth3.
91fromTesco.
Marion37.
Letter,dated25January2010,fromJulieLunn,DrydensLawyers.
38.
Letter,dated24March2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
39.
Letter,dated21April2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
40.
Letter,dated19May2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery23hadusedaself-servicecheckoutinTescotopurchasehershopping,andwhenstoppedbysecuritystaffwasfoundtohaveunderpaidforfourweigheditemsoffruitandoneweigheditemofsweets.
Marionwasthenaccusedofdeliberatelyunderpayingfortheseitems,andwhensheinsistedthattheunderpaymentwasagenuinemistakeonherpart,shewastakentoabackroom.
Marioncontendsthat,whenshecontinuedtoprofessherinnocenceofanyintenttostealorunderpayfortheitems,thesecuritystaffproceededtosearchherhandbagandthen–stating"thisisours"–seizedanitemofhermake-up.
WhenMarioncontinuedtoprotestbothherinnocenceandconcernabouthertreatment,thepolicewerecalledandMarionwasarrested.
Marioncontendsthatthearrestingofficerofferedhertheoptionofacceptingan80FixedPenaltyNotice,butthatsherefusedthisasshewouldhavetoadmittotheallegedoffenceand"Ihadnotstolenanything.
"Afterbeingissuedwithalife-timestorebanbyTescostaff,Marionwastakentothepolicestation,whereshewasdetainedforsixhoursand42minutesbeforebeingreleasedwithoutchargeorcaution.
Marioncontendsthat,duringthistimeincustody,she"hadthreepanicattacksandwassicktwice",andthatpoliceofficersrepeatedlypressurisedhertoadmittothetheftofthemake-up.
ThepoliceforcehasconfirmedtoCitizensAdvicethat"ininterview[Marion]deniedtheftofthemake-up,andinrelationtothefruitclaimedanhonestmistake.
"TheCCTVtapedidnotshowanytheftbyMarionand"Tesco'swereunabletoconfirmthroughstockcheckswhethertheitem[ofmake-up]foundinher[handbag]wasofatypethatwasmissingfromtheshelfthatday.
Thedetailswerepassedtoacasedirector,whodecidedthatinthiscasethecorrectcourseofactionwasNoFurtherAction.
"ThepoliceforcefurthernotesthatMarion's"explanationinrelationtohermistakeattheselfpaytillwascredible"andthat"shewasofpreviousgoodcharacter.
"Uponherreleasefromcustody,apoliceofficerhandedMariona'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'fromCivilRecoveryLimited(CRL).
And,twodayslater,shereceivedthetemplatedemandfromCRL;thisgivesthevalueof"unrecovered(orunfitforresale)goods/monies/services"as3.
91,withtheremainderofthe'fixedsum'demanded(140.
00)beingmadeofupof:82.
50for"staff/managementtimeinvestigatingand/ordealingwiththeincident;15.
25for"administrationcostsresultingfromyourwrongfulactions";and30.
25for"apportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts".
Marioncontendsthat,astheofficerhandedherthe'notice',hestatedthattheentireincidenthadbeen"acompletewasteofeverybody'stime".
MarionimmediatelywrotebothtoCRLandtoSirTerryLeahy,ChiefExecutiveofTesco,disputingthecivilrecoverydemand,protestingherinnocenceofalltheallegationsagainsther,andrequestingreturnofboththe2.
00thatshehadpaidfortheunderpaiditemsoffruit(whichhadbeenretainedbythestore)andhermake-up.
InherlettertoSirTerryLeahy,Marionstated:"Ihavebeentreatedabsolutelyterribly.
Iwasaccusedoftheft,ofwhichthepolicefoundnoevidence.
Iamnowscaredtogointoashopandhaveapanicattackatthethoughtofit.
AsIdenystealinganyitemfromTescoandthepoliceclearedmeonthismatter,IrepeatIamdisputingyourclaimfor143.
91.
IhavespentthousandsofpoundsovertheyearsasaTescocustomer.
WithregardstotheTescostorebanningmeforlifeIcanconfirmIwillneversteponefootinaTescostoreagain,soyouhavenoworriesonthatscore.
"MariondidnotreceiveanyresponsefromCRL,butonemonthlatershereceivedaletterfromSirTerryLeahy,stating:Uncivilrecovery24Uncivilrecovery"Iwasveryconcernedtolearnthatyouhadbeenaccusedofshopliftingatourstore.
ThismatterhasbeendiscussedwithourStoreManager,whohasadvisedthattheactiontakenbythestorewascorrect.
Wewillvigorouslypursueanycostsincurredthroughincidentsofthisnature.
Iwouldliketoformallyadviseyouthatwewillnotenterintoanyfurthercorrespondenceordiscussionsrelatingtothisincident.
"41However,despiteSirTerryLeahy'sstatementthatTescowill"vigorouslypursueanycostsincurredthroughincidentsofthisnature",asof15November2010,MarionhasnotreceivedanymoredemandsfromCRLand–11monthson–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
CitizensAdvicehasbeeninformedthatCRLceasedtradinginJune2010.
PersistentdemandsEvenmoredisturbingly,insomeoftheCAB-reportedcasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvice,thecircumstancessuggestpossiblydeliberatemalpracticeonthepartofretailsecuritystaff.
Astrikingfeatureofsomesuchcasesisthatthepolicewerenotcalledto(or,atleast,didnotattend)the'incident'.
Yetinsomeoftheseandothercasesthecivilrecoveryagent–andespeciallyRetailLossPrevention–hassubsequentlygonetogreatlengthtotryandinducepaymentofthesumdemanded.
Thefollowingsectionsetsoutsomeofthesecasestudiesindetail,soastoillustratetheintimidatorytoneandfalseand/ormisleadingcontentofsomeofthesepersistentdemands.
Caseof'Vanessa'Vanessa,a19-year-olduniversitystudent,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninMarch2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–theftofunspecifiedgoodsworth17.
00fromBoots.
VanessacontendsthatshewasapprehendedbyaBootssecurityguardafewminutesafterleavingBoots,whereshehadpurchasedsomegoods;shewasthenaskedtoreturntothestore,whereshewasaccusedofthetheftofunspecifiedgoods.
Vanessacontendsthat,stronglydenyinganytheft,sheofferedthesecurityguardanopportunitytosearchherandherbag,buthedeclined.
Thepolicewerenotcalled(or,atleast,didnotattend),nogoodswere'recovered'fromVanessaand,afterbeingissuedwitha'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'fromCivilRecoveryLimited[sic],Vanessawasallowedtoleavethestore.
Vanessaimmediatelytookthe'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'tohermother,whotelephonedCivilRecoveryLimitedthenextday,onlytobetoldthatthey"donotworkforBoots".
Thefollowingday,Vanessareceivedthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRetailLossPrevention.
Thisindicatedthattheallegedlystolen(butunspecified)goodsworth17.
00hadbeenrecoveredintact;demandedpaymentofthestandardRLP'fixedsum'of137.
50forstaffandmanagementtime,administrationcosts,andapportionedsecurityandsurveillancecosts;andstated:"Weherebyserveformalnoticethat,duetoyourwrongfulactions[Boots]haswithdrawntheirpermission,withimmediateeffect,foryoutoenteranyoftheirstoresfortherestofyourlife.
Unlessgrantedexpressauthorisationanyfutureentrywillamounttotrespassandbeunlawful.
Failuretocomplywillresultinpoliceaction.
"Vanessa'smotherthentelephonedRLP,intendingtochallengethedemandonthebasisthatherdaughterhadnotcommittedanyoffence.
However,Vanessa'smothercontendsthatshewassointimidatedbyRLP'soralstatementsthattheywouldtakeVanessatocourt,andthatthiswouldprejudiceVanessa'sfuturechancesofobtainingbothemploymentandcredit,thatshereluctantlyagreedtopaythe(reduced)sumof110bydebitcard.
41.
Letter,dated22December2009,fromSirTerryLeahy,ChiefExecutive,Tesco.
Uncivilrecovery2542.
Letter,dated14May2010,fromAlanGreen,AllianceBoots.
43.
Letters,dated7June2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Quicklycomingtotheviewthatshehadbeenduped,andfeelingoutragedbothbytheoriginaldemand,andbywhatRLPhadsaidtoherwhenshetelephonedthem,Vanessa'smotherthensoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB.
ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromtheCAB,Vanessa'smotherthenrepeatedlytelephonedBoots,challengingboththeallegationoftheftandthelegalbasisforRLP'sdemand.
AfteranumberoftelephoneconversationswithdifferentBootsmanagers,shewaseventuallytoldthat,asVanessahadnotcommittedanyoffence,thedemandwouldbecancelledandthe110repaid;furthermore,Bootswouldpay90compensationtoVanessa.
Afewdayslater,inMay2010,Vanessa'smotherreceivedaletterfromtheSeniorCustomerManageratBoots,enclosingapaymentadvicefor200andapologisingfor"thewaythiswholesagahasbeenmanaged.
"42Caseof'Peter'and'James'PeterandJames–brothersaged16and17–eachreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50(i.
e.
atotalof275)fromRetailLossPreventioninMay2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–offenceofswitchingthepricelabelsontwowalletsinTKMaxx,soasto"makepaymentforlessthantheofferedprice.
"PeterandJamescontendthattheywereinfactsimplyattemptingtobuyonewalleteachthat–forreasonsunknowntothem–turnedouttocarryadifferentprice(12.
98)tothatonthecardboardboxesinwhichtheywerehoused(11.
00),andwhichtheboyshadselectedfromalarge'sale'binofwalletsofvariousdesignsandprices.
Thepolicewerenotcalled(or,atleast,didnotattend)and,afterbeingissuedwithlife-timebansfromallTKMaxxstores,PeterandJameswereallowedtoleave.
Oneweeklater,PeterandJamesreceivedthedemandlettersfromRLP;thesegivethepriceofthe(recovered)walletsas14.
99.
Thebrothersshowedtheletterstotheirfatherwho,afterseekinglegaladvicefromalawfirm,wrotetoRLPnotingthat"atnotimedidmysonscommitanyunlawfulactionsinTKMaxx",andthat"hadTKMaxxstaffcarriedoutaninvestigationcorrectlytheywouldhavefoundthatnooffencehadbeencommitted".
RLPdidnotreplytotheboys'father,buttendayslater,inearlyJune2010,sentafurtherlettertoeachofPeterandJames.
Theselettersopenedbystatingthat"duetotheprovisionsoftheDataProtectionAct1998wecannotdiscussthiscasewith[yourparent/guardian]withoutyourspecificconsent.
Ifyouwishthemtorepresentyourinterestsinthismatter,werequirealetterofauthorityfromyou.
"43Thelettersthencontinued:"Youwereobservedremovingtheitemfromitspackagingandplacingitintoanotherboxwhichhadaclearancelabelattachedsoastomakepaymentforlessthantheofferedpriceof[the]goods.
Yourco-defendantwasalsoobserveddoingthesame.
Ourclient[TKMaxx]statesthatthepriceoftheitemwasclearlydisplayedontheboxbeforeyoutamperedwithit.
Youractionsandthoseofyourco-defendantwereanattempttodeprive[TKMaxx]of29.
98…Ifyoufailtoresolvethismatterwithin21daysfromthedateofthisletter,wewillassumethatyouhavenodesiretoreachanamicablesettlementandwilltakeourclient'sinstructionsonnextactionagainstyou.
"AfterseekingadvicefromtheirlocalCAB,thefamilydecidednottorespondtotheselettersfromRLP.
Onemonthlater,theboyseachreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,stating:"Ourclient[TKMaxx]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
WhereproceedingsareissuedthenthecourtwillbeaskedtoconsideranyfailuretorespondtoletterswheretheymakeordersforcostsUncivilrecovery26Uncivilrecoveryandinterest.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14daysfromthedateofthisletter.
"44PeterandJamescontinuetocontendthattheyareentirelyinnocentofanycrimeagainstTKMaxx.
AfterseekingfurtheradvicefromtheirlocalCAB,thefamilydecidednottorespondtotheaboveletterfromRLP.
However,theboys'fatherdidwritetotheInformationCommissioner,expressingconcernaboutthewarning–setoutintheRLP'noticeofintendedcivilrecovery'thatwashandedtoPeterandJamesbyTKMaxxstaffatthetimeoftheincident–thattheboys'"personaldata"willbestoredbyRLPto"makeemploymentdecisions,decisionsregardingtheprovisionofcreditandforthepurposesofcrimepreventionanddetectionincludingverifyingdetailsonapplicationformsandprotectionoftherightsof[RLP]andothercompaniesasappropriate".
The'notice'concludesbystatingthat"theuseofthisdatawillatalltimesbeincompliancewiththeDataProtectionAct1998andtheschemehasbeenapprovedbytheOfficeoftheInformationCommissioner".
IncorrespondencewithCitizensAdvice,theOfficeoftheInformationCommissioner(OIC)hasconfirmedthatithasnotatanystageapprovedRLP'sdata-screeningscheme.
Furthermore,inNovember2009theOICinformedCitizensAdvicethatithad"contactedRLPrequiringthemtoremovethewordingregarding[OIC]approvaloftheirscheme–accordingtoRLP[thisfalsestatement]appearedduetoanerrorandwasremovedinMarch2009".
And,inJune2010,afterCitizensAdvicehadsuppliedtheOICwithfurtherexamplesofRLP's'notice'containingthisfalsestatement–issuedbyMothercareinDecember2009andWilkinsoninMarch2010–theOICstatedtoCitizensAdvice:"wewillcertainlyraisethiswithRLPaswehavebeenveryclearthattheOICdoesnot'approve'thescheme,andthatwerequiredthereferencetoapprovaltoberemoved".
Theboys'fatheralsocontactedhisMemberofParliament,whointurnwrotetoRLP.
Afewweekslater,PeterandJameseachreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,notingthatRLPhadreceivedaletterfromtheMP,andstating:"Ourclient[TKMaxx]iswithintheirlegalrighttopursuethisclaimforcompensation.
Ourclientreservestherighttodeterminewhotheyallowintotheirpremises,irrespectiveofwhetherornotthereisaformalbanningorderinexistence.
Whilstyoumayhavefeltpressuredintosigningalifetimebanningorder,itwasdoneinthepresenceofyourfather[sic].
Withrespect,Iwouldliketoinformyouthat[TKMaxx]statesthatyouweremadeawareoftheirintentiontopursueacivilclaimagainstyoubythefactthattheyprovidedyouwithaCivilRecoverynotice.
Yourfatherwascalledandheattendedtheincidentandhadthecivilrecoverynoticeexplainedtohim[sic].
Thereisnolegalrequirementforourclientstoprovideyouwiththisdocument,buttheydosoasamatterofcourtesy.
"Theboys'fathercontendsthat,contrarytothesestatementsbyRLP,hedidnotattendtheincident(ashewasonatrainjourneyatthetime).
ThelettersfromRLPcontinue:"Weclarifythatbothyouandyourco-defendantarejointlyandseverallyliableforthisincident.
Thismeansthatyoushalleachremainliableuntilthefullamountoftheclaimhasbeenpaid.
Conversely,ifeitheryouoryourco-defendantispreparedtopaythefullamountofthisclaim,thentheliabilityofeachdefendantshallbeextinguished.
Putsimplyourclientrequiresapaymentof220.
00[sic]intotal.
Yourjointconnectionmeansthatitisirrelevantwhopaysit.
Aslongas220.
00ispaidthecaseagainsteachofyouwillthenbefullysettled.
"Thelettersdonotgiveanyexplanationforthe55differencebetweenthesumnowdemanded,220.
00,andthetotalsumdemandedintheinitialtemplatedemands44.
Letters,dated5July2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery27andsubsequentletters(275.
00).
Theyconclude:"Ifyoufailtoresolvethismatterbyanyoftheaboveoptionswithin21daysfromthedateofthisletter,wewillassumeyouhavenodesiretoreachanamicablesettlementandwilltakeourclient'sinstructiononnextactionagainstyou.
"45Onemonthlater,theboyseachreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,onceagaindemandingatotalof275[sic]andwarning:"Ourclient[TKMaxx]ispreparedtoissuecourtproceedingsinthismattertorecoverthefullamountoftheirclaimpluscourtfees,otherallowablelegalcostsandallinterestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum.
ThetotalamountclaimedinCourtwillsignificantlyexceedtheamountoutstanding.
Youroptionsarenowto:Paytheamountoutstanding[137.
50each]Setupaninstalmentplan[bytelephone]Writeaskingforthemattertobetriedbyacivilcourtjudge.
Thiswillenableyoutodefendyourcase,submitappropriateevidenceandattendcourttoconfirmyourownevidenceandheartheevidenceof[TKMaxx].
Failuretosettletheclaimorrespond,within21daysfromthedateofthisletterwillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainstyouwithoutfurthernotice.
"46ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromtheirlocalCAB,thefamilyhavenotrespondedtotheselettersand,asof15November2010,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstPeterand/orJames.
Caseof'Lucy'and'Gerald'LucyandGerald–amarriedcoupleintheir40s–eachreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50(i.
e.
atotalof275)fromRetailLossPreventioninJanuary2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–offenceofswitchingthepricelabelonawalletinTKMaxx,soasto"obtaintheitematalesserprice".
LucyandGeraldcontendthattheywereinfactattemptingtobuyawalletthattheyhadselectedfromalarge'sale'binofwalletsofvariousdesignsandprices.
Theycontendthat,asthewalletofthecolourtheyhadselectedfromthebindidnothaveanypricelabelonit,theyhadtakenthepricelabeloffadifferentlycolouredbutotherwiseidenticalwallet,placedthisonthewallettheyhadselected,andtakenthewallettothecheckout.
Atthecheckout,Lucyhadpaid6.
84forthewallet(bycard),onlyforthecoupletobeapprehendedbysecuritystaffandaccusedofswitchingthepricelabel.
Theycontendthat,attheirinsistence,thepolicewerecalledandattended,butafterinvestigatingtheallegedincidentdecidedtotakenoaction.
(LucyandGeraldfurthercontendthat,afewdaysaftertheincident,thepoliceofficerwhohadconductedtheinvestigationcametotheirhouse,toreturn–incash–the6.
84thatLucyhadpaidbycardtoTKMaxx).
TKMaxxsecuritystaffthenattemptedtoserveLucyandGeraldwithnoticesoftheirlife-timebanfromallTKMaxxstores,buttheyrefusedtoacceptthese.
Oneweeklater,LucyandGeraldreceivedthetwotemplatedemandsfromRLP;thesegivethevalueofthe(recovered)walletas14.
99.
Thisissignificantas,hadthevalueoftheallegedlystolengoodsbeengivenas8.
15–thatis,thedifferencebetweenthestatedvalueofthewallet(14.
99)andthepricepaidbyLucy(6.
84)–thenthesumsdemandedbyRLPwouldhavebeen87.
50(i.
e.
atotalof175),not137.
50(andatotalof275).
And,whilstitisnoteasytoseehowthecosttoTKMaxxof'dealingwith'theincidentwouldhavebeenanydifferent,theamountretainedbyRLP–whichretainssome40percentofallmoniespaid–wouldhavebeenjust70,insteadof110.
LucyandGeraldtookthedemandstoa45.
Letters,dated13August2010,fromBillReagan,LegalDepartment,RLP.
46.
Letters,dated10September2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery28Uncivilrecoveryfirmofsolicitors,whichoverthefollowingweekscorrespondedrepeatedlywithRLPonLucyandGerald'sbehalf.
InalettersentinJanuary2010,RLPcited–aslegalauthorityforitsdemands–theHighCourtcasesofVersicherungandBritishMotorTradeAssociation,butdidnotmentionthe(superior)caseofAerospacePublishingLimited.
47And,inalettersentinMarch2010,RLPstatedthat"yourclients[LucyandGerald]admitthattheyswitchedapricelabelfromoneitemtoanotherastherewasnopriceindicatedontheitem.
[TKMaxx]statesthatthepricewasclearlyidentifiableandyourclientsthereforeswitchedthelabeltodeliberatelyobtaintheitematalowerprice.
Itisourclient'sprerogativetolabelitemsastheyseefit.
Pricesvaryduetostyle,shape,size,colourandlengthoftimedisplayedasstock.
[TKMaxx]isnotpreparedtoforegothisvalidcivilclaimagainstyourclients.
"48Inresponse,LucyandGerald'ssolicitorsstatedtoRLP:"Wefeelobligedtoexpressourconcernsatthecontentsofyourletters.
[LucyandGerald]havealwaysdeniedthattheycommittedanywrongfulactandyourrecitationofcaselawofnologicalrelevancecausesusrealconcern.
"ThesolicitorsthenadvisedthecoupletoignoreanyfurtherlettersfromRLP.
Afewweekslater,inApril2010,GeraldreceivedaletterfromRLP,stating:"Ourclient[TKMaxx]isnotpreparedtoforegothisclaimagainstyouandbelievetheywillbesuccessfulifthismatterproceedstocourt.
Asyouhavesetoutyourdisputetotheclaimandthishasnotbeenacceptedby[TKMaxx]youroptionsarenowto:PaytheamountoutstandingSetupaninstalmentplan[bytelephone]Writeaskingforthemattertobetriedbyacivilcourtjudge.
Intheabsenceofpaymentorwrittenconfirmationfromyouadvisingthatyouarepreparedtodefendthisincourt,ourclientwillhavenoalternativebuttocommenceCountyCourtRecoveryProceedingsforthissumandadviseyoutotakelegaladviceonthisclaim.
Accordingly,pleasetreatthisletterasformalnoticeofourclient'sintentiontocommencerecoveryproceedingsiffullpaymentisnotreceivedbyRLPonorbefore12.
00noononFriday30April2010.
"49LucyandGeraldtookthisandotherlettersfromRLPtotheirlocalCAB,whichon27AprilwrotetoRLPontheirbehalf,notingthat"thepoliceinvestigatedtheincidentatthetimeanddecidedthat[LucyandGerald]hadnotcommitted[anyoffence]".
InearlyMay2010,RLPrepliedtotheCAB,stating:"Irrespectiveofthefactthatthepolicediscontinuedthematteritisstillourclient'srighttobringthiscivilclaimagainstyou[sic]forfinancialcompensation.
Itisnotnegatedbytheoutcomeofanycriminalinvestigation.
Asthisclaimisstillindisputeandwehavepreviouslycorrespondedatlengthwith[LucyandGerald's]solicitorsansweringallclaims,wehavenowadvisedourclienttopursuethismattertocourt.
Pleaseadvisewhetheryouareinstructedtoacceptserviceofproceedings.
"50On27May2010,theCABwroteagaintoRLP,notingthat"asstatedinourletterof27April,[LucyandGerald]donotacceptanyliabilityinthismatter",that"whetherornotyoupursueyourdemandbymeansofcountycourtproceedingsisamatterforyou",andthat"shouldyoudecidetoissueacountycourtclaim,[LucyandGerald]will,withourassistance,defendtheclaimincourt".
Asof15November2010,neitherLucyandGeraldnortheCABhaveheardfurtherfromRLPorTKMaxx,and–sometenmonthsaftertheinitialdemands–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstthem.
47.
Letter,dated26January2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
48.
Letter,dated11March2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
49.
Letter,dated9April2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
50.
Letter,dated4May2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery29Caseof'Russell'Russell,amaninhislate50swithlong-termmentalhealthproblems,receivedademandfor509.
35fromCivilRecoverySolutionsinApril2010,inrelationtotheallegedtheftofgoodsfromhisformeremployer,TravisPerkins.
RussellhadworkedasayardforemanforTravisPerkinsfor30years,butin2009hadbeendismissedforhisallegedpartinaseriesofallegedoffencesbyRussell'sthenmanager,involvingtheunauthoriseddisposalofdamagedstocktobuilders.
Atthetimeofthepoliceinvestigationoftheseallegedoffences,Russellhadbeenarrested,buthadbeenreleasedwithoutchargeafteraccepting,ontheadviceofadutysolicitor,apolicecaution.
However,Russellcontendsthathedidnotunderstandthefullimplicationsofacceptingapolicecaution.
ThedemandfromCivilRecoverySolutionsstates:"CivilRecoverySolutionshasbeeninstructedbyTravisPerkinstorecovercompensationfordamagesandexpensesinrelationtoincidentsthattookplacein[aTravisPerkinsstore]duringMarch2009.
Theseincidentsinvolvedanumberofgoodstheftstothevalueof96.
35.
ThecostsincurredbyTravisPerkinstoinvestigatethismattertotal413.
00.
TravisPerkinsarepreparedtoofferanearlysettlementfigureof407.
48ifthisdemandissettledwithin21daysofthisnotice,inaccordancewiththeMinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol.
"Asalreadynotedabove,thereisnosuch"MinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthatmadebyCRSinthisandothercases.
TheletterfromCRScontinues:"Ifthesettlementfigureisnotreceivedwithin21daysofthisnoticeweareentitledtoinstructoursolicitorstoseekcompensationviatheCountyCourtsforthedemandvalue.
51Shouldthelitigationprocessbeinstigatedwewouldalsoseekadditionalcostsinrelationtothecase,includinginterest,additionaladministrativecostsandlegalfees.
ShopcrimecostsUKretailersover4bneveryyear.
Retailersaredeterminedtomakeuseofalllegalavenuestorecoverthecostsofcrime.
Ifyouwishtodisputeyourcaseyouwillneedtodosoinwritingwithin14daysorseeourwebsiteforanswerstofrequentlyaskedquestions.
"AfterreceivingthedemandfromCivilRecoverySolutions(CRS),RussellsoughtadvicefromhislocalCAB,whichhadpreviouslyassistedhiminrelationtohisdismissalbyTravisPerkins.
InJune2010,theCABwrotetoCRS,requestingamoredetailedbreakdownofthesumdemanded.
CRSreplied,statingthatthissumincluded:96.
35forthevalueofthegoods;250.
00for"investigationandinterviewingcosts";100.
00for"securitycostcontribution(0.
0002ofbudget)";and63.
00for"administrationcosts(travel,CCTVtapes,etc)".
TheresponsefromCRScontinues:"FurtherdetailandevidenceisavailableincludingCCTV.
Thiswillhoweverincurfurthercostswhichwillbeaddedtothecasevalueasitwillformpartofthecivilclaimevidenceforthecourt.
TravisPerkinsplchasexpressedadesiretoproceedwiththiscivilcase.
AsagestureofgoodwillwehaveagreedwithTravisPerkinsplctoplaceyourcaseonholduntil5Julyinordertogiveyoutheopportunitytocontactusanddiscussanydefenceormitigatingcircumstances.
Afterthistimeifyouhavefailedtomakecontact,thecasewillcontinuedownthecivillawprocess.
"52ThereferencebyCRStotheadditionof"furthercosts"ishighlymisleading,asinthecountycourtsmallclaimsjurisdiction(wherethiscasewouldmostlikelybeheard,shouldCRSand/orTravisPerkinsissueacourtclaim)thescopeforclaimingcostsisverylimited,unlessthereareexceptionalcircumstances.
Infact,inacasesuchasthis,itismostunlikelythata(successful)claimantcould51.
InAugust2010,CRSstatedtoCitizensAdvicethatitinstructstheNottingham-basedlawfirmMacLarenBritton"inrelationtothesematters";however,CRSalsostatedthatithas"currentlynotissuedanyclaimsinthecourts".
Letter,dated6August2010,fromJonO'Malley,ManagingDirector,CivilRecoverySolutions.
52.
Letter,dated18June2010,fromJohnBurton,CivilRecoverySolutions.
Uncivilrecovery30Uncivilrecoverysuccessfullyclaimmorethanthe30courtfeeascosts.
TheCABthenwroteagaintoCRS,statingsimplythatRussell's"finalpositioninthematteristhatheacceptsnoliabilityforthesumsclaimed".
CRSreplied:"Wewillbeadvising[TravisPerkins]tocommencethecivillitigationprocess.
ShouldthecaseproceedtoCourtwewouldalsoseektheappropriatecourtscosts,legalfees,statutoryinterestandanyotherdisbursementsinrelationtothecourthearinginaccordancewiththethenpublishedrates.
AsafinalgestureofgoodwillwehaveagreedwithTravisPerkinsplctoplacethecaseonholdforafurther21days.
Thisistogive[Russell]theopportunitytocontactusanddiscussanydefenceormitigatingcircumstancesinlinewiththeMinistryofJusticepre-actionprotocol[sic]beforeproceedingwithcourtaction.
"53Onceagain,theCABwrotetoCRS,stating:"whetherornotyou(orTravisPerkins)issueacountycourtclaimisamatterforyouandTravisPerkins.
However,shouldsuchaclaimbeissued,[Russell]will,withourassistance,defendtheclaimincourt".
InearlySeptember,CRSreplied:"Wewouldbegratefultoreceiveeither[Russell's]proposalsforpaymentoradetailedletterofresponsewithin21days.
Ifwedonothearfrom[Russell]ourclient[TravisPerkins]willhavenooptionbuttoissueproceedings.
"54TheCABwroteoncemoretoCRS,indicatingthatRussellwilldefendanycourtclaim.
Asof15November2010,RussellhasnotheardfurtherfromCRS,andnocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
Caseof'Martin'Martin,inhis30s,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor187.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninApril2009,somethreemonthsafterbeingdismissedbyMorrisonsforthealleged–butdenied–theftofgoodsworth40.
98.
Inthetemplatedemand,thevalueofthe'unrecoveredgoods'isgivenas'nil'.
AfterwritingtoRLPtodenyliabilityforthesumdemanded,inearlyMay2009MartinreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,warningthat"failuretosettle[this]claimorrespondwithin21dayswillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainstyouwithoutfurthernotice".
Martindidnotrespond.
Sixmonthslater,inearlyNovember2009,hereceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,stating:"ShouldthiscaseproceedtothecivilCourtandwehavetoissueanapplicationforSummary{Judgment}{Decree},basedonthefactthatyourdefencehasnolegalbasisandthereforenolikelihoodofsuccess,weshalladdthecostsincurredontotheamountclaimedfromyouwhichwillincreasetheamountoutstandingconsiderably[sic].
"55Infact,asnotedabove,inthecountycourtsmallclaimsjurisdiction,whereanycourtclaiminrespectofthisdemandwouldmostlikelyhavebeenheard,thescopeforclaimingcostsisverylimited,unlessthereareexceptionalcircumstances.
Indeed,inlate2009RLPitselfnotedthat"legalcostsarenotusuallyrecoverableinclaimsallocatedtothesmallclaimstrackoftheCountyCourt(claimsoflessthan5,000)sotheretailerwillnotrecovertheirlegalcostsevenifsuccessful.
"56And,asofNovember2010,RLP'swebsitestatesthat"thevastmajorityoftheclaimswedealwitharesmallclaimstrackmatters,thatisaclaimwithavalueoflessthan5,000"and"costsarenotrecoverableinaclaimofavalueoflessthan5,000intheCountyCourt".
MartinwrotetoRLP,onceagaindenyingliability"forMorrison'sallegedlossesorconsequentialcostsassociatedwithaninvestigationthattheyelectedtoconductandoverwhichIhadnocontrol",andchallengingthelegalbasisforRLP'scivilrecoverydemand.
InDecember2009,RLPreplied:53.
Letter,dated20July2010,fromJohnBurton,CivilRecoverySolutions.
54.
Letter,dated9September,fromJohnBurton,CivilRecoverySolutions.
55.
Letter,dated30October2009,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
56.
RLPbriefingpaper,CivilrecoveryaspractisedbytheTheNationalCivilRecoveryProgramme,undatedbutprovidedtojournalistsbyRLPinDecember2009.
Uncivilrecovery31"Ourclient[Morrisons]ispreparedtoissuecourtproceedingsinthismattertorecoverthefullamountoftheirclaimpluscourtfees,otherallowablelegalcostsandallinterestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum.
ThetotalamountclaimedinCourtwillsignificantlyexceed[sic]theamountoutstanding[187.
50].
Failuretosettle[this]claimorrespondwithin21dayswillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainstyouwithoutfurthernotice.
"57ThereferencebyRLPto"interestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum"isinaccurateandthereforemisleading.
Infact,inthecountycourtsmallclaimsjurisdiction,statutoryinterestcanbeclaimed(attherateof8percent)onlywherethejudgmentisfor5,000ormore,andonlyfromthedateofthecourtjudgment/orderuntilthesumispaid.
Whilstthereisnothingtostopasuccessfulclaimantfromapplyingtothecourtforpre-judgmentinterest,thisisatthejudge'sdiscretion.
AndCitizensAdviceunderstandsthatRLPhasneversuccessfullyappliedforsuchpre-judgmentinterestaftersuccessfullylitigatingafullycontestedcountycourtclaim.
MartinthensoughtadvicefromhislocalCAB,whichwrotetoMorrisonsonhisbehalf,notingthat"theletterssentbyRLPareintimidatingandcontainspuriouslegalprecedenttosupporttheirclaimsonyourbehalf.
Theuseofsuchlettersisharassment".
MorrisonsdidnotrespondtotheCAB,butinlateJanuary2010theCABreceivedaletterfromRLP,notingthat"[Morrisons]havepassedusyourletter…andasweareactingontheirbehalfwerequestthatallfurthercommunicationinrespectofthisclaimisaddressedtous".
Enclosingatwo-page'DefencetoCivilClaim'form,seeminglydevisedbyRLP,theletterfromRLPnotedthat"wehavefollowedthegeneralpre-actionprotocolapplicabletothiscase"andaskedthatMartincompletetheformandreturnittoRLP"within28days".
58Asalreadynotedabove,thereisnosuch"generalpre-actionprotocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthatmadebyRLPinthisandothercases,anditisatleastquestionablewhethertheabovelettersfromRLPfullycomplywiththeCPRPracticeDirectiononpre-actionconduct.
InearlyFebruary2010,theCABwrotebrieflytoRLP,notingthatMartin"doesnotacceptanyliabilityforthecostswhichyouallegehavebeenincurredby[Morrisons]",andthatMartin"regardsyourcorrespondenceasintimidatingandrequestsnofurthercontactfromyouonthismatter".
Oneweeklater,theCABreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,onceagainenclosingitstwo-page'DefencetoCivilClaim'formandstating:"Wenotethat[Martin]doesnotacceptanyliability,howeverhehasfailedtoprovideadefence.
Ourcorrespondenceisinaccordancewiththepre-actionprotocolstotheCivilProcedureRules.
Inparticular,wehavesentaninitialletterofclaim….
TheDefendant'sfullresponseshouldasappropriate:i.
accepttheclaiminwholeorinpartandmakeproposalsforsettlement,orii.
statethattheclaimisnotaccepted.
IftheDefendantdoesnotaccepttheclaimorpartofit,theresponseshould:i.
givedetailedreasonswhytheclaimisnotaccepted,identifyingwhichoftheClaimant'scontentionsareacceptedandwhichareindispute;ii.
enclosecopiesoftheessentialdocumentswhichthedefendantrelieson;iii.
identifyandaskforcopiesofanyfurtheressentialdocuments,notintheirpossession,whichthedefendantwishestosee;iv.
statewhethertheDefendantispreparedtoenterintoanalternativemethodofdisputeresolution.
Thisfailurewillbehighlightedtothecourt.
WehavepreviouslyprovidedaDefence57.
Letter,dated3December2009,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
58.
Letter,dated20January2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery32UncivilrecoverytoCivilClaimFormtoassistyourclientinprovidingadefenceand[enclose]anotherforyourreference…failuretosettletheclaimorrespondwithin21dayswillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainst[Martin].
Pleaseconfirmwithinthisperiodthatyouareinstructedtodefendcivilproceedingsonbehalfof[Martin].
Ifwedonotreceivethisconfirmationwewillassumeyouarenotinstructedandcorrespondwith[Martin]direct.
"59TheCABdidnotrespondtothisletterand,asof15November2010,neitherMartinnortheCABhasheardfurtherfromRLP;furthermore,ninemonthson,andsome19monthsaftertheinitialtemplatedemand,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstMartin.
Caseof'Jonathan'Jonathan,a17-year-oldschoolstudentinreceiptofmeans-testedEducationMaintenanceAllowance,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor156.
47fromRetailLossPreventioninAugust2009,inrelationtothetheftofapairofheadphonesworth18.
97fromTesco.
Thepoliceattended,andissuedJonathanwithan80FixedPenaltyNotice.
Twodayslater,RLPissueditstemplatedemand,withthesumdemandedmadeupof18.
97forthevalueoftheheadphones,andthestandard'fixedsum'of137.
50.
Jonathan'smotherthencontactedRLPbyphone,toaskaboutpayingthesumdemandedininstalments.
InOctober2009,RLPwrotetoJonathan,enclosingaSettlementAgreementform,settingoutRLP'stermsandconditionsforthepaymentofatotalof181.
97,including25.
50ofadministrationcharges,over17monthlyinstalments.
TheSettlementAgreementformisheaded"ConsumerCreditLicenceNumber0628437.
"Infact,RLPdidnotatthattime(anddoesnotnow)holdaConsumerCreditLicence;thenumber'0628437'isthatofRLP'sMay2009applicationtotheOfficeofFairTradingforsuchalicence,whichRLPwithdrewinearly2010.
ThecoveringletterfromRLPtoJonathanstated:"YouneedtoreadthroughtheSettlementAgreementandagreetobeboundbythetermsandconditions.
Ifyouagreetomakepaymentthisway,youneedtosigntheSettlementAgreementandreturnthetopcopytoourofficeswithin14days.
Ifyouareunder18youwillneedsomeonetoactasguarantorforyou.
ThispersonwillalsohavetoreadthroughtheSettlementAgreementandagreetobeboundbythetermsandconditions.
YouwillboththenhavetosigntheAgreementbeforeyoureturnittous.
Alternatively,youcanrejecttheSettlementAgreementtermsandconditionsbypayingthefullamountoftheclaimoutstanding.
IftheSettlementAgreementisnotrejectedwithintheabovetimescale,wherebyfullpaymentwouldhavetobemade,wewillconsiderthisconductasacceptanceofthetermsandconditionsregardless.
"Feelingintimidatedand(understandably)confusedbythisletter,JonathanandhismotherthensoughtadvicefromtheirlocalCAB.
InearlyNovember2009,theCABwrotetoRLPontheirbehalf,notingthatthesumsdemanded"forinvestigation,administrationandsecurityappeartobevastlydisproportionatetotheoriginalwrong",andthatJonathanis"payinghismotherbackininstalmentsfromhisEducationMaintenanceAllowanceforthe80[fixedpenaltynotice]".
TheCABalsochallengedthe"tenuous"legalbasisforthe"highandunjustified"demand,andaskedthatitbedropped.
Twoweekslater,RLPrepliedtotheCAB,stating:"Wearesatisfiedthatclaimsareproperlymaintainableforthecostsofinvestigating[Jonathan's]wrongfulactionstogetherwithacontributiontowardsthecostincurredby[Tesco]formaintainingtheirlossprevention59.
Letter,dated18February2010,fromColleenWilliams,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery33department.
Wewould,inparticular,referyoutoparagraph72-77oftheJudgmentofMrsJusticeGloster,DBEinthecaseofR&VVersicherungAGvRiskInsurance&ReinsuranceSolutionsSAandothers[2006]EWHC42(Comm).
Itisclearfromtheseparagraphsthattimespentbyemployeesinvestigatingactualtortsagainsttheclaimantcanberecovered.
Thisisageneralprinciple,whichisnotrestrictedtoconspiracycases.
Asthiscasefurtherconfirms,itisalsonotnecessarytoestablish'significantdisruptiontothebusiness'orindeedanylossofrevenueorprofit.
"60Infact,theHighCourtcaseofVersicherungcitedbyRLPconfirmstheveryoppositeofwhatRLPstates,namelythatitisnecessaryforaclaimanttoestablish'significantdisruptiontothebusiness'.
InVersicherung,JusticeGloster'sactualwordswere:"…tobeabletorecover[thecostofstafftimeinvestigatingormitigatingthetort]onehastoshowsomesignificantdisruptiontothebusiness,inotherwordsthatstaffhavebeensignificantlydivertedfromtheirusualactivities.
Otherwisetheallegedwastedexpenditureonwagescannotbesaidtobe'directlyattributable'tothetort.
"Moreover,twoyearsbeforethedateofRLP'sletter,thereasoningofVersicherunghadbeenconfirmedintheCourtofAppealcaseofAerospacePublishing.
61YettheletterfromRLPmakesnomentionofthissuperiorcase.
TheletterfromRLPcontinued:"WewouldalsoaskyoutonotethatsuchcostshavebeenallowedinCountyCourtcases(forexampleLittlewoodsStoresLimitedvIshfaqseecopyJudgmentattached).
ItwillbeseenthattheCourtalsoallowed'securityandsurveillance'coststoberecoveredinthiscase.
"AswithmanysimilarletterscontainingthisparticularstatementsenttoCitizensAdviceBureauxbyRLPovertheyears,theletterfromRLPdidnotencloseacopyofthejudgment/orderinthecountycourtcaseofLittlewoodsStoresLimitedvIshaq,whichconcludedin1999andinvolvedaclaiminrespectofnofewerthan30countsoftheft,totallingmorethan3,000,byIshaqoveraperiodofsixmonths.
LittlewoodsvIshaqisoneofthreecountycourtcases,seeminglylitigatedbyretailerclientsofRLPin1999or2000,thatRLPhasinthepastoftencitedindemandlettersandonitswebsiteas'legalauthority'foritsdemands.
62However,inextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPhasrepeatedlydeclinedtoprovideacopyofthejudgments/ordersinthesethreecountycourtcases.
Inanyevent,suchcountycourtjudgmentsdonotsetanylegalprecedent.
TheCABdidnotrespondtothisletterand,armedwithinformationandadvicefromtheCAB,JonathanandhismotherdecidednottopayanymoneytoRLP,sodidnotreturntheSettlementAgreement.
JonathandidnothearanymorefromRLPuntillateMay2010,whenhereceivedaletterheaded"Default&TerminationNotice"andstating:"YoucontractedtopayyourcivilrecoverydebtbywayofaSettlementAgreementwhichallowedyoutomakepaymentbyinstalments.
Youhavenotrespondedtoourmissedpaymentwarningletter,orourtwopreviousnotices(ofdefaultandofArrears).
Asaresult,thefacilityofpayingthiscivilrecoverydebtbyinstalmentshasbeenwithdrawnandpaymentinfullincludingallchargesisnowrequired.
AsperthetermsandconditionsofyourSettlementAgreementyouhaveincurredafurtherchargemakingatotalof36indefaultandfinaldemandcharges.
Youmustsendpaymentof166.
97toclearthefinalbalanceincludingchargesdue…within21days.
Ifyoudonotmakepayment,yourcasewillbepassedwithoutfurthernotice,toourdebtrecoverydepartmentwhowillarrangeforadebtcollectortoattendyourhometodiscusshowfullpaymentcanbeobtainedfromyou.
60.
Letter,dated16November2009,fromSoniaJohnson,LegalDepartment,RLP.
61.
AerospacePublishingLtdvThamesWaterUtilitiesLtd[2007]EWCACiv3.
62.
Seealsopp11-12ofUnreasonabledemands.
Uncivilrecovery34UncivilrecoveryAsperthetermsofyouragreementeachdoorstepvisitincursafurtherchargeof50.
"63Infact,thereisno'debt'thatcanbecollectedbyalicenseddebtcollectionagencyinthissituation,astherehavebeennocourtproceedingsresultinginajudgment/orderintheclaimant'sfavour,andinlawthereisnocontractor'credit'agreementbetweenJonathanandRLP.
Apartfromanythingelse,neitherJonathannorhismotherhaveeversignedandreturnedtheSettlementAgreementsenttoJonathanbyRLPinOctober2009.
And,indiscussionwiththeOfficeofFairTradingaboutRLP's(laterwithdrawn)applicationforaconsumercreditlicence,RLPhasitselfarguedthatitsSettlementAgreementsarenotcontracts.
ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromtheCAB,JonathanandhismotherdonotintendtorespondtothisoranyfurtherlettersfromRLP.
Asof15November2010,theyhavenotheardfurtherfromRLPorTesco,and–sixmonthson,andsome15monthsaftertheinitialtemplatedemand–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstJonathanandhehasnotreceivedanyofthethreatened'doorstep'visits.
Caseof'Maia'Maia,a17yearoldcollegestudent,receivedafixed-sum,templatedemandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninFebruary2010.
ThisfollowedanincidentinBootstwoweeksearlier,whenMaiaandseveralfriendswereapprehendedbysecuritystafffortheattemptedtheftofgoodsworth28.
44,whichwererecoveredintact.
Thepolicewerecalled,andMaiaandherfriendswerearrestedandtakentothepolicestation,butMaiawasreleasedwithoutchargeafteracceptingacaution.
Maiadidnotrespondtothedemand.
Threeweekslater,shereceivedasecondtemplatedemand(TSL2).
ShethensoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB,whichwrotetoRLPtochallengethedemand.
RLPreplied,stating:"Ourcorrespondenceisinaccordancewiththepre-actionprotocolstotheCivilProcedureRules.
Failuretosettletheclaimorrespond,within21daysfromthedateofthisletter,willresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainst[Maia]withoutfurthernotice.
Pleaseconfirmwithinthisperiodthatyouareinstructedtodefendcivilproceedingsonbehalfofyourclient.
Ifwedonotreceivethisinformationwewillassumeyouarenotinstructedandcorrespondwiththemdirect.
"64Onemonthlater,RLPsentafurtherlettertoMaia,stating:"Ourclient[Boots]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
Whereproceedingsareissuedthecourtwillbeaskedtoconsideranyfailuretorespondtoletterswheretheymakeordersforcostsandinterest.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14days.
"65TheCABwrotetoRLPoncemore,challengingthebasisforthedemandandrequesting"afullbreakdownofandevidenceforeachelementoftheclaim".
RLPreplied,stating:"Wewouldliketodrawattentiontoourletterof8March2010whichdetailedhowtoproperlyrespondtothisclaim.
Byremovinggoodsormoniesordenyingpaymentforservicesfrom[Boots],yourclienthasengagedinawrongfulact.
Whereabusinessissubjectedtowrongfulactsthentheyareentitledtoclaimthevalueofthegoods,moniesorservicesinquestion,plusthecostsinvolvedininvestigatingormitigatingtheattemptedwrongfulact.
Decidedcase-lawprovidesauthorityforclaimingthecostsofinvestigatingormitigatingawrongfulactwithouttheneedtoprovelossofprofitorrevenue(R&VVersicherungAGvRiskInsuranceandRe-InsuranceSolutionsSAandothers[2006]63.
Letter,dated27May2010,fromJamesWilson,CollectionsDepartment,RLP.
64.
Letter,dated8March2010,fromMicheleTaylor,LegalDepartment,RLP.
65.
Letter,dated1April2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery35EWHC42(Comm)),BritishMotorTradeAssociationvSalvadori[1949]Ch556.
Thecostsappliedinyourclient'sparticularcasearefixedcosts.
ThecompilationofdetailedtimeandotherrecordsisnotconsideredtobeproportionateinacaseofthistypeBridgeUKComLtd(t/aBridgeCommunications)vAbbeyPynfordplc[2007]EWHC728(TCC).
Itisthereforereasonableandproportionateforourclientstoclaimanaveragecostbasedonthetimetakentoconductallnecessaryelementsoftheirinvestigation,whichincludesbutisnotlimitedtothefollowing:surveillance,apprehension,interview,reportandwitnessstatementpreparation,recordingoftheincidentforcompanyrecords,reviewingCCTVwhereappropriate,reportingincident,preparinggoodsforre-saleifapplicable,retagging/pricing,concludingwithseniormanagement.
"66AsnotedinSection6,andinthecaseof'Martin',above,aclaimforstafftimespentinvestigatingandmitigatingatortsuchastrespasstogoodsisrecoverableinprinciple.
However,thematterisnotselfproving.
FollowingtheHighCourtcaseofVersicherungcitedbyRLP,aswellasthesubsequent(andsuperior)CourtofAppealcaseofAerospacePublishing,itwouldbefortheretailertoprove,first,thatthestaffmember(s)inquestionweresignificantlydivertedfromtheirnormalduties(andtoevidencehowmuchoftheirtimewasdiverted)and,secondly,thatthisdiversioncausedasignificantdisruptiontotheretailer'sbusiness.
67Clearly,theamountofstafftime(ifany)diverted,andthevalueofthattimewillvarygreatlyfromonecasetoanother.
Forthisreason,itwouldbeentirelyinappropriateforaretailer(oritsagent)toadvanceacountycourtclaimonthebasisofpre-determined,fixedcosts.
Furthermore,intheBridgecasecitedbyRLP,theHighCourthadclearevidenceoftheactualamountofdivertedtimeandthevalueofthattimetothebusiness.
So,contrarytowhatRLPstates,above,theBridgecasedoesnotinanywaysupportapriorassessmentoffixedcoststobeattributedtoanallegedtortiousact.
Onemonthlater,theCABreceivedafurtherletterfromRLP,stating:"Havingconsideredalltheinformationprovidedbyyourclient,wewouldinformyouithasnolegalbasisasadefencetoourclient'sclaimanddoesnotextinguishyourclient'sliability,nordoesitnegatethefactthat[Boots]hassufferedlossasaresultoftheiractions.
ShouldthiscaseproceedtothecivilcourtandwehavetoissueaclaimforSummaryJudgment,basedonthefactyourclient'sdefencehasnolegalbasisandthereforenolikelihoodofsuccess,weshalladdthecostsincurredontotheamountclaimed.
Sinceallattemptstoreachsettlementhavefailed,[Boots]hasnootheroptionthantoseekredressthroughtheCourttorecoverthefullamountoftheirclaimplusallinterestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum,andcourtfees.
Thetotalamountthenduewillbeinexcessofthecurrentamountdue.
"Whattheaboveparagraphfailstopointout,ofcourse,isthatmoneywouldonlybecome"due"ifandwhenanycountycourtclaimthatismadebyBoots(orRLPonbehalfofBoots)issuccessfulincourt.
And,asnotedalready,CitizensAdvicecanfindnoevidenceofRLPoritsretailerclientshavingeversuccessfullylitigatedacontestedcountycourtclaiminrespectofsucha'fixed-sum'demand.
Certainly,inextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPanditsretailerclients(includingBoots)haverepeatedlydeclinedtoprovideanysuchevidence.
Furthermore,asalreadynotedinthecaseof'Martin',above,thereferenceto"interestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum"isinaccurateandthereforemisleading.
TheletterfromRLPcontinued:"PleasebeawarethatacivilCourtJudgmentwillaffectyourclient'screditratingand66.
Letter,dated24June2010,fromIzabellWinter,LegalDepartment,RLP.
67.
AerospacePublishingLtdvThamesWaterUtilitiesLtd[2007]EWCACiv3.
Uncivilrecovery36Uncivilrecoveryabilitytoobtaincreditcards,bankloansandmortgages.
Itmayalsoaffectyourclient'sfutureemploymentprospects.
UponJudgmentourLegalDepartmentareentitledtoinstructBailiffstoattendatyourclient'spropertytorecoupthefullvalueofthedebtowed,plusanycostsassociatedwiththisaction.
EnforcementofaJudgmentagainstyourclientcanalsoincludeattachinganyfutureearnings,takingactionagainstanypropertyyourclientmightownincludingtheirhome,makingapplicationforanorderthatthedebtorattendCourtforquestioning,orinsomecases,bankruptcy.
Failuretocontactuswithin14dayswithyourclient'sproposalsforsettlementwillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainstyourclient,withoutfurthernotice.
"68Thereferenceinthisletterto'bankruptcy'iswhollyinappropriate,asinEnglandandWalesbankruptcyproceedingscanonlybeinstigatedinrelationtoadebtof750ormore.
TheCABthenwrotetoRLPoncemore,notingthatMaiadeniesanyliabilityforthe'claim'andthat,shouldanycourtclaimbeissuedagainsther,Maiawoulddefendtheclaimincourt.
RLPreplied,stating:"Wewouldliketoonceagaindrawyourattentiontoourletterof8March2010whichdetailedhowtoproperlyrespondtothisclaim.
Tomerelystatethatyourclient'deniesanyliabilityfortheaboveclaim'isnotacceptable.
Ourfirstcorrespondencesentto[Maia]givessufficientdetailfor[Maia]tobeawareastowhatthematterrelatesto.
Youhavethereforeindicatedarefusaltoengageinpre-actioncorrespondence.
Ifanagreementcannotbereachedwithregardtoourclient'slosses,yourclient[sic]hastherighttoasktheCourttomakeadecisiononliabilityandquantum.
YourclientshouldbeawarehoweverthatbeforeamattercanbeheardbyaCourt,partiesareobligedtocomplywiththePre-ActionProtocolandtheCivilProcedureRules1998.
"69Asalreadynotedabove,thereisnosuch"Pre-ActionProtocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthatmadebyRLPinthiscase.
TheletterfromRLPcontinues:"TheProtocol[sic]providesthatwhereaClaimantwritestoaDefendant,settingoutthebasisofitsclaim,theDefendantisobligedwithin14daystorespond,eitheradmittingtheclaim,denyingtheclaim,orrequestingmoretimetorespondtotheclaim.
Ifyourclientwishestodenytheclaim,sheisobligedtowritetous,orinstructyoutodoso,settingoutthebasisofherDefence.
Ifyourclientfailstocomplywiththisrequirement,andproceedingsaresubsequentlyissued,yourclientmaybepenalisedbythecourtforherfailuretoengageinthePre-ActionProtocol[sic].
TheusualsanctionoftheCourtisanadversecostsorder.
"Infact,inthecountycourtsmallclaimsjurisdictionanadversecostsorderisrare,assuchsanctionsareonlyappliedwherethecourtdeemsaparty'sconducttobeunreasonableorimproper.
Butinanycase,a'defendant'isperfectlyentitledtodecidetoruntheriskofsuchsanctionsbeingappliedbythejudge.
For,unlessanduntilacourtclaimisissuedandsuccessfullypursuedatacourthearingbeforeajudge,thereisnosuchriskatall.
And,asalreadynotedabove,CitizensAdvicecanfindnoevidenceofRLPhavingsuccessfullypursuedanyunpaid'fixedsum'demandssuchasthatissuedtoMaiabymeansofacontestedcourthearing.
InextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPanddozensofitsretailerclients(includingBoots)haveallrepeatedlydeclinedtoprovidesuchevidence.
ThisrefusalbyRLPtoevidenceitsclaimstohavesuccessfullypursuedunpaiddemandsbymeansofcivilcourtactionissurprising,giventhatitwouldbestronglyinthefinancialinterestofbothRLPanditsretailerclientstopublicisesuchevidence,shoulditexist.
InRLP'sownwords,suchcourtactionis"necessary…tostrengthenthecivilrecoveryprocessbymaintainingthedeterrentvalueoftakingthelastresortwhere68.
Letter,dated22July2010,fromDanielleSmith,LegalDepartment,RLP.
69.
Letter,dated2September2010,fromSallyJones,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery37necessary".
70Infact,asalreadynotedabove,CitizensAdviceunderstandsthatRetailLossPreventionhasneversuccessfullylitigatedafullycontestedcountycourtclaiminrespectofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemand.
TheCABdidnotrespondtothisletterfromRLP.
Threeweekslater,inlateSeptember,RLPwrotedirectlytoMaia,stating:"Ourclient[Boots]ispreparedtoissuecourtproceedingsinthismattertorecoverthefullamountoftheirclaim[137.
50]pluscourtfees,otherallowablelegalcostsandallinterestwhichhasbeenaccruingonadailybasisatarateof8%perannum.
…Failuretosettletheclaimorrespond,within21daysfromthedateofthisletterwillresultinnextstageactionbeingtakenagainstyouwithoutfurthernotice.
71ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromherlocalCAB,MaiaintendsnottorespondtothisoranyfurtherdemandsfromRLP;asof15November2010,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
CitizensAdvicehassubmittedaformalcomplaintonbehalfof'Maia'totheSolicitorsRegulationAuthorityaboutthecontentoftheabovelettersfromRLP;theoutcomeofthiscomplaintisawaited.
72(IncorrespondencewithCitizensAdvice,RLPhasstatedthat:"Thereisnorequirementforustohaveanycomplaintsprocedureforthirdpartieswhoarenotourclients.
Wehavenodutyofcaretothosethirdparties.
Thecorrectprocedure,shouldyouwishtomakeacomplaint,isforyoutowritetotheSolicitorsRegulatory[sic]Authority.
Shouldtheycontactus,wewillrespondaccordingly.
")73Caseof'Scarlett'Scarlett,a16-year-oldschoolstudent,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninApril2010,inrelationtotheattemptedtheftofcosmeticsworth15.
97fromSuperdrug.
Thepoliceattended,andScarlettacceptedapolicereprimand.
Thecosmeticswererecoveredintactand,afterbeingissuedwithalife-timestoreban,Scarlettwasallowedtoleavethestore.
Threeweekslater,Scarlettreceivedthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRLP.
Scarlettshowedthistoherfather,whowrotetoRLP,enclosingaletterofauthorityfromScarlett,notingthathehadreadCitizensAdvice'sDecember2009reportUnreasonabledemands,andstating:"Mycontentionisthatthistheft,thewholeregrettableincident,isarelativelyminor,lowvalueandone-offoffence,aneventweasafamilywanttoputbehindus.
Isuggestyoujoinusinthisquestanddropthiscivilclaim.
LestyouthinkIhaveanauraofdisregard,thenbeawarethat[duetoScarlett'sattemptedtheft]asparentswe'vehadourshareofanguish,disgust,anxietyandintrospectionnottomentionsleeplessnightsandincreasedbloodpressuretocontendwith.
"InlateApril2010,RLPreplied:"The[CitizensAdvice]reporthasbeenreviewedatministeriallevelalongwiththecoreprinciplesforcivilrecoveryandinformationprovidedfromtheBritishRetailConsortium(BRC).
NoissuehasbeentakenandCivilRecoverywillcontinueasalegitimatemeanstocontributetowardscompensatingretailers,andindeedanumberofotherbusinesses,fortheirlossesarisingoutoftheftandfraud.
[CitizensAdvicehas]erredinitsfindingsthatcaseshavenotsucceededincourts.
Weregularlyissueclaimsincourt,whicharesuccessful.
"74Asalreadynoted,inextensivecorrespondencewithCitizensAdvicesinceJune2009,RLPhasrepeatedlydeclinedtoprovidedetailsofanycasesofanunpaidcivilrecoverydemandthatithassuccessfullypursuedbymeansofcounty70.
StatementofOperatingPrinciplesfortheNationalCivilRecoveryProgrammeconductedbyRLP,undatedbutprovidedtoCitizensAdvicebyRLPinSeptember2010.
71.
Unsignedletter,dated23September2010,fromLegalDepartment,RLP.
72.
SRAreference:POL/18529-201073.
Letter,dated28June2010,fromVanessaWillett,CompanySolicitor,RLP.
74.
Letter,dated23April2010,fromCarolineTemple,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery38Uncivilrecoverycourtproceedings.
Indeed,throughoutthiscorrespondence,RLPhasdeclinedeventoprovidefiguresforthenumberofcasesinwhichithasissuedacountycourtclaim.
Inrecentmonths,CitizensAdvicehasrepeatedlyinvitedRLPtoevidenceitsaboveclaimtohave'regularly'and'successfully'issuedclaimsincourt,butRLPhasdeclinedtoprovideanysuchevidence.
Scarlett'sfatherthenwroteagaintoRLP,stating:"Youstatethatyou'regularlyissueclaimsincourt,whicharesuccessful'butatnotimeindicateacasewhereaclientofyourssuchasSuperdrughasdonesosuccessfullyinacasetypicaltothisone.
Insteadyoucite[theCourtofAppealcaseof]AerospacePublishingvThamesWaterUtilities[2007].
DoyounothaveaSuperdrug(orsimilar)vSeriouslyMisguidedChild[2009]caseOrhaveyouinventedasmokescreenformetobedistractedby"Twoweekslater,RLPreplied:"Weagainconfirmthatweregularlyissueclaimsincourtwhicharesuccessful.
Wenotethatyourefertoa2009case.
However,weareunawaresastothecaseyouarereferringto,andarethereforeunabletocommentinthisregard.
Shouldyouwishtochallengethiscase,youwillneedtodosothroughthecourts.
However,wewouldurgeyoutoseekyourownindependentlegaladvice.
WewouldalsoreferyoutothePre-ActionProtocolforcivilproceedingsandtheCivilProcedureRules,asfailuretocomplymayresultinanadversecostsorderagainstyou.
"75Asalreadynotedabove,thereisnosuch"Pre-ActionProtocol"applicabletoa'claim'suchasthatmadebyRLPinthisandothercases,soitisnotclearhowthisostensiblyhelpfulreferencewassupposedtoassistanunrepresented'defendant'suchasScarlettand/orherfather.
Bynowveryworriedaboutpossiblecountycourtactionagainsthisdaughter,Scarlett'sfatherwroteagaintoRLP,stating:"Theeasyoption–whichI'mconvincedyoupreyupon–istonegotiateasettlement,butI'vebeenuneasyaboutthiscivilclaimfromthestart.
Intryingtoclarify[on]whatgroundstheclaimisjustified,youhave[cited]theexampleofAerospacewhichdoesnotdealwiththespecificsofSuperdrugandmydaughter(forexampletheissueofdiversionoftimeanddisruptiontothebusiness),neitherhaveyousetouthowtheamountsintheclaimarearrivedat.
WithoutconcreteanswerstothesepointsIneedtoseekfurtheradvice.
"Scarlett'sfatherthensoughtadvicefromhislocalCAB.
InlateMay2010,hewrotetoRLPoncemore,stating:"It'sahardthingtoprejudge,theoutcomeofacourtcase,andIwouldnothavepursuedthiscaseforaslongasIhavedoneifIdidnotthinktherewasareasonablechanceofasuccessfulconclusion.
MyvisittotheCABresultedinatwoandahalfhourwaitfollowedbya30minutechat.
ItwasgoodImustsay,butI'vebeenunabletotakethefinalhurdlejustyet.
[So]whatIwilldoisoffer60.
00'withoutprejudice'asafinalsettlementofyourclaim.
"RLPthenreplied:"Wearepreparedtoacceptyourofferof60.
00infullandfinalsettlementofourclient'sclaim,providedpaymentisreceivedatthisofficewithin14daysinaccordancewithPart36.
11oftheCivilProcedureRules.
Ifwedonotreceivepaymentwithin14days,[Superdrug]willbeinapositiontoenterjudgmentagainstyourdaughterforthisamountunderCivilProcedureRule36.
11(7).
"76Thereferencesinthislettertorule36.
11oftheCivilProcedureRules(CPR),andinparticularrule36.
11(7),arewhollyinappropriateandunjustified,asrule36.
11wouldonlyapplytoa'Part36'offer(thatis,anoffertosettleacourt75.
Letter,dated11May2010,fromLegalDepartment,RLP.
76.
Letter,dated4June2010,fromCarolineTemple,LegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery39claimthatismadespecificallyandexplicitlyunderPart36oftheCPR),andScarlett'sfather'sofferwasclearlynota'Part36'offer.
CitizensAdvicehassubmittedaformalcomplaintaboutthecontentsofthislettertotheSolicitorsRegulationAuthority;theoutcomeofthiscomplaintisawaited.
77Scarlett'sfatherthensentachequefor60.
00toRLP.
However,twoweekslater,havingcometoregretthisdecision,he(successfully)cancelledthischeque.
RLPthenwrotetohimagain,stating:"Youmayormaynotbeawareof[theCitizensAdvice]campaignagainstcivilrecovery,andcompaniessuchasRLPwhoareinstructedbytheorganisationsthathavesufferedtheloss.
Indeed,asaresultof[theCitizensAdvicereportUnreasonabledemands],RLPandcivilrecoveryhavebeenreviewedbytheAssociationofChiefPoliceOfficers(ACPO),theAssociationofChiefPoliceOfficersScotland(ACPOS),PoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI),theInformationCommissioner'sOffice(ICO),theHomeOffice,andtheOfficeofFairTrading.
Noissuehasbeentakenbyanyoftheseorganisations.
Wethereforelookforwardtoreceivingconfirmationfromyouasto:1.
Whetheryouandyourdaughterstillwishtosettlethematterinthesumof60.
2.
Whetheryouareinapositiontosettlepaymentwithin14days.
3.
Whetheryouwishtomakeanothercounteroffer.
4.
WhetheryouwishtooptforthemattertogotoCourtforaDistrictJudgetomakeadetermination.
Pleasenote,duetoyourdaughteracceptingthePolicereprimand,liabilityisnotinquestion,onlyquantum.
"78Scarlett'sfatherthenwroteagaintoRLP,stating"whetherornotyouinitiatecourtproceedingsinthiscaseisamatterforyou[but]ifyoudowewilldefendtheclaimincourt".
RLPthenreplied,bymeansofafivepageletter,stating:"Wehavealreadyadvisedyouatlengthonhowourclient'sclaimcanbequantified.
Wehavefurtheradvisedyouonthecaselawwhichisauthorityforclaimingthecostsofdisruptiontoitsbusiness,asaresultofyourdaughter'swrongdoing.
Wehaveadvisedyouonproportionality.
Itisdisproportionateinaclaimofthisvaluetoprovidedetailedscheduleofloss,aswouldbeexpectedinaclaimofalargevalue.
ThisagainissupportedincaselawandistheapproachadoptedbytheCourts.
IndeedproportionalityandcostsweretwoofthemainissuesconsideredintheWolfe[sic]reformswhichresultedintheCivilProcedureRules1998.
"Thisappearstobeareferencetotheciviljusticereformsintroducedin1999,followingthereviewoftheciviljusticesystemconductedbyLordWoolf[sic],thenMasteroftheRolls.
79TheletterfromRLPcontinued:"Giventhatyouappeartohavegreatdifficultyunderstandingthelegalconcept,wesetoutbelowinfurtherdetailascheduleoftimeincurred,resultinginthelossesto[Superdrug],whichwereincurredbyyourdaughter.
"80Thisschedulesetoutanumberofactivitiestotallingtwohoursand35minutesonthepartofthestoremanager,threehoursand27minutesonthepartofasecurityguard,andfiveminutesonthepartofasalesassistant,atatotalcostof120.
71.
Withtheadditionof24.
74for"administrativecostsincludingself-carbonatedpaperwork,internalpaperwork,envelopes,specialdeliverypostage,photocopying[and]telephonecalls",and30.
25for"costofsecurityequipment,maintenanceandupgrading(calculatedonanaverageperincident)",thisbringsthetotalclaimedcoststo175.
70.
However,Scarlettstronglydisputesboththe77.
SRAreference:CDT/64508-201078.
Letter,dated30June2010,fromLegalDepartment,RLP.
79.
AccesstoJusticeReport1996,LordWoolf.
80.
Unsignedletter,dated22July2010,fromLegalDepartment,RLP.
Uncivilrecovery40Uncivilrecoveryaccuracyandtheveracityofmuchofthisschedule,contendingthat–forexample–thestoremanagerdidnot,asclaimed,sitwithherandthesecurityguardforonehourawaitingthearrivalofthepolice,andwasnot,asclaimed,presentduringthepoliceinterview(another25minutes).
TheschedulealsoincludestenminutesforatelephonecalltoScarlett'sfatherbythestoremanagerthatScarlett'sfathercontendshedidnotreceive.
TheletterfromRLPcontinues:"Wenowrefertoyourfurthercommentsregardingourwithoutprejudicecorrespondenceregardingsettlement.
Thereisnothingsinisterinnegotiatingasettlementofdamagesinanycivilclaim.
Indeed,settlement,particularly,pre-action,isencouragedbytheCourtsandwasagaininLordWolfe's[sic]mindwhendraftingtheCivilProcedureRulesandthePre-ActionProtocols.
YouhavenotraisedanyDefenceregardingliability.
Ithasneverbeendeniedthatyourdaughtercommittedawrongfulact,andindeedsheadmittedherwrongfulact,whensheacceptedaReprimandfromthePolice.
ThereisthereforenoDefencetoliability.
"Thisstatementishighlymisleading,sinceitconflatesinnocenceorguiltinrelationtothecriminaloffence(andciviltort)oftheftwiththeseparatematterofliabilityforthe'consequentiallosses'claimedbyRLPonbehalfofSuperdrug.
TheletterfromRLPcontinued:"YouhavenotraisedanyvalidDefenceregardingquantum.
Whilstyoudisputethecaselawourclientseekstorelyupon,youhavenotsetoutanylegalreasoningforsuchdispute….
Evenifyouweretoformulatealegalargumentonquantum,thereremainsnoquestionthatJudgmentwillbeenteredonliability,giventheadmissionandreprimand.
WehavegoneoverandabovewhatisrequiredofourclienttocomplywiththePre-ActionProtocol.
Itisunfortunatethatthematterhasnotbeenresolved.
Youhaveleft[Superdrug]withnooptionotherthantoissueproceedings.
Couldyoupleasethereforeconfirmwhetheryouproposetoactasyourdaughter'sLitigationFriendintheproceedings.
Ifyoudonotwishtotakeonthisresponsibility,therearetwooptions:1.
TheCourtwouldappointaLitigationFriend.
Thiswouldincurfurtherunnecessarycosts,whichisagaindisproportionatetothevalueoftheclaim.
2.
Ourclientcanwaituntilyourdaughterturns18,whereuponshewillbeinapositiontorepresentherowninterestsintheproceedings.
"Scarlett'sfatherthenwroteagaintoRLP,notingthat"amongseveralinaccuracies"theaboveletterhadbeensenttothewrongaddress,andrepeatingthat"if[Superdrug]doeswishtoinitiatecourtproceedings,wewilldefendthecaseincourt".
Asof15November2010,ScarlettandherfatherhavenotheardfurtherfromRLPorSuperdrug,and–sevenmonthsonfromtheinitialdemand–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstScarlett.
ConclusionsThemorethan10,000casesofacivilrecoverydemandhandledbyCitizensAdviceBureauxsince2007–includingthemorethan300casesstudiedindetailbyCitizensAdvice,ofwhich30aresetoutinthisreport–stronglysuggestthatveryfew,ifany,unpaidcivilrecoverydemandsareeversuccessfullypursuedbymeansofthethreatenedcountycourtproceedings,atleastwheretheclaimisfullycontested.
Andthisdearthofsuccessfullylitigated,contestedcourtclaimsinrespectofanunpaiddemandmaywellbeexplainedbythekeyconclusionoftheformalCounsel'sopinionobtainedbyCitizensAdvice:thattherelevantcaselawprovidesnoobviouslegalauthorityformostifnotallsuchcivilrecoverydemands.
Uncivilrecovery41Thisinturnsuggeststhatthepracticeofthreatenedcivilrecoveryreliesonfearand/orshame,andignoranceofthelaw,foritseffectiveness.
Asisclearfromthecasestudiesinthisreport,manyrecipientsareespeciallyvulnerableonaccountoftheirage,mentalillnessorotherfactors.
Yetitisclearthatasignificantnumberofrecipientsofademandhavebeensufficientlyintimidatedbythethreatofcivilcourtactionandescalatingcoststopaythesumdemanded,withouteffectivechallenge.
Caseof'Debbie'Debbie,awomaninher30s,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninMay2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofoneitemofmake-upworth11.
50,foundonthehoodofheryoungchild'sbuggyaftershehadpaidforhershoppinginSuperdrug.
Stronglydenyinganyintenttosteal,Debbiecontendsthatthefailuretopayforthemake-upwasagenuinemistakeonherpart,duetoherchildhavingbecomeupsetwhilstatthecheckout.
Thepolicewerecalledtothestore,butdecidedtotakenoactionafteracceptingDebbie'sexplanation.
Feelingintimidatedbythethreatofpossiblecourtactionandescalatingcosts,Debbiedecidedtopaythereducedsumof110.
00offeredbyRLP.
Nothavingthemoneytopaythissumherself,Debbieborrowedthemoneyfromhermother.
Caseof'Roger'and'Chris'RogerandChris,brothersaged14and15,eachreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50(i.
e.
atotalof275)fromRetailLossPreventioninMarch2010,inrelationtotheattemptedtheftoftrainersworth39.
98fromTKMaxx.
Thepolicedidnotattendtheincident,andthetrainerswererecoveredintact.
Headed,'withoutprejudice',thetemplatedemands(U16LIE)fromRLPstate:"Although[TKMaxx's]claimisfor137.
50,theyseektouseCivilRecoveryasadeterrentagainstfurtherincidentsandarepreparedtocoveralargeproportionofthecostsincurredthemselvesinconsiderationofyourage.
Theywould,however,wishyoutounderstandtheimpactofyouractionsandacceptresponsibilityforthem.
[TKMaxx]thereforewillacceptasubstantiallyreducedpaymentof35.
00,infullandfinalsettlementofthismatter.
"Fearfulofpossiblecourtactionandescalatingcosts,theboys'fatherdecidedtopaythereducedsumsof35eachofferedbyRLP(i.
e.
atotalof70).
Caseof'Kelly'Kelly,a16-year-oldschoolstudent,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor87.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninDecember2009,inrelationtotheattemptedtheftofchocolateworthapproximately5.
00fromSuperdrug.
Thepolicewerecalled,andKellywasarrestedandtakentothepolicestation,whereshewasinterviewedinthepresenceofherparents.
Kellywasthenreleasedwithoutcharge,afterbeingissuedwithapolicereprimand.
Kellyandherparentsthoughtthiswastheendofthematter.
Afewdayslater,however,Kellyreceivedthetemplatedemand(TL1)fromRLP.
Withouttellingherparents,KellythentelephonedRLP,tooffertopaythesumdemandedinmonthlyinstalmentsof10.
00.
However,shortlyafterthisasecondtemplatedemand(TSL2)arrivedfromRLP,andthiswasopenedbyKelly'sfather.
Kelly'smotherthentelephonedRLP,intendingtochallengethedemand,butwassointimidatedbyRLP'sinsistencethatSuperdrugwouldtakeKellytocourtthatsheagreedtopay70.
00.
TheevidencefromtheadviceworkofCitizensAdviceBureaux,togetherwiththeformalCounsel'sopinionontherelevantcaselawprovidedtoCitizensAdvice(seesection6,above),Uncivilrecovery42Uncivilrecoverysuggeststhatthosewhoreceivesuchacivilrecoverydemandhavethefollowingoptions:Ignorethedemand(andsubsequentfollow-updemandletters).
Noonecanguaranteethatnocountycourtclaimwillfollow,butmanyrecipientsofademandwillfeelabletotakethisoptionbasedonthelikelystrengthofanysuchcourtclaimintheirparticularcase–whichwillbeveryweakindeedwhere,forexample,theallegedtheftisdenied–andthe(statistically)verygoodchancethatnocourtclaimwilleverbeissued(or,evenifissued,willnotbepursuedtoacontestedtrial).
Writetothecivilrecoveryagent,denyingliabilityforthesumdemanded,andindicatingthatanycountycourtclaimwillberobustlydefended.
However,asisclearfromsomeoftheabovecasestudies,thiswillnotnecessarilypreventfurther,sometimeslengthyandmisleadinglettersfromtheagent.
And,again,noonecanguaranteethatnocountycourtclaimwillfollow.
Tobecertainofnofurtherlettersorcountycourtaction,paythesumdemandedinfull,or(afterfirstdenyingliabilityforthesumdemanded)offerapartpayment.
Forexample,amongtheCAB-reportedcases,RetailLossPreventionhasoftenacceptedpaymentoflessthan50percentofthesumoriginallydemanded.
Theagentsarealsowillingtoacceptpaymentbyinstalments,thoughthisusuallyinvolvestheadditionofsignificant'administration'charges.
AgrowingnumberofCABclients(andothers)arenowchoosingthefirstoftheaboveoptions.
Todate,asisclearfrommanyoftheabovecasestudies,thishasnotledtotheissuingofanycountycourtclaims.
Forexample:Caseof'Alison'Alison–ayoungsinglemother–wasinAsdawithhertwo-year-olddaughterinJune2010,andhadjustpaidforsome60worthofshopping,whenshewasaccusedoffailingtopayforabout7.
00worthofgoods,includingasmallpacketofgrapeswhichshehadgiventoherdaughtertoeatastheyweregoingaroundthestore.
Thepolicewerenotcalled(or,atleast,didnotattend),andAlisoncontendsthatherfailuretopayforthegoodsinquestionwasagenuinemistakeonherpartafterbeingdistractedbyherdaughter,withnointenttosteal.
Twodayslater,Alisonreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor150fromDrydensLawyers.
Thisgivesthe'costsofgoodsstolenordamaged'as"0.
00".
AlisonthensoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB.
ArmedwithadviceandinformationfromtheCAB,Alisondecidednottorespondtothedemand.
Twoweekslater,inearlyJuly2010,shereceivedasecondtemplatedemandfromDrydens,butagaindidnotrespond.
Asof15November2010,AlisonhasnotreceivedanyfurtherdemandsfromDrydens,and–fourmonthson–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsther.
Caseof'Brian'Brian,anilliteratemansufferingfrom(andonmedicationfor)depression,receiveda'fixedsum'demandfor137.
50fromRetailLossPreventioninJanuary2010,inrelationtothealleged–butstronglydenied–attemptedtheftofgoodsworth17.
96fromB&Q.
BriancontendsthattheB&Qsecuritystaffofferedhimtheoptionsofsigninga'civilrecovery'form,orthepolicebeingcalled.
Althoughunabletoreadit,Briandecidedtosigntheformontheunderstandingthatthiswouldthenbetheendofthematter.
AfterseekingadvicefromhislocalCAB,BriandidnotrespondtothedemandfromRLP.
Threeweekslater,hereceivedafurthertemplatedemand(TSL2)fromRLP,warningthat"ourclient[B&Q]isdeterminedtomakefulluseofcivillawremediesincludingCourtactionifnecessary,torecovertheircostscausedbyyourwrongfulactions.
WhereproceedingsareissuedthenthecourtwillbeaskedtoconsideranyfailuretorespondUncivilrecovery43toletterswheretheymakeordersforcostsandinterest.
Toavoidthisactionandfurtherincreasedcosts,youmustdealwiththisclaimwithin14daysfromthedateofthisletter".
Briandidnotrespondtothisletter.
Twoweekslater,inearlyMarch2010,hereceivedathirdtemplatedemand(TSL3)fromRLP,informinghimthathisnamewouldnowbeheldonRLP's"databaseofcivilrecoveryincidents"andwarningthat"itisinyourintereststosettleourclient'sclaimnow,beforeanyadditionalaction,suchasCourtproceedings,incursfurthercosts.
Youhaveafinal14daystomakepaymentof137.
50".
Briandidnotrespondtothisletterand,asof15November2010,hehasnotreceivedanyfurtherdemandsfromRLP;eightmonthson,nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainsthim.
Caseof'Amanda'Amanda,a17-year-oldschoolgirl,andherfriendLouiseeachreceiveda'fixedsum'demandfor150(i.
e.
atotalof300)fromDrydensLawyersinMay2010afterbeingapprehendedbysecuritystaffinDebenhamsfor(accordingtoDrydens)theattemptedtheftof"jewelleryworth33.
00".
Thepolicewerenotcalled(or,atleast,didnotattend),andthejewellerywasrecoveredintact.
Tooashamedtotellherparentsabouttheincidentandthecivilrecoverydemand,Louisepaid150toDrydens.
Amanda,however,toldhermother,whosoughtadvicefromherlocalCAB.
AmandathenwrotetoDrydens,denyingliabilityfortheclaim.
Oneweeklater,Drydensreplied,warningthatthesumdemanded(150)"remainsdueandpayableandyourpaymentproposalsarerequiredwithinthenext7days".
81Onceagain,AmandawrotetoDrydens,repeatingthecontentsofherearlierletterbutalsonotingthat"thisisnowthesecondunsubstantiateddemandforpayment;harassmentisacriminaloffence".
ArmedwithinformationandadvicefromherlocalCAB,AmandaandhermotherdecidednottopayanymoneytoDrydens,andtoignoreanyfurtherlettersfromthelawfirm.
Asof15November2010,thefamilyhasnotreceivedanyfurtherdemandsfromDrydensand–sixmonthson–nocountycourtclaimhasbeenissuedagainstAmanda.
Ofcourse,theagentsmayatsomestagerespondtogrowingpublicawarenessoftheirpracticebyissuingacountycourtclaiminsomecases(itwouldsimplynotbeeconomictodosoinall),notwithanyintentionofpursuingtheclaimtoacontestedtrial,butinthehopethatthemereissuingofacourtclaimwillintimidatesomeintomakingpayment.
Indeed,itwouldseemthatsomeoftheagentsmayalreadyhaveadoptedthistactic.
AnyonewhofindsthemselvesfacedwiththissituationshouldseekadvicefromtheirlocalCAB.
82For,withaviewtoensuringthatthelawisthoroughlytestedandclarified,CitizensAdvicewillensurethatanysuchdefendantislegally(andprofessionally)representedincourt.
81.
Letter,dated18May2010,fromJulieLunn,DrydensLawyers.
82.
ForthecontactdetailsofyourlocalCAB,see:www.
citizensadvice.
org.
ukUncivilrecovery44UncivilrecoveryRecommendationsGiventhecivilrecoveryagents'apparentaversiontopursuingunpaiddemandsbymeansofcontestedcountycourttrials,itmaybesometimebeforethelawasitappliestotheagents'demandscanbethoroughlytestedinthecivilcourts.
Inthemeantime,therefore,CitizensAdvicere-iteratesthekeyrecommendationssetoutinUnreasonabledemands:TheMinistryofJusticeshouldasktheLawCommissiontoundertakeanurgentreviewofthelawrelatingtocivilrecovery,withaviewtoeventuallyensuring–bylegislativemeansifnecessary–thatcivilrecoveryislimitedtocasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentcriminalactivityforwhichtherehasbeenacriminaltrialandconviction.
TheHomeOffice,theMinistryofJusticeandtheDepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkillsshouldworkwithretailers,thePolice,BusinessCrimeReductionPartnerships,RetailersAgainstCrime,theBritishRetailConsortiumandotherstoidentifyanddeveloparangeoflegitimateandtransparentlyfairalternativestothepracticeofcivilrecovery(asdescribedinthisreport)aimedatreducingtheincidenceandcostofretailcrime,andinparticularthatcommittedbydeterminedandpersistentoffendersandcriminalgangs.
Astheserecommendationsarelikelytotakesometimetoimplement,wefurtherrecommendthat,intheinterim:TheMinistryofJusticeshould,asamatterofurgency,prepareanddisseminatepublicinformationandadviceonthreatenedcivilrecoveryand,inparticular,theoptionsavailabletothosewhomightreceiveacivilrecoverydemandfromRetailLossPrevention,DrydensLawyersorothercivilrecoveryagent.
SuchinformationshouldbedisseminatedthroughtheGovernment'spublicinformationwebsite,Directgov,andthroughCitizensAdviceBureauxandotheradviceoutlets.
TheSolicitorsRegulationAuthorityshould,asamatterofurgency,considerwhetheritneedstotakefurtheractiontoensurethatthecivilrecoverypracticeofsolicitors(includingemployedsolicitors)isconsistentwiththeSolicitorsCodeofConduct,andinparticularwithRules1.
02,1.
06and10.
01,whichrespectivelyprovidethatsolicitorsmust"actwithintegrity",mustnot"behaveinawaythatislikelytodiminishthetrustthepublicplacesinyouorthelegalprofession",and"mustnotuseyourpositiontotakeunfairadvantageofanyoneeitherforyourownbenefitorforanotherperson'sbenefit".
TheOfficeofFairTradingshould,asamatterofurgency,considerwhetheranyofthepracticeshighlightedinthisreportconstitutebreachesoftheConsumerProtectionfromUnfairTradingRegulations2008,whichmakeitanoffence–punishablebyuptotwoyears'imprisonment–fortraderstoengageinunfaircommercialpractices.
83Ofcourse,theimplementationoftheaboverecommendationswouldbeobviatediftheretailerswhopractisethreatenedcivilrecoverydecidedtoceasesuchpractice,andinsteadlimitedactualcivilrecoverytothosecasesinvolvingserious,determinedand/orpersistentcriminalactivityforwhichtherehasbeenacriminaltrialandconviction.
Thiswouldnotcausesignificantdetrimenttotheretailsectorasawhole.
Forthetotalamount'recovered'bythecivilrecoveryagentsfortheirretailerclientseachyear,afterdeductingtheagents'feesorshareofthemoney'recovered',seemsunlikelytobemorethan16million84–thatis,lessthan0.
4percentofthe"over4billion"thatCivilRecoverySolutionssayscrimecoststheretailsectoreachyear.
85Furthermore,amongthemorethan300CAB-reportedcasesexaminedindetailbyCitizensAdvice,fouroutofeveryfivedemands(80percent)wereissuedonbehalfofjusteightmajorretailers:Boots(19percent),TKMaxx(17percent),Asda(15percent),Tesco(8percent),Debenhams(7percent),Uncivilrecovery45Wilkinson(5percent),B&Q(5percent),andSuperdrug(4percent).
Inshort,thepracticeofthreatenedcivilrecovery,asdescribedinthisreport,isnotonlyunfair(andarguablyillegitimate),butprovidesnopanaceaforthe(undoubtedlysubstantial)costofretailcrime.
Itdoesnottargetthoseresponsibleformostretailcrime–criminalgangsandotherpersistentoffenders–andit'recovers'lessthantwopercentofthe977millionannualcostofthe"securityandlossprevention"measurestakenbyretailers.
86Indeed,theprincipalbeneficiariesofthepracticewouldappeartobethecivilrecoveryagents,whocollectivelyprofitbymillionsofpoundsandhavenoobviousinterestinseeingthereductioninretailcrimesoughtbypublicpolicy.
83.
TheRegulationscameintoeffectinMay2008,andimplementedtheEUDirectiveonUnfairCommercialPractices(Directive2005/29/EC)intoUKlaw.
Theyprohibitaggressivepracticesandmisleadingactionsbytraders.
TheRegulationsareenforcedbytheOfficeofFairTradingandTradingStandardsdepartments(oflocalauthorities),whichhavethepowertobringbothcriminalproceedingsandcivilenforcementactions.
BreachoftheRegulationsisanoffence,punishablebyuptotwoyears'imprisonmentonconvictiononindictment.
Forfurtherinformation,see:www.
oft.
gov.
uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.
pdfandalso:www.
lawcom.
gov.
uk/docs/misrep_summary_evidence_web.
pdf84.
Assumes:(i)75,000shoplifting-relateddemandsand25,000employeetheft-relateddemandsissuedeachyear;(ii)50%ofthesedemandspaid,atanaverageof150inshopliftingcasesand1,500inemployeetheftcases;and(iii)one-thirdofthetotalamountthus'recovered'(approximately24million)retainedbytheagents.
85.
Wilkinson,amajorretailerclientofRLP,alsosaysthat"retaillosses(throughtheft)amounttoapproximately4.
4billionayear"(letter,dated12November2010).
Seealso,forexample:www.
guardian.
co.
uk/business/2010/oct/19/shoplifting-costs-retailers-consumersandwww.
bbc.
co.
uk/news/uk-1157102286.
RLP,whichasnotedaboveissued80%ofthedemandsintheCAB-reportedcasesexaminedbyCitizensAdvice,hasreportedthat,inthe12-monthperiodtoApril2010,fewerthan2%ofthosetowhomitissuedademandwere"repeatwrongdoers".
Sourcefor977mfigure:CentreforRetailResearch,November2010.
WrittenandresearchedbyRichardDunstan,withadditionalinputfromSueEdwards,MatthewHodson,EdmundTownsend,NinaMacKellow,AlexdeJongh,SusanMarks,LizzieIron,andGuySkipwith.
CitizensAdviceMyddeltonHouse115-123PentonvilleRoadLondonN19LZwww.
citizensadvice.
org.
ukCitizensAdviceisanoperatingnameofTheNationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux.
Registeredcharitynumber279057ProducedDecember2010