Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

[charitynjw]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

And what are they going to do if you do ever bother to set foot in their premises again? Sue for trespass?

Set foot in Boots?

:lol:

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Yes I paid for the good £18. The security guard wouldn't let me keep the receipt because he said I was not allowed to return stolen good. He also said "I will let you keep these because you've paid for them usually we have to burn the stolen goods" I was like right ok. I just think he was trying to scare me and maybe make me cry! I didn't cry and was not scared. I'm just worried because he told me I have to pay a fine of £135. I didn't sign anything while I was in the room! He just seemed like he had not caught anyone for ages and was on a high.

Oh, that was considerate of the security officer to let slip what Boots are doing with stolen goods. I am sure a District or Deputy District Judge in the county court would be very interested to hear that. By accepting payment for the goods, Boots have, I suspect, closed the door to any further action. Was the security officer employed by Boots or an outside firm? If so, download the footage from your sister's phone onto a DVD and send it to his CEO, stating you are minded to make this available to the SIA. I would also let the CEO of Boots see it, too.

- - - Updated - - -

The security guard was shouting at me saying that the PCSO would call me and if I didn't answer my phone they would basically hunt me down. :/ yes she did record everything when we was in the room. He started asking if I earn money & where I worked when he asked them questions I said "why do you want to know" and he said "I'm only asking" I didn't feel in my rights I had to tell him this so I didn't.

If the manager accepted payment for the goods, then, as far as the law is concerned, that is Restorative Justice, under Criminal Law, and satisfaction of losses, under Civil Law. As stated above, my suspicion is that Boots have closed the door to any further action by accepting payment for the goods. You were right to politely tell him to go to hell when Shouty Man started asking you questions about your earnings and were you worked. It is none of his business, none of Boots business and unless the police get involved, which is unlikely now Boots have accepted payment for the goods, none of anyone's business. As for the other things he said, I am surprised you or your sister did not say, "Are you on something, is it legal and can I have some?" It does sound like he was on something.

@@@@

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

It's like this. It is a civil action for lost goods. It is not criminal at all, so it's not a criminal record issue. It's the police and Crown Prosecution Services who say it's criminal offence. The company will have to apply for a county court judgement against you for that amount. So, if you were to pay off that amount or ask them if you can pay it off over a few installments, that's the end of the matter. How many times have you stolen from the relevant store as banned for life seems very harsh unless you're a threat to their business, ie you have stolen goods several times or are a regular offender.

I very much doubt a court would entertain a civil claim from Boots in this case as they accepted payment for the goods. The cost of security is included in the mark-up they apply to the wholesale price of the goods.

Also, if someone is a repeat invader, then it is open to a retailer to apply to the county court for an injunction, which is a lot more effective than a banning letter.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I very much doubt a court would entertain a civil claim from Boots in this case as they accepted payment for the goods. The cost of security is included in the mark-up they apply to the wholesale price of the goods.

Also, if someone is a repeat invader, then it is open to a retailer to apply to the county court for an injunction, which is a lot more effective than a banning letter.

Security have to be so careful because they have limited powers, threatening young girl, intimidating her, potentially holding her against their will (ie false arrest)...are problematic.

[ostell]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Bluebottle

The statement has been made that she did not have any goods with her when she left the store. I would have thought that would have had a great bearing on matters..

[Openlaw15]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I very much doubt a court would entertain a civil claim from Boots in this case as they accepted payment for the goods. The cost of security is included in the mark-up they apply to the wholesale price of the goods.

Also, if someone is a repeat invader, then it is open to a retailer to apply to the county court for an injunction, which is a lot more effective than a banning letter.

I could think of a business argument for making a civil claim....but i'd rather not speculate. It is possible for a claim for the amount, but the young girl could make a counter claim for trespass of her person (i think it's called).

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Bluebottle

The statement has been made that she did not have any goods with her when she left the store. I would have thought that would have had a great bearing on matters..

If that is, indeed, the case, Ostell, then it is, potentially, very serious. Security officers have no powers of search whatsoever. Boots and the security officer are, possibly, looking at unlawful detention/imprisonment if this is correct.

[charitynjw]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Refer attachment post #133 above

- - - Updated - - -

I could think of a business argument for making a civil claim....but i'd rather not speculate. It is possible for a claim for the amount, but the young girl could make a counter claim for trespass of her person (i think it's called)

.

Refer attachment post #133 above

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I could think of a business argument for making a civil claim....but i'd rather not speculate.
I'd like to see them try. The Oxford Case made matters very clear.
It is possible for a claim for the amount, but the young girl could make a counter claim for trespass of her person (i think it's called).
Boots are in a weak position due to the actions of the manager an security officer. The young lady, on the other hand, could bring an action for Unlawful Detention/Unlawful Imprisonment and she could also report Boots to the ICO for breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 (Unfair Handling of Data), if they took her name and address.

@@@@

[Openlaw15]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

@@@@

Can you give me the citation for the Oxford case please, i'd be interested (not interesting, hmm) in reading its ratio.

[Amethyst]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

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

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

We have the transcripts of the hearing too if you're interested

[Openlaw15]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Can you give me the citation for the Oxford case please, i'd be interested (not interesting, hmm) in reading its ratio.

Oxford makes interesting reading. In this young girls case the claimant is only interested in the loss of goods. As Bluebottle correctly pointed out however the party had taken back the stolen goods so justice has been restored. Theft in criminal law anyway requires permanent deprivation, so no grounds for theft really anyway, and in tort, ie to claim damages it's only ever for actual losses. I concur, Oxford whilst not binding is still persuasive authority for Boots as have difficulty to pursue a claim in the county courts. Especially as their security personal may have carried out their own torts against the young girl, ie false arrest, potentially false imprisonment (held in a room against her will for an unreasonable time), and trespass against her person. Yep, open and shut case i think.

[charitynjw]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Did you see post #136?

(where did I put my flamin' coat......)

[Amethyst]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

While #136 is obviously hilarious I think you mean #133 ... and no I didn't

[Openlaw15]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Did you see post #136?

(where did I put my flamin' coat......)

I did, very witty :P