Below is a draft template letter for you.
Formal Response to Unlawful Demands of Monies and Formal Request Under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998:
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/xx (received on xx/xx/xxx) where by you make the unlawful demand for payment to your client "Boots" in regards to an alleged incident of alleged shoplifting that you alleged i am liable to pay you £147.50 to cover your clients alleged direct losses, in relation to the list of standard operational business costs (where you failed to state exact direct loss per item in the list) provided in your letter, as a result of alleged incident. I am also aware that the £147.50 is more of a blanket figure (previously £137.50 as in A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K .) sent out in your letters to all those stopped on suspicion of shoplifting regardless of there innocence.
You also state that you would be processing my data and sharing my data with (but not limited to) prospective employers etc. You therefore admit to sharing data with your parent company Cireco (who are not registered with the ICO for such purposes) who of intergrity screening to (but not limited to) prospective employers. You also therefore admit, that as i have not been found guilty of any criminal act, or act of dishonesty of any kind by a criminal court, that said database is nothing more than a database full off alleged dishonest people that have not been found guilty of any offense. Such a database contradicts the core principle of law where a person is deemed wholly innocent of any crime or act (including alleged dishonest ones) until proven to be guilty. Such sharing of data of alleged dishonest people, is unlawful on the basis that it is inaccurate and not factual and is therefore unjustified and unwarranted, and sharing of such data is likely to prove damaging to the data subject, and may also amount to being an act of libel!
As for the alleged incident itself, i do not acknowledge any liability whatsoever. I would also like to point out that your clients security guard acted unlawfully as he unlawfully searched my bag without my consent, unlawfully placed me in a locked room (though it could be unlocked from inside it was still locked automatically since it was an automatic electronic locking system that required a pass-code from the outside). I am by law entitled to roam the premises freely after being detained, so long as i do not leave the premises, this includes outside land owned by your client! The Guard after searching my bag removed my make up items from the bag and on numerous occasions accused me of stealing them, which i denied. I was not once asked if i wanted a glass of water. The security guard also asked for my details and to fill in a form (which i never signed), to which he had no legal right to such details. As i am only 17 the guard had acted unlawfully by questioning me and searching my property without an appropriate adult being present. Although there was another female shop worker present in the room as a witness, said witness is not an appropriate adult. And appropriate adult would be either one of my parents or another adult asked to attend by my parents. The guard failed to call my parents as well. The guard had therefore unlawfully detained, questioned and searched a minor where he had no power to do so, as such power is only available to the police, and even the police can not question a minor without an appropriate adult present.
I have been informed that the list of alleged loss incurred that your state the £147.50 goes towards covering, is not a list of actual or direct loss incurred as a direct result of the incident that you alleged i am liable for, but in fact a list of general everyday business running costs that would have had to have been paid by your client even if said alleged incident had not occurred or in regards to stationary, bought and paid for in advance of any alleged incident occurring. And therefore your list is not a list of actual loss as a direct result of alleged incident, and therefore neither is your demand for the amount £147.50 a demand for actual loss incurred as a direct result of said incident, but instead is nothing more that a speculative invoice. This view is supported by the Oxfordshire Test case (A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K .), where you lost as a direct result of not be able to prove exact actual loss as a direct result of alleged incident of shoplifting in said case. Also as pointed out in the first paragraph of this letter, the amount your demanding is a blanket figure, demanding in the majority of your letters sent out to those stopped on suspicion of shoplighting, its therefore clear the amount doe not in any way or form, support your claim that it represents your clients incurred loss as a direct result of the alleged incident relating to myself!
Section 10 Request Under the Data Protection Act 1998:
Given the above, i hereby request that you cease all processing of my data as per section 10 of the data protection act 1998. As firstly no consent was ever given for you to process my data and secondly said data was obtained unlawfully from a minor in the absence of an appropriate adult being present. But not only that, your threat on how you intend to use my data, which would include the sharing of my data with your parent company Cireco (not registered with the ICO) to use in their integrity screening database, and therefore share my data with prospective employers and etc. Means you admit to unlawfully sharing and processing peoples data in the full knowledge that said data (due to absence of proven guilt in criminal court) is not only inaccurate and non factual data that is being shared but such sharing is unwarranted and unjustified and is likely to cause significant damage to a person future chances of gaining employment and educational opportunities etc - Purely as a result of what is your own companies opinion and assumption of a person guilt. You have no right in law, to share data in such manner at all - We have the criminal records bureau for that purpose!!
You have 14 days in which to confirm that all data you hold about myself has been destroyed by both yourself and your parent company Cireco. If i do not receive such confirmation i shall report the matter to the Information Commissioners Office, who will not doubt be interested in hearing about your activities and that or Cireco and their database of alleged dishonest people, which is nothing more than a libelous blacklist.
Yours Sincerely
PRINT NAME DO NOT SIGN BY HAND
Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/xx (received on xx/xx/xxx) where by you make the unlawful demand for payment to your client "Boots" in regards to an alleged incident of alleged shoplifting that you alleged i am liable to pay you £147.50 to cover your clients alleged direct losses, in relation to the list of standard operational business costs (where you failed to state exact direct loss per item in the list) provided in your letter, as a result of alleged incident. I am also aware that the £147.50 is more of a blanket figure (previously £137.50 as in A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K .) sent out in your letters to all those stopped on suspicion of shoplifting regardless of there innocence.
You also state that you would be processing my data and sharing my data with (but not limited to) prospective employers etc. You therefore admit to sharing data with your parent company Cireco (who are not registered with the ICO for such purposes) who of intergrity screening to (but not limited to) prospective employers. You also therefore admit, that as i have not been found guilty of any criminal act, or act of dishonesty of any kind by a criminal court, that said database is nothing more than a database full off alleged dishonest people that have not been found guilty of any offense. Such a database contradicts the core principle of law where a person is deemed wholly innocent of any crime or act (including alleged dishonest ones) until proven to be guilty. Such sharing of data of alleged dishonest people, is unlawful on the basis that it is inaccurate and not factual and is therefore unjustified and unwarranted, and sharing of such data is likely to prove damaging to the data subject, and may also amount to being an act of libel!
As for the alleged incident itself, i do not acknowledge any liability whatsoever. I would also like to point out that your clients security guard acted unlawfully as he unlawfully searched my bag without my consent, unlawfully placed me in a locked room (though it could be unlocked from inside it was still locked automatically since it was an automatic electronic locking system that required a pass-code from the outside). I am by law entitled to roam the premises freely after being detained, so long as i do not leave the premises, this includes outside land owned by your client! The Guard after searching my bag removed my make up items from the bag and on numerous occasions accused me of stealing them, which i denied. I was not once asked if i wanted a glass of water. The security guard also asked for my details and to fill in a form (which i never signed), to which he had no legal right to such details. As i am only 17 the guard had acted unlawfully by questioning me and searching my property without an appropriate adult being present. Although there was another female shop worker present in the room as a witness, said witness is not an appropriate adult. And appropriate adult would be either one of my parents or another adult asked to attend by my parents. The guard failed to call my parents as well. The guard had therefore unlawfully detained, questioned and searched a minor where he had no power to do so, as such power is only available to the police, and even the police can not question a minor without an appropriate adult present.
I have been informed that the list of alleged loss incurred that your state the £147.50 goes towards covering, is not a list of actual or direct loss incurred as a direct result of the incident that you alleged i am liable for, but in fact a list of general everyday business running costs that would have had to have been paid by your client even if said alleged incident had not occurred or in regards to stationary, bought and paid for in advance of any alleged incident occurring. And therefore your list is not a list of actual loss as a direct result of alleged incident, and therefore neither is your demand for the amount £147.50 a demand for actual loss incurred as a direct result of said incident, but instead is nothing more that a speculative invoice. This view is supported by the Oxfordshire Test case (A Retailer v Ms B & Ms K .), where you lost as a direct result of not be able to prove exact actual loss as a direct result of alleged incident of shoplifting in said case. Also as pointed out in the first paragraph of this letter, the amount your demanding is a blanket figure, demanding in the majority of your letters sent out to those stopped on suspicion of shoplighting, its therefore clear the amount doe not in any way or form, support your claim that it represents your clients incurred loss as a direct result of the alleged incident relating to myself!
Section 10 Request Under the Data Protection Act 1998:
Given the above, i hereby request that you cease all processing of my data as per section 10 of the data protection act 1998. As firstly no consent was ever given for you to process my data and secondly said data was obtained unlawfully from a minor in the absence of an appropriate adult being present. But not only that, your threat on how you intend to use my data, which would include the sharing of my data with your parent company Cireco (not registered with the ICO) to use in their integrity screening database, and therefore share my data with prospective employers and etc. Means you admit to unlawfully sharing and processing peoples data in the full knowledge that said data (due to absence of proven guilt in criminal court) is not only inaccurate and non factual data that is being shared but such sharing is unwarranted and unjustified and is likely to cause significant damage to a person future chances of gaining employment and educational opportunities etc - Purely as a result of what is your own companies opinion and assumption of a person guilt. You have no right in law, to share data in such manner at all - We have the criminal records bureau for that purpose!!
You have 14 days in which to confirm that all data you hold about myself has been destroyed by both yourself and your parent company Cireco. If i do not receive such confirmation i shall report the matter to the Information Commissioners Office, who will not doubt be interested in hearing about your activities and that or Cireco and their database of alleged dishonest people, which is nothing more than a libelous blacklist.
Yours Sincerely
PRINT NAME DO NOT SIGN BY HAND
As i said its just a draft, others may make amendments or add additional bits, so don't print it off yet. Plus you'll probably need to check spelling and grammar (as am dyslexic) as they are not my strong points lol.
Leave a comment: