Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Just popped up in my mind, if I didn't sign anything but gave verbal consent, does this mean that I don't consent to anything or is it possible to be considered as consent given under influence (feeling intimidated, panicking, stressed etc.) and make the whole RLP fine and the ban void?

By not signing anything they do not have your written consent, plus anything you agreed to verbally was done so under duress and unlawfully due to you being a minor (17yrs) and without an appropriate adult (Your Parents) being present at the time. They have therefore unlawfully questioned you and unlawfully took your details. Whilst also making unlawful threats to a minor in their letter, as well as unlawful demand to a minor for monies.

and section 10 of the data protection act says that the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

I know that substantial damage would be that it lowers the chance of further education and employability, but what about making it unwarranted/unjustified?

Unwarranted/unjustified as in you have not been prosecuted or found guilty of any offence by a criminal court and/or jury, and sharing details based purely on assumption of guilt (which is what they are saying they will do) is unlawful, and also libelous. Plus their is the issue that your a minor, so they shouldn't be processing your data without your parents consent in anycase!

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Says it all, doesn't it?

I mean, the damage/loss etc haven't happened yet. And what reasons could I give to say that this is not justified?

[wales01man]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

In answer to Crazycouncil .
The OP admits they did wrong but the argument is not about the alleged crime but the involvement of a private company.
We have a Judicial system in this country based on the right to a fair trial anyone is innocent till proven guilty RLP presume guilt without a fair trial

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Are you referring to -

a. the security goon searching your bag;
b. what the security goon told the police;
c. banning you from Boots premises?

c and also the fact that RLP is making me pay the fine (I know we all established that they can't do that because of the oxford case but i mean sending the letter in the first place)

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

and section 10 of the data protection act says that the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

I know that substantial damage would be that it lowers the chance of further education and employability, but what about making it unwarranted/unjustified?

Says it all, doesn't it?

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Just popped up in my mind, if I didn't sign anything but gave verbal consent, does this mean that I don't consent to anything or is it possible to be considered as consent given under influence (feeling intimidated, panicking, stressed etc.) and make the whole RLP fine and the ban void?

Are you referring to -

a. the security goon searching your bag;
b. what the security goon told the police;
c. banning you from Boots premises?

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

and section 10 of the data protection act says that the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

I know that substantial damage would be that it lowers the chance of further education and employability, but what about making it unwarranted/unjustified?

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Just popped up in my mind, if I didn't sign anything but gave verbal consent, does this mean that I don't consent to anything or is it possible to be considered as consent given under influence (feeling intimidated, panicking, stressed etc.) and make the whole RLP fine and the ban void?

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

...or "What part of No don't you understand?". I did once hear an alleged shoplifter tell a store detective to go and perform a physically-impossible sex act on themselves. The more usual one was "P*ss off!"

Lol i would probably kick off big time with them and get in a massive slagging match of an argument, if any ever accused me of shoplifting and asked for my details. I think everyone knows how heated it will get and that i would go in all guns blazing lol

Just read that stuff you pointed to boss..... errrm....gosh....didnt realise RLP was one of them firms... scaremail...

PR, i take back what i say, i did not understand fully how RLP operated...and after reading the posts pointed to, follow what the others are saying.

Ahhh see CC, now you know why we all hate RLP so much!!

On a side note - everyone, whats the minimum age a defedant most be to sue them in civil court, not to mention process the data off a minor in such manner RLP expressed, without parental consent do so (op is 17)? am sure it is 18 before anyone can sue you in civil court. I know its 14 over to give witness statements and in order sue someelse you have to be 18 and over or have your parents sue on your behalf!

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

To broad a statement.. Companies are allowed to keep information in relation to anything they want, its sharing it with third partys that could be a breach....but, as far as i remember, i think they would be able to share it with other members of there retail group, for crime prevention.... or, if you applied for a job as at a member of there consortium.

Not 100% true. Whilst they can process information on staff, and customers (for transactional purposes only), they can not pass on customers information for crime prevention to 3rd parties unless its the police. They may off course keep records of staff who have been dismissed, but even then they are not allowed to keep them any longer then necessary for records purposes such i.e. 6 years. They off course can share them with other companies within the group if they have the staff members permission to do so. Permission is not implied, it has to given in writing. And any company inside the group of companies that is not registered with the ICO can not have access to such data. Though it maybe different if that group of companies name is registered and said company in the group is named as a member of that group.

I have used the ICO extensively in the past.. you can ring them and check general terms, without having to make a complaint.

By the way pinkranger. I have a lot of respect for you saying this statement, both as a person and a parent

,

BB abd TB, i havent read the case your on about, my advise to PR is more about a pragmatic approach, and i dont wish to argue against you in this, and i can see the sense in your argument, but it just doesn't feel right telling a 17yo who has done a stupid thing to take on the retailers......

I would suggest you read the judgement which is provided in the thread that i linked to earlier and which Celestine more recently linked to as well. To get a clearer understanding of the legalities and as to why RLP lost hands down. There still trying the same approach now as they did before they lost, though their letters have taken on a more menacing nature with their threats of sharing data with prospective future employers etc, despite the alleged person not being found guilty of an offense. Which in my book is tantamount to Blackmail under the theft act 1968 (ironic isn't it? lol) and a breach of the malicious communications act 1988, for making threats with menace.

I think the OP knows they have done wrong, and has probably had her/his wrists slapped big time by mum and dad. So its not our place to act as parents, our place is to help people and protect them form being victims of unlawful or illegal actions. Regardless of whether they were in the wrong originally. As BlueBottle said, two wrongs don't make a right!

Ohh an no one is arguing with you here, where just debating each others opinion and cross examining lol.

[Amethyst]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

:hug: :beagle: xx

[Crazy council]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Just read that stuff you pointed to boss..... errrm....gosh....didnt realise RLP was one of them firms... scaremail...

PR, i take back what i say, i did not understand fully how RLP operated...and after reading the posts pointed to, follow what the others are saying.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

True they have no right to such information - They can ask, but you don't have to answer or could tell them its Mr or Mrs Cameron of 10 downing street lol

...or "What part of No don't you understand?". I did once hear an alleged shoplifter tell a store detective to go and perform a physically-impossible sex act on themselves. The more usual one was "P*ss off!"

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Private security do not even have the right or power to ask for your name and address, TB.

True they have no right to such information - They can ask, but you don't have to answer or could tell them its Mr or Mrs Cameron of 10 downing street lol

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I wish it'd hurry up and bite them and stop them scaring the willys out of people for making a mistake (or not as the case may be) - funnily enough we haven't heard from them for quite some time. Shaming people into paying money that is just not due or owed is something I utterly abhor.

I have contacts in the alternative media who can bring that to the public's attention. They have a worldwide audience for their weekday news streams on YouTube, as well as the recorded version that people can view at any time after the day of broadcast