Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

No. More along the lines of not being entirely forthcoming with the actualities and distorting reality.

Well i got the number of letters right and the D and H are in the right place lol

Can't see you getting your legs slapped for calling them dishonest - because they are!! See the list of claimed loss they send the OP claiming loss for staff time and maintenance of CCTV etc. We all no those are not legitimate direct losses that they can legally claim from alleged shoplifters!

[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?

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

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

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

Its unwarranted and unjustified because 1 its unlawful anyway for them to process your data in their OWN private equivalent version of the CRB database, that shares data with 3rd parties, not based on those convicted and therefore found to be guilty in criminal court. But of people merely assumed/alleged to be guilty. They are basically going to share your data based on nothing but alleged guilt only. In this country you are innocent till proven guilty, and as such that makes sharing your data in such circumstances unlawful as the data is inaccurate and misleading and not factual.

Its also unlawful due to you being a minor, and their being no consent from an appropriate adult, nor was an appropriate adult present when they took your details from you.

Have your parents asked for a copy of the CCTV both showing you taking the item and off you being interviewed in the back room? - Because you really need to get that, as it would prove useful in any defense against RLP should they take you to civil court - Which i doubt they will since it would be only to claim loss from you and in civil court it would be irrelevant if you did take the item or not since civil court does not decide on criminal guilt, but only on the loss incurred by the claimant as a result of your actions.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Its unwarranted and unjustified because 1 its unlawful anyway for them to process your data in their OWN private equivalent version of the CRB database, that shares data with 3rd parties, not based on those convicted and therefore found to be guilty in criminal court. But of people merely assumed/alleged to be guilty. They are basically going to share your data based on nothing but alleged guilt only. In this country you are innocent till proven guilty, and as such that makes sharing your data in such circumstances unlawful as the data is inaccurate and misleading and not factual.

Its also unlawful due to you being a minor, and their being no consent from an appropriate adult, nor was an appropriate adult present when they took your details from you.

Have your parents asked for a copy of the CCTV both showing you taking the item and off you being interviewed in the back room? - Because you really need to get that, as it would prove useful in any defense against RLP should they take you to civil court - Which i doubt they will since it would be only to claim loss from you and in civil court it would be irrelevant if you did take the item or not since civil court does not decide on criminal guilt, but only on the loss incurred by the claimant as a result of your actions.

My parents didn't want to get further involved with Boots so nope, they didn't ask for it.

So because I didn't go to court and get a court conviction, I'm technically not guilty?

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I also heard that there are free legal services I could get. Can I ask how?

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

My parents didn't want to get further involved with Boots so nope, they didn't ask for it.

So because I didn't go to court and get a court conviction, I'm technically not guilty?

You can still ask for the CCTV yourself.

And yes your not technically not guilty, you are not guilty in the eyes of the law until such time you are proven guilty by criminal court!

I also heard that there are free legal services I could get. Can I ask how?

I believe BlueBottle can help you with that one.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

You can still ask for the CCTV yourself.

If I ask for the footage, will it come as a digital copy (e.g. email attachment) or a physical copy (e.g. DVD)? I don't want my parents to get an unexpected parcel/letter...

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Can I ask you to help me draft a letter to RLP about removal of my information in their database and also to cast doubt (?) over the fine they are asking me to pay?

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

If I ask for the footage, will it come as a digital copy (e.g. email attachment) or a physical copy (e.g. DVD)? I don't want my parents to get an unexpected parcel/letter...

Chances are they will give you a DVD copy, which is probably best. Though no harm in requesting a copy by email. Just make sure you include details of the time and date of the incident.

Can I ask you to help me draft a letter to RLP about removal of my information in their database and also to cast doubt (?) over the fine they are asking me to pay?

I'll try and draft one for you later today, that's if no one else has done so first, as at the moment am a little bit tied up with end of week stuff.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I'll try and draft one for you later today, that's if no one else has done so first, as at the moment am a little bit tied up with end of week stuff.

thanks. Please don't let it be a burden though

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

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

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.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

OH MY GAWD THIS IS PERFECT THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH I REALLY APPRECIATE IT

I did see some mistakes there but they can be easily fixed. Can I ask why I shouldn't sign by hand though? And will there be any harm if I mentioned that although I didn't go to criminal court I did get a youth reprimand/caution?

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

OH MY GAWD THIS IS PERFECT THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH I REALLY APPRECIATE IT

I did see some mistakes there but they can be easily fixed. Can I ask why I shouldn't sign by hand though? And will there be any harm if I mentioned that although I didn't go to criminal court I did get a youth reprimand/caution?

Reason you shouldn't sign by hadn is down to the fact you did not sign the form the security guard had you fill in. By signing the section 10 letter by hand, you risk RLP doing what DCA do, and lift your signature and placing it on the very form you did not sign. which they could then use to say that you did sign it and therefore had given consent to them to process your date - Not that it changes the fact your still a minor, so can not give such consent, as such consent forms a contract and you have to be other 18 to enter majority of contracts - Not to mention the circumstances in which your details where unlawfully obtained!

By the way, add between paragraph one and two "I would like to point out to you that i have not been prosecuted in criminal court, nor therefore have i been found guilty of any such alleged offense - Therefore i am innocent of said alleged offense and under presumption of innocence law i therefore have the legal right to be treated as an innocence and not therefore treated as, referred to as, assumed to be a dishonest person or have my data shared for such purposes. Doing so would be a breach of my right to presumption of innocence!"

Now that will really throw the spanner in the works for them, as it makes clear they can not treat you as an alleged dishonest person as doing so breaches your right to presumption of innocence and to be treated as innocent until such time you are found guilty in a criminal court - Which will not happen as the police are not going to prosecute you from what you have said in your original post at the start of the thread!

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

What about mentioning the youth caution/reprimand? I know that because it isn't a conviction and just a caution it will be filtered and won't come up even on an enhanced DBS (formerly CRB) check after 2 years (I think 6 years if caution was given to over 18s)

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

What about mentioning the youth caution/reprimand? I know that because it isn't a conviction and just a caution it will be filtered and won't come up even on an enhanced DBS (formerly CRB) check after 2 years (I think 6 years if caution was given to over 18s)

A caution does not mean admittance of guilt, and RLP don't need to know about it - your only guilty when found as so at a criminal court! People accept cautions to avoid going through the process of having to go to court all the time, same with fixed penalty notices.

I have added more to my last post above too.