Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Okay. Is there a possibility that RLP will take this to court though (although from what you're saying it seems to me that there won't be much point in taking this to court since they won't have a strong counterargument)

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

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.

I believe cautions are only given when the person admits guilt and there's enough evidence for the police to prosecute, but decided not to since they think that there won't be a public interest (whatever that is) and this is considered to be a less serious crime so by giving a caution they can spend more time investigating more serious crimes

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Okay. Is there a possibility that RLP will take this to court though (although from what you're saying it seems to me that there won't be much point in taking this to court since they won't have a strong counterargument)

Its always a possibility - But would they want judge hovering over the unlawful actions of boots security guard towards a minor, or over cireco's database of alleged dishonest people and they sharing said data with 3rd parties in breach of the data protection act 1998 and in breach of a persons right to persumption of innocence. Not to mention have a judge questioning the alleged costs and why they seem to be blanket costs of £147.50 in the majority of RLP's letters (Am sure BlueBottle and others can provide copies of other letters from RLP for same amounts or for previous blanket amount of £137.50).

So if RLP and Boots know whats good for them, they will stay well away from you!!

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I believe cautions are only given when the person admits guilt and there's enough evidence for the police to prosecute, but decided not to since they think that there won't be a public interest (whatever that is) and this is considered to be a less serious crime so by giving a caution they can spend more time investigating more serious crimes

Yes, but, we all know that it's also used just to avoid court and a lot just admit even if innocent to avoid the stress of having to wait for a court date and having to go through the whole process. So most just accept them knowing they will drop of their file in x amount of years regardless of whether they were innocent of guilty.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Dear Sir/Madam


1. Your Letter dated [date];
2. Notice under Section 10, Data Protection Act 1998

I refer to your letter dated xx/xx/xx and received on xx/xx/xxx, in which you make demands for payment of a sum of £147.50, on behalf of your client, Boots, in connection with an alleged incident at their [Name of Branch) Branch on [date].

You claim, but offer no evidence in support of your claim, that your client incurred direct costs in connection with the alleged incident for which you are demanding the payment of £147.50.

I have been made aware of the judgement in the case of A Retailer -v- Miss B and Miss K [2012] before His Honour Judge Charles Harris at Oxford County Court on 9 May 2012 which resulted in your client's claim being dismissed and leave to appeal refused. It is my understanding that a court would not make such a judgement were it not satisfied that the claimant's case had merit. Notwithstanding that two of your client's security staff in A Retailer -v- Miss B and Miss K [2012] were found, under cross-examination, on oath, to be exaggerating the alleged losses and the amount of time they spent dealing with the matter, it was also found that they were not, in fact, diverted from any revenue-generating duties, but carrying out their normal duties.

Turning to the alleged incident on [date], I have seen no evidence that substantiates your claim that your client, Boots, has suffered any actual loss or any of the losses you allege. If you and your client are unable or unwilling to substantiate your allegations and claims, then I must request that you withdraw the allegations and claims forthwith. In the absence of credible and substantial evidence, your allegations and claims are, at best, speculative and without merit.

I note that your company states it will be processing my personal data, retaining it on a database and making it available to prospective employers amongst others mentioned in your letter. Whilst Retail Loss Prevention may be registered under the Data Protection Act 1998, its parent company, Cireco, who maintain the database, is not. It is a principle of English as well as International Law that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law or other legally-convened tribunal. I have not been found guilty by any court of law or other legally-convened tribunal of any offence under English Law and any guilt you allege is not proven or established or admitted. Furthermore, maintaining a database of persons whom your company and its clients claim, but have not proven, in a court of law or other legally-convened tribunal, to be guilty of any act of criminal dishonesty, breaches the Data Protection Act 1998 and has, in the past, resulted in those maintaining similar databases being successfully prosecuted in the criminal courts. In addition to this, the Information Commissioner has the power to apply to a magistrates court for a warrant to enter the premises of any person whom the Information Commissioner has reasonable cause to suspect of committing a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, by use of force if necessary, to search the premises, seize records in both manual and electronic form and IT hardware and software and to seek an order for the forfeiture and destruction of such records, IT hardware and software. The Information Commissioner also has the power to impose a Civil Monetary Penalty of up to £500,000 on those who commit breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

As far as the alleged incident goes, I do not acknowledge or admit any liability whatsoever and none should be presumed or inferred. You are put on notice of the following -

• Your client's security contractor searched my bag without my consent, removed items from my bag, alleging I had stolen them, but offered no evidence to substantiate his allegations, even though I denied such allegations;
• placed me in a locked room which although could be unlocked from the inside was locked from the outside by means of a digital lock which required a code to be input into a keypad in order to gain entry;
• demanded my personal details and to fill in a form, which I never signed;
• one of your client's employees although in the room at the time, failed to take any action to stop your client's security contractor searching my bag; and
• both failed to observe and comply with statutory provisions governing the detention, questioning and dealing with of minors, that is, any person below the age of 18 years.

Notwithstanding that only law enforcement officers have the power to search a person, their bags, vehicles, etc., in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the actions of your client's security contractor in searching my bag, regardless of whether consent was given or not, were unlawful. Not only that, by searching my bag, your client's security contractor has laid not only himself, but your client also, open to allegations of placing items in my bag and then falsely alleging they had been stolen. The failure on the part of your client's employee to take any action at all to stop or prevent your client's security contractor from unlawfully searching my bag means that your client is complicit in an unlawful act, notwithstanding that your client is also vicariously-liable for the actions of both their employee and security contractor.

Your company has not detailed what the £147.50 quoted in its letter relates to and it is my understanding that only actual loss suffered can be claimed. General everyday business expenses for which a business has already claimed against tax, incorporated into the retail prices of merchandise on sale or is covered by insurance policies cannot be claimed. In essence, if any alleged losses are, in fact, costs a retailer would have incurred in any case, regardless of whether an alleged shoplifting incident had taken place or not, they cannot be claimed. It is my understanding that this is the view the court took in A Retailer -v- Miss B and Miss K [2012].

Notice is hereby served in accordance with Section 10, Data Protection Act 1998 that Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd cease processing of my personal data and any data relating to me forthwith. No consent or other lawful authority has been given by me or any appropriate adult acting on my behalf to Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd or any third party to collect, disclose, distribute, disseminate, hold, process, share, store or use in any way, whether in manual or electronic form, any data relating to me. In view of the threats made by Retail Loss Prevention Ltd in its letter dated [date] as to how it intends to use my data, given that the use of such data, its inaccuracy and the potential to cause significant damage and/or harm, Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd are on notice to destroy all data it holds on me in electronic and manual form and to permanently delete all data it holds on me in electronic form.

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd has 14 days in which to confirm that all data it holds relating to me has been deleted and destroyed. In the event that I do not receive confirmation that Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd has complied with this notice and/or that it becomes evident that Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and Cireco Ltd has not complied with this notice, the matter will be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office for investigation and necessary action without further notice.

Yours Sincerely

PRINT NAME DO NOT SIGN BY HAND

The above is based on TB's draft letter and you can use either.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I believe cautions are only given when the person admits guilt and there's enough evidence for the police to prosecute, but decided not to since they think that there won't be a public interest (whatever that is) and this is considered to be a less serious crime so by giving a caution they can spend more time investigating more serious crimes

You are correct, PR. However, where minors are involved, the police have to follow statutory procedures. The final decision is not necessarily that of the police.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Okay. Is there a possibility that RLP will take this to court though (although from what you're saying it seems to me that there won't be much point in taking this to court since they won't have a strong counterargument)

Not unless they want a judge to rip them up for toilet-paper. If you are in North East England, there is a number of female judges on the North Eastern Court Circuit who will not stand for any nonsense from either side in a case, which is a good thing. If RLP or their client tried to hoodwink one of these female judges, I have a feeling they would get very short shrift.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Not unless they want a judge to rip them up for toilet-paper. If you are in North East England, there is a number of female judges on the North Eastern Court Circuit who will not stand for any nonsense from either side in a case, which is a good thing. If RLP or their client tried to hoodwink one of these female judges, I have a feeling they would get very short shrift.

I live in greater london/surrey region... but im sure there is a possibility of female judges across the country (unless im wrong)

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I live in greater london/surrey region... but im sure there is a possibility of female judges across the country (unless im wrong)

Yes. There are female judges across England and Wales, but not enough apparently.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I realised both of you (teaboy2 and bluebottle) wrote in the draft letter to write a confirmation letter within 14 days, but when I looked up on the internet, I think it said 21 or 28 days so should I write with 14, 21 or 28 days?

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I realised both of you (teaboy2 and bluebottle) wrote in the draft letter to write a confirmation letter within 14 days, but when I looked up on the internet, I think it said 21 or 28 days so should I write with 14, 21 or 28 days?

As Section 10, Data Protection Act 1998 does, indeed, give the data controller 21 days in which to inform the data subject of their intention to comply or not comply, stick with that.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

As Section 10, Data Protection Act 1998 does, indeed, give the data controller 21 days in which to inform the data subject of their intention to comply or not comply, stick with that.

Okay.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I know I said this couple of days ago but bluebottle and teaboy2, I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR ME I GENUINELY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO THANK YOU ENOUGH

WITHOUT YOUR HELP I WOULD STILL BE CRYING BUCKETLOADS AND WORRY ABOUT THAT BLACKLIST EVEN THOUGH I PAID THE 'COMPENSATION' (don't worry, I haven't paid them a single penny yet)

I think you two can go celebrate and have a party for resolving a legal problem (of a random person you don't even know (#respect there)) successfully :P and I'm glad that I turned to Legal Beagles for advice

If I run into more worries or problems I'll post here and let you know

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I know I said this couple of days ago but bluebottle and teaboy2, I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR ME I GENUINELY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO THANK YOU ENOUGH

WITHOUT YOUR HELP I WOULD STILL BE CRYING BUCKETLOADS AND WORRY ABOUT THAT BLACKLIST EVEN THOUGH I PAID THE 'COMPENSATION' (don't worry, I haven't paid them a single penny yet)

I think you two can go celebrate and have a party for resolving a legal problem (of a random person you don't even know (#respect there)) successfully :P and I'm glad that I turned to Legal Beagles for advice

If I run into more worries or problems I'll post here and let you know

We'll put the celebrations on hold until we hear the final outcome of your case, PR. This is in case you need further help.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Good point there. I'll let you know of the outcome as soon as possible (although that might be a while later since I realised only recently that my father don't even know about the letter and it's only between me and my mother)