Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Okay, should they then write to RLP or cireco? RLP were the ones who sent the letter but if cireco is their parent company then...

I would be inclined to serve it on both RLP and Cireco. That way, they cannot claim they did not know. Make sure any Section 10 notice is sent by Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery. That way, a signature is obtained on delivery.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I know for a fact they are, as they have prevented people getting jobs they would have otherwise got and are perfectly capable of doing, purely because they were once stopped and alleged to be a shoplifter, regardless of whether they had actually done it or were, in fact, innocent of wrong doing.

If what you say is correct, TB, there is a pressing need for Pink Ranger's parents to alert the ICO to this.

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

emmmr, you might not like this,,,,,

But, you should pay it, and be thankful that your parents are willing to help..... So what they May have made a mistake.. You did get caught stealing......Ok, your young, i understand, i have children both above and below your age.... You have made a mistake...

Do you think the security guard should loose his job ? maybe he has kids...
Do you think boots should should just give you stuff and charge the rest of us for it....

I am an understanding person, and you should be forgiven for minor things like this under 18,,, but please dont think its ok to take it out on a security guard for his mistakes.... PAY UP, and be thankful you have understanding parents

Sorry for going against the rest of you here but my parenting is coming out.... GOOD JOB I AM NOT YOU DAD, thats all i can say

Errm, CC... two wrongs don't make a right. If you want my honest opinion, the greater wrong has been committed by the security goon at Boots. He decided to put his hands into Pink Ranger's bag and, in so doing, has laid himself and Boots wide open to allegations of unlawful detention, etc.. As I stated in an earlier post, how do we know he didn't put items in the bag and claim Pink Ranger took it? Saw it when I was a copper, kicked security goons' arses over it and station superintendent kicked retail management's arses over it, too.

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Registration with the ICO is a legal requirement. It does not, in an way, mean that the registered business or person is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and should not be regarded as such. How a registered person or business uses your personal data is subject to and regulated by the Act and the ICO. Using it in a way not permitted under the Act is illegal. The database RLP claim to maintain is more akin to the illegal databases TB refers to in an earlier post.

I know for a fact they are, as they have prevented people getting jobs they would have otherwise got and are perfectly capable of doing, purely because they were once stopped and alleged to be a shoplifter, regardless of whether they had actually done it or were, in fact, innocent of wrong doing.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Yes once you have sent them the section 10 request. and even without the section 10 request it would be unlawful for them to share it with Cireco so that cireco can add your details to their database that is used to by employers to check integrity of job applicants, as that practice alone is unlawful and libellous!

Okay, should they then write to RLP or cireco? RLP were the ones who sent the letter but if cireco is their parent company then...

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

So even though RLP is ICO registered it is still unlawful for them to keep my details and give them to third parties like employers?

Registration with the ICO is a legal requirement. It does not, in an way, mean that the registered business or person is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and should not be regarded as such. How a registered person or business uses your personal data is subject to and regulated by the Act and the ICO. Using it in a way not permitted under the Act is illegal. The database RLP claim to maintain is more akin to the illegal databases TB refers to in an earlier post.

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

emmmr, you might not like this,,,,,

But, you should pay it, and be thankful that your parents are willing to help..... So what they May have made a mistake.. You did get caught stealing......Ok, your young, i understand, i have children both above and below your age.... You have made a mistake...

Do you think the security guard should loose his job ? maybe he has kids...
Do you think boots should should just give you stuff and charge the rest of us for it....

I am an understanding person, and you should be forgiven for minor things like this under 18,,, but please dont think its ok to take it out on a security guard for his mistakes.... PAY UP, and be thankful you have understanding parents

Sorry for going against the rest of you here but my parenting is coming out.... GOOD JOB I AM NOT YOU DAD, thats all i can say

I know that the topic originally was whether I won't pass at a background check when my info is stored at the RLP's national database, but now it has moved onto whether the security officer was acting in a lawful way or not in the first place. It's not just because I wanted to take it out onto him. I know what I did wrong and I am ashamed by it.

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

So even though RLP is ICO registered it is still unlawful for them to keep my details and give them to third parties like employers?

Yes once you have sent them the section 10 request. and even without the section 10 request it would be unlawful for them to share it with Cireco so that cireco can add your details to their database that is used to by employers to check integrity of job applicants, as that practice alone is unlawful and libellous!

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Wouldn't it be better if I ask the police? Because what if the officers have shifts/rota?

And are there other security firms retailers could employ or is it just SIA?

SIA = Security Industry Authority

The SIA is the statutory regulator for the private security industry. Boots use security companies to provide retail security. They do not employ them directly as some retailers do. Your parents should approach Boots in the first instance as regards the details of the security officer as the incident occurred on their premises.

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

emmmr, you might not like this,,,,,

But, you should pay it, and be thankful that your parents are willing to help..... So what they May have made a mistake.. You did get caught stealing......Ok, your young, i understand, i have children both above and below your age.... You have made a mistake...

Do you think the security guard should loose his job ? maybe he has kids...
Do you think boots should should just give you stuff and charge the rest of us for it....

I am an understanding person, and you should be forgiven for minor things like this under 18,,, but please dont think its ok to take it out on a security guard for his mistakes.... PAY UP, and be thankful you have understanding parents

Sorry for going against the rest of you here but my parenting is coming out.... GOOD JOB I AM NOT YOU DAD, thats all i can say

Why should they pay it. Seriously £147.50 where the retailer never incurred a loss. The police and CPS are their for prosecuting and criminal courts can award compensation to cover loss the retailer incurred. What you saying by stating they should pay, is that you support what is in fact a unlawful fine issued by a retailer and their puppet civil recovery company, that is not an accurate representation of any loss incurred by the retailer.

Sorry but only the police and courts have the power to issue such fines, and they pay for the CPS and criminal courts.

Their is a good reason why RLP lost the test case - its because their claims are not supported in law!!

[thepinkranger]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Get your parents to report RLP/Cireco anyway. The mere threat of what they say they intend to do with your personal data is probably enough to get the ICO's ears twitching. ICO has the legal power to impose a fine of up to £500,000 on those who breach the Data Protection Act 1998. It would probably pee off RLP knowing their IT hardware could be fed through an industrial shredder as well if the ICO decided to come down hard on them.

With the ICO, ring their telephone helpline, initially. They can advise on how best to deal with the matter and they tend to be helpful.

Basically the only people RLP can lawfully pass your data to is the police. They (RLP) can only process your data to send you letters, they can not pass it to cireco, their parent company (cireco is a director of RLP) because Cireco are not registered with the ICO - But then thats probably because they don't want the ICO to know what they are doing with peoples data, or the ICO refused there application. Cireco can not piggy back on RLP license wither since they are in the eyes of the law two separate legal entities.

So even though RLP is ICO registered it is still unlawful for them to keep my details and give them to third parties like employers?

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I just checked ICO (if I found it properly...) and cireco is not registered, but RLP is: Z8131406

Also can you clarify what you said? I'm a tad confused... (sorry!)

Basically the only people RLP can lawfully pass your data to is the police. They (RLP) can only process your data to send you letters, they can not pass it to cireco, their parent company (cireco is a director of RLP) because Cireco are not registered with the ICO - But then thats probably because they don't want the ICO to know what they are doing with peoples data, or the ICO refused there application. Cireco can not piggy back on RLP license wither since they are in the eyes of the law two separate legal entities.

[Crazy council]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

emmmr, you might not like this,,,,,

But, you should pay it, and be thankful that your parents are willing to help..... So what they May have made a mistake.. You did get caught stealing......Ok, your young, i understand, i have children both above and below your age.... You have made a mistake...

Do you think the security guard should loose his job ? maybe he has kids...
Do you think boots should should just give you stuff and charge the rest of us for it....

I am an understanding person, and you should be forgiven for minor things like this under 18,,, but please dont think its ok to take it out on a security guard for his mistakes.... PAY UP, and be thankful you have understanding parents

Sorry for going against the rest of you here but my parenting is coming out.... GOOD JOB I AM NOT YOU DAD, thats all i can say

[bluebottle]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

I just checked ICO (if I found it properly...) and cireco is not registered, but RLP is: Z8131406

Also can you clarify what you said? I'm a tad confused... (sorry!)

Get your parents to report RLP/Cireco anyway. The mere threat of what they say they intend to do with your personal data is probably enough to get the ICO's ears twitching. ICO has the legal power to impose a fine of up to £500,000 on those who breach the Data Protection Act 1998. It would probably pee off RLP knowing their IT hardware could be fed through an industrial shredder as well if the ICO decided to come down hard on them.

With the ICO, ring their telephone helpline, initially. They can advise on how best to deal with the matter and they tend to be helpful.

[teaboy2]

Re: Letter from RLP after caught shoplifting from Boots

Um... also this bit:

The Company is entitled to seek compasation from you through Civil Recovery to recover its losses, being the cost of the disruption to its business in the investigation, apprehension and administration costs caused as a direct result of your actions. These costs include, but not limited to:

Losses

• Goods not recovered/not fit for resale - Reclaimable on insurance or as faulty goods return to supplier
• Goods/packaging damaged/destroyed - Reclaimable on insurance or as faulty goods return to supplier
• Cash stolen/Pecuniary advantage - Not Applicable to you.
• Fraudulent acts/Price swapping - No cost is incurred if goods recovered and not applicable to you
• Services taken without remuneration - Again N/A to you
• Criminal damage - N/A to you

Investigation costs

• Staff & management time to observe, apprehend & detain suspects - Standard daily business cost (wages etc), so no loss claimable by retailer
• Investigation into the offence
• Reviewing CCTV/Till data - Standard daily business cost (wages etc), so no loss claimable by retailer
• Producing witness statements - Standard daily business cost (wages etc), so no loss claimable by retailer
• Preparing evidence & writing reports - Standard daily business cost (wages etc), so no loss claimable by retailer

Security costs

• CCTV system & operator time - Standard daily business cost (electricity and maintenance costs etc), so no loss claimable by retailer
• Reproducing images for evidence - Standard daily business cost (wages etc), so no loss claimable by retailer
• Electronic security devices - Right we really believe the bought the CCTV and TAGs as a result of your actions lol
• Maintenance of security devices - - Standard daily business cost (maintenance costs etc), so no loss claimable by retailer

Administrative Costs

• Data processing & case reviews - Standard operational costs
• Mileage - Next they be saying fish and chips!! lol
• Photocopy/postage/telephone calls - Standard operational costs, and stationary is pre-bought anyway
• Legal fees & court costs - Can not be claimed as these are separate and are at the courts discrition, and are only payable if you loose in court, which you won't

See above in red.

P.s my business is retail, and i worked in retail for a number of years on the shop floor at management level