Caught shoplifting

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi yes the counter argument would be.

Only damages in tort would be recoverable, in other words only measures to restore the normal operation of the store.

Looking at cctv footage after the event would hardly qualify.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi yes the counter argument would be.

Only damages in tort would be recoverable, in other words only measures to restore the normal operation of the store.

Looking at cctv footage after the event would hardly qualify.

D

I agree. It's part of the security muppets' job, so RLP can't legitimately claim that they are being diverted from their core duties, because it is part of their core duties. I came across the forerunner to this when I was in the police force. Retailers would go into court with an allegedly stolen item, gain compensation for an alleged lost sale, then put the item back on sale and get the money for that item twice. It's unofficial title was the "Double Your Money" scam. Eventually, the courts got wise to it and would only let them claim for a solicitor to represent them in court. Once CPS came into being, they couldn't do that anymore. My instincts tell me CR is just the DYM scam in another form, only using a third-party to pull it off so the retailer can claim, "Not me, guv."

[CleverClogs]

Re: Caught shoplifting

More than that - the costs of security equipment will have been amortized and claimed against tax in the usual way, whilst all staff costs will obviously have been taken from the gross profit along with other costs to the business before the net (and taxable) profit was calculated.

It seems that RLP has learned nothing and has forgotten nothing. Therefore, they seem determined to continue in much the same way as they have always done.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

More than that - the costs of security equipment will have been amortized and claimed against tax in the usual way, whilst all staff costs will obviously have been taken from the gross profit along with other costs to the business before the net (and taxable) profit was calculated.

It seems that RLP has learned nothing and has forgotten nothing. Therefore, they seem determined to continue in much the same way as they have always done.

I'm a great believer in the saying "What goes around, comes around". RLP and their clients will only get away with it for so long before someone or something puts a stop to it.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

HI
I would be interested to hear BB's opinion on the part of the letter which states that the agreement for the store to accept payment was the conclusion of a criminal proceedings and restorative justice.
Is this the case?

Criminal proceedings seems a bit strong, there were no charges brought and no arrests made, if a policeman tells you to move your car or he will feel your collar is it restorative justice and completion of criminal proceedings when you comply.

I would have thought the police acted to prevent the need for criminal proceedings.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi Davy,

The whole point of restorative justice is to prevent the need for criminal proceedings. As its name implies, it restores something to what it was before. For example, if someone damages something, restorative justice requires that the person responsible for the damage makes good the damage at their expense. In the case of theft or theft-related offences, the purpose of restorative justice is to return the item stolen to its lawful owner or to replace it.

Like any form of justice under English Law, both sides have to consent to it. However, in so doing, you also give up your right to pursue justice by other means. You are not allowed to have two bites at the cherry, unless a court or the law permits this.

The retailer would have had to agree to Restorative Justice in the OP's case and, in so agreeing to Restorative Justice, gave up their right to justice by criminal trial. I know of no policy whereby police officers take Civil Recovery into account when deciding on Restorative Justice. The decision to decide on Restorative Justice will be determined by the policy of the Chief Constable for the area or the individual officer. It is known that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) are not happy bunnies with RLP over claims on the RLP website that RLP have agreed some form of policy or have some form of endorsement from ACPO to the point ACPO have requested RLP to remove such references.

The Law Commission and His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC have made it quite clear that there is no legal basis for the claims RLP make on behalf of their retail clients. RLP and other CR operators should think very carefully before issuing any further demands accompanied by threats. Because, at the end of the day, the onus is on CR operators and their clients to prove that they have a right in law to make the demand in the first place and that the use of threats is a proper way of enforcing the demands.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi Davy,

The whole point of restorative justice is to prevent the need for criminal proceedings. .

That is what i thought, so it is not in itself criminal proceedings as they claim.

Thanks

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

That is what i thought, so it is not in itself criminal proceedings as they claim.

Thanks

D

You're welcome.

[christina]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi, Blue bottle,

I have done wrong too by angrying with TKMaxx refused to let me return a not properly packed product which i found the product had been used after I bought it. In May last year, I exchanged the product one day, paid for 2 items that i bought and taken 1-2 not sealed products. I was stopped and I tried to explain but they would not listen, my 2 receipts were both taken from me. I was taken back to the shop, without any words, I wanted to return the unsealed ( could be test used by others) products or to buy them. It was refused. i asked to see the shop manager and it was refused. I asked them to call the police but they refused. I wanted to call a friend but they took my phone and placed it on table. I wanted to take photos to show the products were not in good condition but was not allowed to do that. I was told one of the men I could make complaint to Trading Standard on TK MAXX and I did that. But Trading Standard told me to compaim to comsumer association.

I was told by a volunter in local CAB just to ignore them. I was then jugglling to take care of my elderly parents overseas and work and was not in my address for sometimes. Recently, I received a letter from a debt collector but then I went for my eye operation and had not able to deal with the case. last week i received a letter from the RLP.

The letter wrote: We refer to the above matter and remind u that yr liability is still outstanding.
It is now some times since our last correspondence and despite writing to u on many previous occasions we have still not received a response fr u. Ignoring our correspondence will not resolve the matter.
Your failure to engage in pre-action correspondence is a breach of the practice direction for Preaction conduct. This may be brought to the Court's attention if proceedings need to be issued, which could result in additional costs sanctions being ordered against you.
We also advise that interest is continuing to accrue on the amount oustanding above, on a daily basis at a rate of 8% per annum while this claim remains oustanding.
Under the Limitation Act 1980, our client has 6 years to bring this action against you ( 5 yrs in Scotland), a period which may be disapplied in certain circumstances such as these.
It is not therefore in yr interest to ignore this matter as our client is not prepared to forego this claim against you.
If we do not heard from you, we shall have no option other than advise our client regarding the issue of proceedings in the county court.
A county Court Judgment If remains unsatisfied, will affect your credit rating.
We also remind your details continue to be held on a database of civil recovery claims, which may be used for employment screening purposes.
We therefore await your proposals for settlement, without any further delay.
yr sincerely,
RLPltd.


I have to admit that I got only the first letter in late Sept 2011 dated sometime in August 2011. Due to the mess of my life, I lost the letter. I had a second letter in March 2012 after I came back from taking care of my disabled 94 yrs old Dad, his employed contract carer left without giving notice, before I started to sort all oustanding things, my mum was seriously ill. I was away again, went for an operation myself later.

Please help me. I know I did wrong and that was mainly out of anger,many things happened at that time: I am now 60 years old. Please help me , what shall I do now to get out of this mess? I suspect while I was away,my mail had taken also there is complaint from neighbours that postmen do not deliver post that is why I did not get much notices from them. I was told just pay them by CAB.
Manythanks,

[teaboy2]

Re: Caught shoplifting

"Under the Limitation Act 1980, our client has 6 years to bring this action against you ( 5 yrs in Scotland), a period which may be disapplied in certain circumstances such as these."

Well thats nonsense for a start, as the limitation period applies to civil claims which is all RLP claim is, only time it doesn't apply is to criminal prosecution.

Also TK maxx may well have been in breach of the sales of goods act by refusing to replace the original product with a sealed version of the product, and breach of warranty too. Though off course that doesn't excuse you for taking things into your own hands, as the correct procedure would have been to make a formal written complaint giving notice of intended legal action if they refused to honor their obligations under the sales of goods act.

Though i also think refuses your request for the police to be present would give rise to a claim too. But Blue Bottle will beable to advise you on that more.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Absolutely correct, TB. Criminal proceedings must be brought within prescribed time-limits laid down by statute.

I don't wish to appear thick, Christina, but what is it that you actually did that TK Maxx and RLP are claiming is the crime of the century? As for CAB, I would give them a wide berth and I am very surprised they even contemplated telling you to pay RLP. The actions of the TK Maxx staff were totally reprehensible and, in my considered judgement, potentially, illegal. If you could give better details of the alleged "crime of the century", I might be able to see what has actually happened and whether TK Maxx have a case or there is a case to answer against them and RLP.

[teaboy2]

Re: Caught shoplifting

From what i could make out Bluebottle. It sounds like christina bought an item that she thought was brand new and thought was it sealed packaging only to find that it was not and the packaging was not sealed, possibly a previously used as a promotion item on display. So after TK Maxx refused to replace the item with one that was sealed and not used, she took the law into her own hands, took it into the store with her, and put it on the shelf and picked up an identical one but in sealed packaging along with buying 2 other items. So technically no theft occured and no damaged caused. Which means TK maxxs refusal to replace the original unsealed one means it is Tk Maxx that acted in breach of contract originally, and possibly defrauded her by selling the item as new when it appears it may well have been used.

They then detained her, refused her request for the police to be called, which if am correct is illegal, they took her phone off her, though placed it on the table. They also refused her permission to call her friends, which begs the question as to whether that was legal too. She was refused her request to take photo evidence of the products along with being refused to speak to the manager.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi, Blue bottle,

I have done wrong too by angrying with TKMaxx refused to let me return a not properly packed product which i found the product had been used after I bought it. In May last year, I exchanged the product one day, paid for 2 items that i bought and taken 1-2 not sealed products. I was stopped and I tried to explain but they would not listen, my 2 receipts were both taken from me. I was taken back to the shop, without any words, I wanted to return the unsealed ( could be test used by others) products or to buy them. It was refused. i asked to see the shop manager and it was refused. I asked them to call the police but they refused. I wanted to call a friend but they took my phone and placed it on table. I wanted to take photos to show the products were not in good condition but was not allowed to do that. I was told one of the men I could make complaint to Trading Standard on TK MAXX and I did that. But Trading Standard told me to compaim to comsumer association.

I was told by a volunter in local CAB just to ignore them. I was then jugglling to take care of my elderly parents overseas and work and was not in my address for sometimes. Recently, I received a letter from a debt collector but then I went for my eye operation and had not able to deal with the case. last week i received a letter from the RLP.

The letter wrote: We refer to the above matter and remind u that yr liability is still outstanding.
It is now some times since our last correspondence and despite writing to u on many previous occasions we have still not received a response fr u. Ignoring our correspondence will not resolve the matter.
Your failure to engage in pre-action correspondence is a breach of the practice direction for Preaction conduct. This may be brought to the Court's attention if proceedings need to be issued, which could result in additional costs sanctions being ordered against you.
We also advise that interest is continuing to accrue on the amount oustanding above, on a daily basis at a rate of 8% per annum while this claim remains oustanding.
Under the Limitation Act 1980, our client has 6 years to bring this action against you ( 5 yrs in Scotland), a period which may be disapplied in certain circumstances such as these.
It is not therefore in yr interest to ignore this matter as our client is not prepared to forego this claim against you.
If we do not heard from you, we shall have no option other than advise our client regarding the issue of proceedings in the county court.
A county Court Judgment If remains unsatisfied, will affect your credit rating.
We also remind your details continue to be held on a database of civil recovery claims, which may be used for employment screening purposes.
We therefore await your proposals for settlement, without any further delay.
yr sincerely,
RLPltd.


I have to admit that I got only the first letter in late Sept 2011 dated sometime in August 2011. Due to the mess of my life, I lost the letter. I had a second letter in March 2012 after I came back from taking care of my disabled 94 yrs old Dad, his employed contract carer left without giving notice, before I started to sort all oustanding things, my mum was seriously ill. I was away again, went for an operation myself later.

Please help me. I know I did wrong and that was mainly out of anger,many things happened at that time: I am now 60 years old. Please help me , what shall I do now to get out of this mess? I suspect while I was away,my mail had taken also there is complaint from neighbours that postmen do not deliver post that is why I did not get much notices from them. I was told just pay them by CAB.
Manythanks,

Do I detect a pattern emerging here , this is the second demand I have seen where they threaten to take action at an undisclosed time in the future, someone is playing amature psychologist i think, trying to ware people down with the threat of legal action hanging over their heads. Something really does need to be done.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Not really surprising since they know any chance of winning in court would mean them having to prove actually losses incurred as a direct result of the defendants actions, something they already know and we know, they can not proof, especially when after they recently lost in court for that precise reason! So all they have left is the threatogram method.

Though would such threats amount to Harassment is the question? I think it does if they carry on sending letters without following through with their threats, also keeping details of the alleged dishonest person without their consent would be a breach of data protection act plus libel if shared with other companies or parties.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Many thanks for clarifying that, TB. Much appreciated. TK Maxx could be liable to prosecution with regard to the item Christina purchased and subsequently found had been used. She was within her rights to expect to have the item replaced as TK Maxx apparently offered it as brand new when they, in fact, knew it was not. That is a breach of Consumer Protection Law. Applying the two-part test under R -v- Ghosh 1982, it is unlikely TK Maxx would be able to justify their actions. It is the "any reasonable person" test that applies to a lot of criminal offences these days. Given the circumstances, it would be difficult to prove any reasonable person would consider what Christina did was dishonest. The actions of the TK Maxx security staff, in my experience and considered judgement, in the circumstances, were illegal. What they did amounts to Unlawful Detention, which is both a civil tort and a criminal offence. Their refusal to call the police and subsequent refusal to co-operate with reasonable requests tends to reinforce this.

If RLP and TK Maxx have any sense, they should drop their demands immediately. If not, both RLP and TK Maxx potentially face legal action for Fraud, Blackmail and Harassment and TK Maxx and its security staff could be facing proceedings for Unlawful Detention, as well as action under Consumer Protection Law.

For the avoidance of any doubt for any employee of RLP or TK Maxx reading this post, I am a retired police officer and worked in the retail industry before joining the police force. I have kept up to date with the law since retiring from the police force.