Caught shoplifting

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

If they do not respond, you report them to the ICO for non-compliance. Do Tesco have vicarious liabilty with RLP?

The answer to that question, very simply, Labman, is "No". Although Tesco passed OP's personal data to RLP and RLP is acting under Tesco's instructions, Tesco is responsible for any data it handles, in the same way RLP is responsible for any data it handles. The ICO would regard RLP and Tesco as two separate defendants.

If any action is taken under the DPA, the most likely infringements will be:-

Improper Disclosure of Personal Data
Using Personal Data for an Illegal Purpose
Allowing Personal Data to be Used for an Illegal Purpose

Failure to Comply with a Subject Access Request can be Without Lawful Reason or Without Reasonable Excuse

The above list applies to both RLP and Tesco.

[labman]

Re: Caught shoplifting

So when the DPA states Data should be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes it is being processed, how long is that?

What about processed in line with the rights of individuals?

Processed fairly and lawfully?

Adequate, relevant and not excessive for those purposes?

That's four of the eight fundamental principles of the Data Protection Act off the top of my head, all of which are debatable.

The DPA is one of the few pieces of legislation where the Data Controller can be held personally responsible for any breaches, so my advice to the OP would be to add to the SAR letters a request for the name of the Data Controller with a brief explanation of why they want the names.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi
Just a thought but the OP said that they paid for the item,did he get a till reciept i wonder.

Cant really claim theft if the goods were paid for, difficult to claim restoritive fine if the till reciept lists the goods.

Peter

[labman]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Indeed, hence the mention of some of the bits of the DPA above. :beagle:

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Hi
Although it would be immensely satisfying to make both parties squirm, I think all the OP has to so is either ignore this speculative invoice or if he must respond say something like," I do not acknowledge that there is any valid claim, the incident is closed as far as I am concerned."
They never pursue anyway
Peter

[labman]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Very true Peter - I guess that negates the need for any SAR's to be sent. Best for the OP to save £20 and put everything behind them. :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

I get regular updates on CAB's Civil Recovery campaign. Because of RLP's past and most recent behaviour, SARs to both RLP and Tesco will find out if there is any substance to RLP's demands of the OP would be worth the £20 cost, which can be reclaimed from RLP and Tesco. However, if my gut feeling is correct, they'll both return the cheques.

[labman]

Re: Caught shoplifting

BB,

I'm aware of the substantial document 'Uncivil Recovery' published in December 2010, and the update in the April newsletter based on findings by Pearce-Higgins QC.

Has there been something since then I've missed?

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

BB,

I'm aware of the substantial document 'Uncivil Recovery' published in December 2010, and the update in the April newsletter based on findings by Pearce-Higgins QC.

Has there been something since then I've missed?

Apart from the cases listed on RLP's website, I had an email from Richard Dunstan on 20 February 2012 about three of these cases. Apparently, some defendants were LIP. However, the amounts involved are well below the current £5k threshold and fall under Small Claims procedures, so the judgments are of little effect and are, in all honestly, meaningless.

The MoJ has publicly proclaimed that RLP's claims of fixed amounts have no basis in law whatsoever and the case law they rely on, Aerospace Publishing -v- Thames Water Services, is not relevant.

I can't say I have read Pearce-Higgins' comments. I have read Mawrey's drivel - Richard Dunstan describes him as "RLP's pet barrister" - and it's more or less a verbatim repeat of RLP's usual crap. If you have a downloadable copy of Pearce-Higgins' comments or can provide a link, I'd be grateful.

If RLP's response to past SARs is anything to go by, they usually return the subject's cheque and do not comply, which tells me they know they're treading on dangerous ground legally. I slipped the ICO's new power into the SAR template letters for the OP to send to see how both RLP and Tesco react. It is more likely that Tesco would risk a £500k FPN, but RLP could risk a hefty FPN from the ICO.

[labman]

Re: Caught shoplifting

I have got a link somewhere to Pearce-Higgins' findings. It boils down to the fact that most RLP threats are over petty amounts, and not one has ever gone to court so far.

It takes a few more words to say it, and gives case studies.

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

I have got a link somewhere to Pearce-Higgins' findings. It boils down to the fact that most RLP threats are over petty amounts, and not one has ever gone to court so far.

It takes a few more words to say it, and gives case studies.

By the sound of it, what Pearce-Higgins says is that RLP is treading on dangerous ground legally with their threats. I have a feeling that when the OP submits these SARs, RLP and Tesco will either hang themselves, not comply or return the cheques. I'll go for one of the last two.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

The MoJ has publicly proclaimed that RLP's claims of fixed amounts have no basis in law whatsoever and the case law they rely on, Aerospace Publishing -v- Thames Water Services, is not relevant.


.

This is really usefull do you have the link to this BB

Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

This is really usefull do you have the link to this BB

Peter

I'll take a look through the emails I've had from Richard Dunstan and post it up, Peter. The Aerospace Publishing - v - Thames Water Services' case relates to a case whether significant disruption was caused due to a cock-up by Thames Water. The grounds upon which RLP try to extort money from their victims doesn't fit the circumstances of the Aerospace Publishing case.

[Guest]

Re: Caught shoplifting

I'll take a look through the emails I've had from Richard Dunstan and post it up, Peter. The Aerospace Publishing - v - Thames Water Services' case relates to a case whether significant disruption was caused due to a cock-up by Thames Water. The grounds upon which RLP try to extort money from their victims doesn't fit the circumstances of the Aerospace Publishing case.

HI Yes thanks

I am aware that the law society give this as an opinion, and it really makes sense that any claim must reflect actual liqidated damages, but it would be nice to see the seal of aproval on this and on this particular argument from the MOJ

Yes your right about the case law it is inapropriate .

Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: Caught shoplifting

Okay. I've found relevant docs Richard Dunstan send to me. The Aerospace case centres on there being significant disruption to a business. This clearly doesn't happen in the cases RLP involves itself in. You will also find, from the docs I've posted, that RLP and reality have a somewhat strange relationship.