Civil Recovery - Why not?

[Bill-K]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Can we not do under the Feedom of Information Act find out from the stores which use RLP what the percentages are of the catorgories that are caught in which they fall - as the stats must have come from somewhere. From my understanding of the FoIA, we cannot do this, as the FoIA applies only to public bodies, such as police, Councils, NHS (?) etc., etc., etc.

Dammit.

....

[Galahad]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

So, going back to the OP, isn't it 'surprising' that the OP hasn't come back to comment?

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

So, going back to the OP, isn't it 'surprising' that the OP hasn't come back to comment?

Maybe he's busy on Wikipedia??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_recovery

And here is the History of that page!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

The final result in the game of 'opinion' tennis:

RLP 0-10 Wiki

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Maybe he's busy on Wikipedia??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_recovery

And here is the History of that page!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

The final result in the game of 'opinion' tennis:

RLP 0-10 Wiki

How very interesting.

If it were possible to demonstrate that certain "contributions" had actually been made by an employee of a certain company, might the CAB use those remarks in the (unlikely?) event that Schillings went ahead with their claim of defamation?

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

What I would like to know is do they catch the organised crime which is accounts for 90% of pilferages or should I say theft, 9% by staff thefts 1% by others including alchoholics, drug addicts, sick people possibly under depression, people under the povery line and youngster doing it for a dare. and then you have poeple accidentially not noticing that they have not paid maybe a distraction, children, mobile phone.... in all general members of the public are picked up as easy targets.

Can we not do under the Feedom of Information Act find out from the stores which use RLP what the percentages are of the catorgories that are caught in which they fall - as the stats must have come from somewhere.

Unfortunately, Tuttsi, corporate bodies are not subject to the FOIA and won't disclose that sort of information as it would blow the gaff on civil recovery and, in all probability, expose them to civil litigation they would, probably, find hard to defend. A lot of those who can be grouped under "Innocent Mistakes" are the victims of -

• Incompetent/Poorly-Trained Retail Security Personnel;
• Retailers operating a policy of setting targets for arrests by Retail Security Personnel;
• Unreliable POS hardware and software (EPOS is notoriously vulnerable to malfunction);
• Checkout operators not removing/de-activating security tags on merchandise;
• Doorway sensors with questionable reliability (These are known to be unreliable despite claims by manufacturers that they are not.);
• Mis-scanning (where a scanning checkout scans the barcode on an item, signals a bleep, but does not log the item).

Those who have mental health issues and intellectual disabilities are also included as it appears retailers and retail security personnel see them as an easy target. As I have said in the past, there are very strict rules governing their detention and interview, laid down by law, which retail security personnel are neither trained in or compliant.

The percentages I have quoted come from crime statistics. I would not rely on any figures put forward by the British Retail Consortium or individual retailers as their reliability and accuracy cannot be guaranteed or verified.

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Just my little bit here.

Regarding the Original post, all i can say is the same can be said of robbing, thefting, rip off retailers, such as the big chains that put up their price just so they can put them back to what they were original and pretend its a special offer. Of use misleading price labels such as Brand jar or source £0.87p per 70ml and Shops Own Brand jar of the same source £0.67p per 60ml, making it difficult to actually find out which is actually the better value and get an accurate comparison notice how its the shops own brands that are always the lowest price.

Perhaps one day the OP will himself be stopped in a shop and accused of theft such putting a news paper in your arm that you had bought at a local newsagents whilst buying a sandwitch from the local supermarket, for lunch. Only to be stopped and accused of not paying for the newspaper, just because some over exicted security gaurd saw you with the newspaper under your arm, and saw you pay for just the sandwitch. Happened to one of my employees the other month, luckily the police believed him due to the supermarket not having CCTV footage of him picking the paper up whilst in there.

Theres a saying that goes "Don't paint people with the same brush" - To do so just shows your own arrogance.

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

I had that happen to me once, TB. The area manager of a certain national retailer rang me up, apologising profusely. If he'd crawled up a certain bodily orifice, he would probably have been able to inspect my appendix. Don't know what happened to the security muppet. Never saw him again.

However, the best one was a security guard who stopped someone inside a shop, tried to search the shopper's pockets and got a smack in the mouth that dropped him to the floor like a sack of potatoes. Although the police attended, they took no action as the security guard was told if they arrested the shopper, they would have to arrest him too as he had broken the law by attempting to search the shopper's pockets. He also had no grounds for stopping him in the first place, so he was risking Unlawful Detention as well. Let's see RLP try and demand fixed sums from people over that sort of behaviour on the part of their clients. Or, better still, why doesn't RLP reveal just how many of their alleged cases are, actually, genuine cases of wrongful acts on the part of shoppers and not unlawful behaviour on the part of their clients and their employees. And remember, Jackie, I am a retired policeman and worked in the retail trade before I joined the police force. So I've seen it and heard it all.

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

APOLOGIES FOR THE TYPO'S ? !!!! Why on God's EARTH should we forgive you for that ? Your shortcomings are of no interest to us. Your conduct here - as evidenced by your abysmal spelling - is deplorable. We have NO interest in whatever puny excuses you may utter. You are nowt but a miserable piece of snivelling illiterate trash, and should be banned from these premises.

Now - Does that sound like a reasonable response to your pleading, TopBoy ?

Well, if we are being frank - that is the response that those whom you appear to defend give, when Mrs J Public asks for some consideration when her 2-year old lifts a packet of Polos. Big money, indeed, innit, ma man ?

Organised crime at its worst. If retail loss is such a BIGGGG problem, then let's see some statistics. Just HOW many packets of Polos are nicked by 2-year old kidz - AS OPPOSED to the number of high-value goods nicked by organised gangs ?

Excellent to see such a proffessional answer - now that i'm at a computer i can respond properly. As stated - the two year old with the polo's does not count here so why we're still banging on about him/her is a mystery to me but these type of incidents seem to be used a lot on here to justify comments.
I would have much more respect for a person who responds to me with courtesy - regardless of weather we agree or not.
I have worked in the loss prevention industry for over 15 years and have worked for a few high street retailers, initially as a uniformed guard, then store detective, store security manager, and now area security manager for a high street retailer. Bluebottle, you are entirely correct in stating that a lot of security staff are pooly trained and over enthusiastic, and yes in some cases this does cause problems. Those proffessionals out there cannot stand to be around that type of idiot as much as the next person. Where i have dealt with incidents of wrongfull arrest i have i have dismissed staff and will continue to do so. I train all security staff personally to a standard much higher than required and all of my staff can recite relevant sections of the theft act/pace act on demand, something which i will periodically spring on them.
In regards to the whole argument of convicting these theives, Bluebottle you have pointed out the costs to the taxpayer - Davey-b do you really think this is a realistic solution to every theft?
I have also seen references to security staff being on "commission" - this is absolute garbage, in 15 years in the industry i have oinly ever heard this said by the "over-enthusiastic, and poorly trained" staff that we are talking about, and in 99% of these cases i have knowledge of their employers/contracts and know this to be false.
Civil recovery has its place in dealing with shoplifters, although i am inclined to agree with the stance that fixed-cost claims are not the correct way of doing things

Finally - please try to remember that it is YOU AND ME that pay an extra £120.00 anually on our shopping bill due to shop theft (info from the british retail consortium) - how about our consumer rights?

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Bill - were you the kid with the polo's by any chance?

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Firstly, there is no way that a fully operational Civil Recovery system would lead to £120 off our annual grocery shop. The retail security system has a deterrent effect as well as to detain shoplifters, so by successfully recovering a fixed sum from each detainee, this would not lead to any savings for consumers. The security system would remain whether every shoplifter was 'fined' or not.

The Oxford court case that was lost by RLP (because it was in truth their 'test case', not the Retailers) demonstrated that Civil Recovery can only be allowed if 'significant disruption/damage' were caused by the shoplifter. In principle, I agree with this, I think it was a very sensible conclusion.

What we do not agree with is fixed sum penalties. I don't believe security guards are on commission either, but RLP does expect EVERY 'detainee' in EVERY incident to receive a RLP letter (from the security team) leading to a fixed sum demand. This practice leads to the harassment and pursuit of innocent people and those who are vulnerable in many ways, because the hardened crooks just ignore such demands or provide false addresses. THAT is not a fair system at all.

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Excellent to see such a proffessional answer - now that i'm at a computer i can respond properly. As stated - the two year old with the polo's does not count here so why we're still banging on about him/her is a mystery to me but these type of incidents seem to be used a lot on here to justify comments.
I would have much more respect for a person who responds to me with courtesy - regardless of weather we agree or not.
I have worked in the loss prevention industry for over 15 years and have worked for a few high street retailers, initially as a uniformed guard, then store detective, store security manager, and now area security manager for a high street retailer. Bluebottle, you are entirely correct in stating that a lot of security staff are pooly trained and over enthusiastic, and yes in some cases this does cause problems. Those proffessionals out there cannot stand to be around that type of idiot as much as the next person. Where i have dealt with incidents of wrongfull arrest i have i have dismissed staff and will continue to do so. I train all security staff personally to a standard much higher than required and all of my staff can recite relevant sections of the theft act/pace act on demand, something which i will periodically spring on them.
In regards to the whole argument of convicting these theives, Bluebottle you have pointed out the costs to the taxpayer - Davey-b do you really think this is a realistic solution to every theft?
I have also seen references to security staff being on "commission" - this is absolute garbage, in 15 years in the industry i have oinly ever heard this said by the "over-enthusiastic, and poorly trained" staff that we are talking about, and in 99% of these cases i have knowledge of their employers/contracts and know this to be false.
Civil recovery has its place in dealing with shoplifters, although i am inclined to agree with the stance that fixed-cost claims are not the correct way of doing things

Finally - please try to remember that it is YOU AND ME that pay an extra £120.00 anually on our shopping bill due to shop theft (info from the british retail consortium) - how about our consumer rights?

You've raised some interesting points. In addition to poorly-trained and overzealous security staff, you also have the problem of EPOS equipment with a penchant for malfunctioning and other security equipment whose reliability is in question. For example, doorway sensors are notoriously unreliable and have been shown to be triggered by a copper control wire in a motorised wheelchair and, in one case, a staple that shop staff had used to reseal packaging.

Dismissing security staff who have fouled-up spectacularly is okay, but it needs to be remembered that if they are SIA-registered, they could go somewhere else and do exactly the same thing or something similar. There is a case for reporting such incidents to the SIA as there is, IMHO, a need to protect the public and retailers, alike, from such individuals.

[enquirer]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

If someone is subject to criminal proceedings and subsequently convicted, it's quite reasonable that the shop then pursues a civil claim for their time and inconvenience.

The problem is that there are no proceedings, and no conviction. Just a wild allegation, followed by a demand for money by some sleazy third party organisation.

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

It's not that simple, Enquirer. The retailer would only be able to claim for any merchandise not recovered or damaged to the extent that it was unsaleable. Other than that, the retailer has already sought tax relief on the costs of security and incorporated the running costs into the cost of merchandise on sale.

I agree that RLP's premises for the making of fixed-sum demands is seriously flawed, as shown by the Oxford CC hearing.

[enquirer]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

It's not that simple, Enquirer. The retailer would only be able to claim for any merchandise not recovered or damaged to the extent that it was unsaleable.

I agree with regard to goods, but surely wasted staff time is a quantifiable loss?

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

The staff get paid whatever, Enquirer. The retailer cannot submit a claim that means they are put in a position where they are better-off financially than they were before. This is the problem with CR. It is not a means of compensation for genuine losses. It is, if you strip it down to the bare bones, a profit-making exercise. As one MP called it, "A £15 million a year racket."