Civil Recovery - Why not?

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Nope

A security guard is paid to be there whether he is monitoring CCTV cameras, walking the floor or detaining people.

This is not a cost that can be recovered from individuals detained for alleged shoplifting.

Only if the shoplifter causes significant disruption such as damaged display cases, ripped uniforms etc can the retailer recover any monies direct.

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

i dont disagree with anything you are saying - a reputable operative would not rely on an eas activation to accuse anyone of theft, i know of several items also that may trigger the system. simularly an item that has been mis-scanned should never result in action from security staff.
With regards to the SIA - I have never heard of them revoking a licence except for where the operative in question has been shown to be deliberately dishonest - with a complaint of this nature the security operative could just use the "reasonable belief" scenario (tripe i know - but will the SIA have the inclination or the authority to follow it up?)
The point i am trying to make is where the person is clearly guilty of theft, the CR proceedure should follow. Maybe operating differently to the "Fixed-costs" scenario, but taking accurate figure of the cost of the offence. The whole argument that "the staff would have been there anyway" should not apply - they could be carrying out other duties, preventiing other thefts, assisting genuine customers etc.

The thing that annoys me is most threads start on here with the words "I got caught shoplifting", but within a few posts we are talking about two year olds with polo's, dementia patients, and trying to convince the op that they have not commited an offence. Over the years i have seen what happens when there are no consequences to these things - people do it again. A common scenario that i used to see when working as a store detective is this:

A shoplifter is detained, the police are called. When attending the police will state thet the offender has no previous conviction and ask how we would like to proceed (more often than not telling us how busy they are and suggesting that we deal with it "In-store"). We process CR, and pass details to both CR co and the local retail crime initiative. At the monthly meeting with the RCI it will be found that this same offender has been reported to them XXX amount of times previously and no action was taken - probably due to a similar scenario as described above. Please do not mis-interperet what i am saying, i have a great deal of respect for the police but feel they are ill-equipped due to under-funding, and dwindling numbers, truth be known - i believe that all offenders should be prosecuted and ALL costs including actual court/police costs passed on as a fine (how many repeat offenders do you think there would be then???)
I know i have gone off the subject slightly here but just wanted to highlight that with no consequences shop-theft would increase.
Bluebottle, we have different views but i'm sure in your experience as a police officer you have seen how petty crimes can escalate if offending is not "nipped iin the bud"

[enquirer]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

The staff get paid whatever ...

Ah, but if say, the staff member is an ordinary shelf filler, they are not engaged on the business for which they were employed. I would submit that the employer has paid them and effectively lost the money. On the other hand, if they are security staff, then that is exactly what they are paid for.

The retailer cannot submit a claim that means they are put in a position where they are better-off financially than they were before.

Agreed, the idea of civil damages is to restore the status quo as far as possible.

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."

Oh yes, it's a racket all right, and one that is at best barely legal.

[enquirer]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

When attending the police will state thet the offender has no previous conviction and ask how we would like to proceed (more often than not telling us how busy they are and suggesting that we deal with it "In-store").

Although some police officers are lazy, the main reason for this widespread reluctance is political interference. Right down to street level, police officers are under pressure from politicians to avoid generating politically awkward statistics.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

i dont disagree with anything you are saying

Yawn...

Could someone send me a PM if/when that twerp posts something of interest?

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

i dont disagree with anything you are saying - a reputable operative would not rely on an eas activation to accuse anyone of theft, i know of several items also that may trigger the system. simularly an item that has been mis-scanned should never result in action from security staff.
With regards to the SIA - I have never heard of them revoking a licence except for where the operative in question has been shown to be deliberately dishonest - with a complaint of this nature the security operative could just use the "reasonable belief" scenario (tripe i know - but will the SIA have the inclination or the authority to follow it up?)
The point i am trying to make is where the person is clearly guilty of theft, the CR proceedure should follow. Maybe operating differently to the "Fixed-costs" scenario, but taking accurate figure of the cost of the offence. The whole argument that "the staff would have been there anyway" should not apply - they could be carrying out other duties, preventiing other thefts, assisting genuine customers etc.

The thing that annoys me is most threads start on here with the words "I got caught shoplifting", but within a few posts we are talking about two year olds with polo's, dementia patients, and trying to convince the op that they have not commited an offence. Over the years i have seen what happens when there are no consequences to these things - people do it again. A common scenario that i used to see when working as a store detective is this:

A shoplifter is detained, the police are called. When attending the police will state thet the offender has no previous conviction and ask how we would like to proceed (more often than not telling us how busy they are and suggesting that we deal with it "In-store"). We process CR, and pass details to both CR co and the local retail crime initiative. At the monthly meeting with the RCI it will be found that this same offender has been reported to them XXX amount of times previously and no action was taken - probably due to a similar scenario as described above. Please do not mis-interperet what i am saying, i have a great deal of respect for the police but feel they are ill-equipped due to under-funding, and dwindling numbers, truth be known - i believe that all offenders should be prosecuted and ALL costs including actual court/police costs passed on as a fine (how many repeat offenders do you think there would be then???)
I know i have gone off the subject slightly here but just wanted to highlight that with no consequences shop-theft would increase.
Bluebottle, we have different views but i'm sure in your experience as a police officer you have seen how petty crimes can escalate if offending is not "nipped iin the bud"

I was a police officer in Central London and we had a number of social housing estates on the division. When I went to another force, we had a lot of HM Armed Forces personnel and their families to deal with, as well as other civilians.

The training police officers have and the standard they are required to meet is high. The questions in the law exams I sat at Hendon Police College, I found out afterwards, were drawn from Bar Exams and marked by barristers.

Having worked in the retail industry before joining the police force, I have seen shoplifting from the retail angle as well as the police angle. There is no more effective deterrent than a human presence. Retailers have cut staff back to the bone and career shoplifters know this. Increase the number of staff on duty and the psychological effect of knowing there is a greater risk of getting caught is a deterrent. For some unknown reason, employers always cut staff before other things to save costs. In a retail environment, this may well prove to be a false economy. For every loss there is a gain and vice versa. Therefore, you lose staff, your shrinkage increases because the risk of getting caught is diminished, but increase staff and the risk of getting caught increases, but shrinkage, consequentially, decreases.

Experience has shown that the retail industry can be its own worst enemy. Some years back, a shoplifter went before a Crown Court judge for an offence involving an article valued at 65 pence. The judge was furious that public finances had been wasted on such a trivial amount and had gone through both Magistrates and Crown Courts. Not surprisingly, the case was thrown out. Also, if the retail industry was allowed to prosecute every case of alleged shoplifting, regardless of value of items allegedly stolen, the Criminal Justice System would become clogged very quickly, as has happened in the past, resulting in cases involving more serious offences having to be abandoned due to statutory time limits on the commencement of proceedings.

I, myself, have found retail staff to be in breach of the law or very near to it in their dealings with alleged shoplifters. Searching bags is one. Stopping people because they "think" a customer has taken something is another. In one case, an alleged shoplifter dropped goods inside the shop. A retail assistant chased the person into the car park, knowing the person had dropped all the goods inside the shop, and tried to wrestle them to the ground. They had to let the person go as they had relinquished control over the goods. Some retail staff, sadly, act in haste and repent at leisure.

As for CR, unfortunately, the actions of CR operators have brought the whole concept into complete and total disrepute. The Oxford CC hearing illustrated this perfectly when the security manager and security guard, when put under pressure whilst under cross-examination, admitted the time they were involved in dealing with the matter and their salary costs had been exaggerated. The whole principle of civil litigation is to put a person back in the same position they were in before a loss or tort occurred. It is not to unjustifiably enrich the claimant or put them in a better position, financially, than they were before, which is how CR is being used.

As for fines and costs in a criminal trial, judges are required, by law, to take into account a defendant's ability to pay when deciding how much to fine them and what costs to award. This is done at the antecedent stage of the hearing when the defendant's income and outgoings are discussed.

What motivates people to steal is very much down to socio-economic factors. Also, if retailers were to consider how their premises are laid out in order to minimise shoplifting by making it easier for staff to spot potential shoplifters and make it more difficult to steal attractive and high-value items, this would help reduce the shrinkage total for individual stores and a chain.

I have often found that almost getting caught is a very effective deterrent as the would-be shoplifter knows the staff will be looking out for that person if they enter the premises again.

[wales01man]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

One of the best posts i have read imy opinion crimes can only be dealt with by the legal system in this country not by threatning bully boy firms sending out letters designed to scare alleged offenders into paying ,A trained police officer and a proper procecution service with experienced magistrates and judges complete with an appeal process should be the only option case are brought to court after being looked at by professionals being paid to do a job not those working for a company whose sole aim is profit ,security staff in most retail outlets probably have very little training in the law and from what i see with many they would only face up to the weak proffessional shoplifters would scare them off a uniform designed to mimic a police officer akes many of them feel they are the law HA HA,
If we move into a system where untrained bullies are our law enforcers we are in trouble the law and criminal justice system may not be perfect but it has evolved over hundreds of years how long have these retail loss companies been around?

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Yawn...

Could someone send me a PM if/when that twerp posts something of interest?

Once again, a completely pointless remark aimed at demeaning someone with a point different to their own. To thise of you that just want to tell each other how amazingly important you are i'm sure there are other forums aimed at people with high ego's. I hear there are also several good 0906 numbers you can call and the girl at the end of the line will tell you how good you are. I am simply giving my opinion which is drawn from experience.

Like i said Bluebottle, i suppose we all have to work alongside idiots - seems you may have more on here than we have on the security side!

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Food for thought:

For those theives that do not fall into the bracket of "not being in the public interest to prosecute" - should there be no consequences at all???

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Well heres a pool for thought for you Topboy. Cireco, RLP's sister company whom RLP gives details of those stopped for shoplifting, where cireco then use said data to share with other companies specifically when those companies are wanting info on prospective employees. Its more commonly known as the dishonest persons lists, that contains details of everyone accused of shoplifting including those that have not been convicted for it. Which as the law is clear in this country that you are innocent till proven guilty in court, means such list held by cireco amounts to not only a total breach of the data protection act 1998 (as they do not have permission of the data subject) but also amounts to libel and or slander when said data is shared by Cireco to 3rd parties.

Not everyone accused of shoplifting is guilty, as i explained regarding what happened to one of my employees when he got accused of stealing a news paper that he had actually purchased from a news agents prior to going to the supermarket to get a sandwitch. Yes they are those that are career shoplifters, but your trying to defend RLP by ignoring the fact that not everyone is a shoplifter and the majority made honest mistakes, had honest slip of the mind, or were totally innocent like my employee was at the time.

P.s. am a wholesaler do i agree with retailers trying to claim costs from shoplifters? No i do not, they have insurance and can claim it back in taxes too. So they are doing nothing but simply attempting to profit from crime, but hey thats the whole reason they are in business for, to make a profit, so why not try to make a profit from crime too!! Thats what your defending.

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Well heres a pool for thought for you Topboy. Cireco, RLP's sister company whom RLP gives details of those stopped for shoplifting, where cireco then use said data to share with other companies specifically when those companies are wanting info on prospective employees. Its more commonly known as the dishonest persons lists, that contains details of everyone accused of shoplifting including those that have not been convicted for it. Which as the law is clear in this country that you are innocent till proven guilty in court, means such list held by cireco amounts to not only a total breach of the data protection act 1998 (as they do not have permission of the data subject) but also amounts to libel and or slander when said data is shared by Cireco to 3rd parties.

Not everyone accused of shoplifting is guilty, as i explained regarding what happened to one of my employees when he got accused of stealing a news paper that he had actually purchased from a news agents prior to going to the supermarket to get a sandwitch. Yes they are those that are career shoplifters, but your trying to defend RLP by ignoring the fact that not everyone is a shoplifter and the majority made honest mistakes, had honest slip of the mind, or were totally innocent like my employee was at the time.

P.s. am a wholesaler do i agree with retailers trying to claim costs from shoplifters? No i do not, they have insurance and can claim it back in taxes too. So they are doing nothing but simply attempting to profit from crime, but hey thats the whole reason they are in business for, to make a profit, so why not try to make a profit from crime too!! Thats what your defending.

Ok, can we please draw a line under the fact that i am referring to actual self-confessed theives here, as stated earlier - you know, the ones who start their thread with "I GOT CAUGHT SHOPLIFTING!", not your friend with the newspaper, not bill with his polo's and not the dementia patient with the wine - i thought i had made this point clear so can we please leave them out of the equasion. I am also not talking about specific companies ie; RLP , cireco etc
I'm not ging to pretend i know of cireco, and if they do as you say they do then i agree with you. I quite simply think that theives should face consequences when they steal. OK maybe the system should be different, but it should certainly be there.

In addition to this - what planet are you living on - "the vast majority made honest mistakes!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry but there is no way you can assume that the VAST MAJORITY of these people made mistakes, quite the contrary - how many times have you accidentally removed goods from a store? I have seen posts on here where the OP has admitted the theft and a few posts downthe line people are making the assumption that there was not theft, the person has done nothing wrong and should take the retailer to court. Some of the posters on here are just too quick to point the finger at any business/authority to even care weather their post makes any sense.

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

TopBoy- I think you need to read the Oxford Judgment. That case dealt with a self admitted shoplifter and you will see how it is not lawful or appropriate to recover such sums from even a confessed shoplifter.

http://legalbeagles.info/civil-recov...s-of-hearings/


Also (ballpark figures) 90% shoplifting is done by 'professional gangs', 8% by staff and 2% by the individuals we mainly concern ourselves with here, elderly, mental health issues, teens etc.

We do not see how civil recovery can even hope to dent or deter the 90% criminal element, therefore civil recovery companies go for the low hanging fruit and persecute the 2%.

[wales01man]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Topboy
the THIEVES you refer to are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where one has a right to a defence legal representation and a fair trial with these recovery firms what of those is in place?
I donot and never will condone crime but draw the line at some profit making company labelling anyone a criminal

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Topboy
the THIEVES you refer to are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where one has a right to a defence legal representation and a fair trial with these recovery firms what of those is in place?
I donot and never will condone crime but draw the line at some profit making company labelling anyone a criminal

Innocent - can i just clarify that we are still referring to the self confessed shoplifters i have specifically aimed my posts at (and for some reason have to keep repeating myself to re-iterate the point), because either you have missed the point i am trying to make or you consider anyone not convicted as innocent!

Definition of thief
noun (plural thieves /θiːvz/)

• a person who steals another person’s property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence:
  
  - From the oxford English dictionary, the uppermost authoroty of the English langage - it seems you may be speaking a different language!
  

[miliitant]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

i refuse to get drawn into this argument but i will make one comment

Habeas corpus

might i suggest you look it up before you continue

in this country we abide by statute law

not law according to RLP