RLP advice re shoplifting

[Seesaw]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

Thanks, that's exactly it... Fear, ignorance and embarrassment. He has paid his fine from the police and i personally think he has certainly learnt his lesson.

[Guest]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

I still think the best advice is to ignore it.We know form previous cases that when asked for an itemized account they respond with some case stating that it proves that costs can be estimated. It does no such thing of course, but this is what they will say.

Well, nothing is sorted till it's sorted...
Remember, in court, a breakdown would need to be proven to a judge.
One issue is whether shoplifters should collectively pay all the costs of a company's security, or just some portion of it.
Another is about the profits of RLP and the retailer.
And whether state intervention in profit made in these circumstances should be regulated.
After all, no-one profits from parking tickets. Traffic warden just get wages.

My apologies, I maybe should have laid this thread to rest. LOL.

Update:
I have been struggling to survive, with little or no money to live on.
I stole 2 packets of chicken and was caught.
I was arrested and a demand for £80 was made, and I paid.
Then I received a letter threatening me with legal action if I didn't pay another £147.50.
The letter was long and detailed and I thought the matter was already closed.
Furthermore, the costs are not broken down and so I cannot see what they are for.
I have no understanding of court procedures and no possibility of legal help.
This frightens and wearies me, and seems an excessive procedure.
I object on principal to this treatment as a violation of my human right to respect* for my private life and home.
I need to work to survive and move on with my life - not keep paying for a single transgression which is over.
Therefore, RLP, I will not pay your fine as I object to your two-step approach.
The first involving arrest and fine, the second the threat of legal action: this is harassing.

In court: and I ask the court to dismiss this claim as unlawful, to discourage this *disrespectful treatment.

The test for human rights evaluation is proportionality and legitimate aim.
RLP's aim is not clear and they should have clarified it much earlier (£147.50 not explained).
The action of a second threat of state involvement is disproportionate to conversion of 2 packets of chicken.

Remember, the court may just agree with you!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:mad2:

[labman]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

It is highly unlikely to go anywhere near a court. Even if it did, as long as it was defended, they would almost certainly lose.

[Guest]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

It is highly unlikely to go anywhere near a court. Even if it did, as long as it was defended, they would almost certainly lose.

Yes.
CP's just interested in dismantling procedures at the moment, labs.
It won't last

[Seesaw]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

Just a quick update, he has received another 2 letters, the first pretty much repeating the original and this latest one.

So far he has ignored all the letters, but this latest one has him pretty worried and he is saying he just wants to pay it to stop the hassle. However I have tried to tell him to ignore it and carry on. Would it be a good idea to send a letter detailing some of the points made above in hopes that they concede? He is terrified they will take him to court.
Yes he was stupid he knows that, but he has paid his fine this now just seems like harassment.

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

....this now just seems like harassment.

You've hit the nail right on the head, Seesaw, because that is exactly what it is. Harassment. Have RLP or Tesco produced any evidence whatsoever to substantiate their fatuous claims? Very unlikely. Can they substantiate their fatuous claims? Again, very unlikely. Seeing as the Law Commission has gone public and made it clear there is no basis, in law, for such claims, although, RLP and their clients hope you won't know that, and a senior Circuit Judge trashed their arguments at Oxford County Court, in May 2012, striking-out their client's claim and refusing them leave to appeal. RLP will try to convince you that this is of no consequence. It is of consequence to them because it shakes their fatuous arguments and claims to their very foundations.

Should the claims RLP are making on behalf of Tesco be satisfied? Definitely not. Is there any way of abating their bullying and intimidation? Yes there is. Both RLP and Tesco can be legally-restrained. And you don't have to tell them you are going to court to do so.

[CleverClogs]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

Yes he was stupid he knows that, but he has paid his fine this now just seems like harassment.

That's odd.

That's exactly what this is - harassment.

I actually agree with wacky Jackie on one point, though - it would be wise to get proper legal representation. A lawyer from a local law centre (link) would not only be able to point out to RLP that the case would be defended but, following the method used in the Oxford case of requiring strict proof of actual losses, RLP's fatuous claim would fall apart and they would be hit by costs.

Ideally, RLP should be named as being a vexatious litigant but, as they take care not to bring proceedings themselves but let their clients do their dirty work, this would probably be difficult. Another approach would be to go after their card payment processor, but that might only be possible if RLP were convicted of some offence.

Their reference to "employment screening" suggests that they may be operating a database maintained for an improper purpose.

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

It's easier to injunct both RLP and Tesco under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, CC. There is a provision under Section 7 of the Act which means that anyone who "...aids, abets, counsels or procures" another or others to engage in a course of conduct amounting to harassment shall be deemed to be engaged in a course of conduct amounting to harassment themselves.

An ex parte injunction under Section 3 of the Act, encompassing RLP and Tesco and any other third party they tried to engage, would restrain them on pain of a fine, imprisonment or both. If they then tried to have the injunction set aside, they would have to show the conduct that lead to the injunction being granted in the first place was not harassment and that they had a right in law to engage in the course of conduct they were engaged in. IMHO, that is going to be difficult for them to prove as they would have to show their fatuous claims had legal basis and substance. Given the pronouncement of the Law Commission and the Oxford ruling, IMHO, both RLP and Tesco would have a major uphill battle trying to convince a court they had grounds for set aside of an injunction.

I agree with you 100% about the OP seeking legal assistance from their local Law Centre.

[Emmalee84]

Re: RLP advice re shoplifting

My advice on shoplifting from Tesco is threefold:

1. Don't; it's dishonest and you'll regret it someday
2. If you must, don't get caught
3. Have you considered shopping somewhere better, such as Netto or Lidl ?

Why shop at netto and lidls? Do they not press the same charges?