Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

To cut to the chase (as CC has succinctly pointed out), there is no need to pay this extortion, as this is just speculative invoicing. (Aka, blackmail!)

Refer to the Oxford case. (Approved Judgement attachment, post #7)

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

What you have to remember is that some retailers, like bailiffs, lie to the police. I found that out very quickly when I was a rookie police officer in Central London. If it is RLP claiming you "detagged stock", where is the evidence to corroborate this? Charity has summed up very succinctly the nature of RLP's demands.

The two questions are -

1. Does either RLP or the retailer have a right in law to make the demand?
Not according to the Law Commission and a senior circuit judge who sat in judgement over one of the fatuous claims RLP and one of its retailer "clients" made before Oxford County Court in May 2012.
2. Are the threats RLP make a proper means of enforcing the demand they are making?
If there is no right in law to make the demand, then the threats are improper per se.

Furthermore, additional questions are raised -

a. Can a retailer claim for time expended due to the ill-judged, disproportionate and/or potentially unlawful or illegal actions of their security staff and management?
The answer to this is an emphatic "No". No claimant is entitled to bring a claim against another for losses suffered as a result of their own ill-judged/disproportionate/unlawful/illegal actions. For a claimant to do so is Fraud and, potentially, Perverting the Course of Justice, also.

b. Can a retailer claim someone has committed Theft if they stop an alleged shoplifter before they reach the door?
Although one or two of the more "docile" judges have allowed this, strictly speaking, a customer can walk up to the door and then go to the checkout and pay for goods in their possession. Until they actually walk through the door, Dishonesty, Appropriation and Intent to Permanently Deprive have not been established. The person has to be afforded the opportunity to pay before they walk through the door.

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

A thought, here.

Could the OP counter-claim for the return of the monies already paid?

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

A thought, here.

Could the OP counter-claim for the return of the monies already paid?

If it transpires RLP and their client have no grounds for making a claim, I would say that the OP has a pretty strong case for demanding immediate restitution and, if RLP and the retailer resist, a complaint of Fraud by False Misrepresentation or Blackmail.

As a matter of interest, which retailer is involved in the OP's case?

[wales01man]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

Topboy A person doesn't have to leave the store for it to be theft?so if im pushing my trolley round a supermarket and a securityhjitler thinks im dodgy they can stop me and accuse me of theft then RLP can send me a demand for money?Can anyone verify the first statement

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

Topboy A person doesn't have to leave the store for it to be theft?so if im pushing my trolley round a supermarket and a security jitler thinks im dodgy they can stop me and accuse me of theft then RLP can send me a demand for money?Can anyone verify the first statement

Where the defendant steals in the shop a charge of theft will almost always be the appropriate charge in such cases. It enables the case to be presented in a way that is clear and immediately understandable to magistrates and jurors. It avoids the additional (and unnecessary) legal elements and evidential complications of a burglary charge.
It is unlikely to be necessary and proportionate to prosecute where nothing is stolen, unless the offender is acting in breach of a court order.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_act_offences/

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

I feel that the way in which Topboy describes the act of shoplifting, bears out Wales' argument. It would be tantamount to giving retailers carte blanche to accuse perfectly innocent customers of shoplifting and would set a very dangerous precedent indeed. Corporate paranoia amongst the major retailers is bad enough as it is. Encouraging them to freely decide when someone is guilty of Theft is a recipe for disaster and has resulted in retailers being hit with substantial damages awards and costs orders by the courts, as Tesco discovered, to their cost, when they wrongly accused two female customers of shoplifting. In addition to paying the two women £70,000 damages each, all legal costs, plus court costs for hearings at the Magistrates Court, Crown Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. The final total cost to Tesco, in that particular case, was, allegedly, around the £450,000-£540,000 mark.

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

I feel that the way in which Topboy describes the act of shoplifting, bears out Wales' argument. It would be tantamount to giving retailers carte blanche to accuse perfectly innocent customers of shoplifting and would set a very dangerous precedent indeed. Corporate paranoia amongst the major retailers is bad enough as it is. Encouraging them to freely decide when someone is guilty of Theft is a recipe for disaster and has resulted in retailers being hit with substantial damages awards and costs orders by the courts, as Tesco discovered, to their cost, when they wrongly accused two female customers of shoplifting. In addition to paying the two women £70,000 damages each, all legal costs, plus court costs for hearings at the Magistrates Court, Crown Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. The final total cost to Tesco, in that particular case, was, allegedly, around the £450,000-£540,000 mark.

So the wrongly accused ladies got £70,000, whilst the legal representatives trousered circa £400,000?

I guess every little helps!

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

So the wrongly accused ladies got £70,000, whilst the legal representatives trousered circa £400,000?

I guess every little helps!

£140,000 of the figure was the damages payable to the two women (2 x £70,000). The lawyers pocketed something like £250,000-£300,000 for the higher court hearings. Heaven knows what the solicitors' cut and court costs were.

[wales01man]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

Sorry to say without the barristers and solicitors it would never have got to court the 70k never paid out and tescos would carry on as usual,High fees to legal proffessionals are here to stay if we want justice no way round it

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

Sorry to say without the barristers and solicitors it would never have got to court the 70k never paid out and tescos would carry on as usual,High fees to legal proffessionals are here to stay if we want justice no way round it

Couldn't agree more, wales.
& anyway, if they wanted to make serious dosh, they would have become plumbers instead! :behindsofa:

[TopBoy]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

Topboy A person doesn't have to leave the store for it to be theft?so if im pushing my trolley round a supermarket and a securityhjitler thinks im dodgy they can stop me and accuse me of theft then RLP can send me a demand for money?Can anyone verify the first statement

I'm simply saying that each case has to be judged on its own merit - but a person dies not neccesarily have to leave the store to be guilty of theft. I wouldn't suggest for one moment that staff could detain someone for looking dodgy.

[charitynjw]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

See post #21 for the CPS 'take' on it.

[Guest]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

I think there must be a distinction made between the criminal aspects here and the civil ones.

The criminal aspect is the alleged theft, an offence against the state and was dealt with by the police, the punishment was the admission and apology, if the police decided to prosecute it would have been under the appropriate criminal legislation.

The civil offence cause of action is either, trespass to goods , trover or conversion and is made on behalf of the owner of the goods by RLP.
The remedy for this is in the form of damages. This is what is being pursued by RLP and is untenable IMO as there is no specific loss to the owner.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Retail Loss Prevention - Help!7

So the wrongly accused ladies got £70,000, whilst the legal representatives trousered circa £400,000?

I guess every little brain helps!

IFYPFY. :grin: