Retail loss prevention

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail loss prevention

If the security goon didn't stop you on a previous occasion and this went before a court, in my opinion, the security goon could end up digging a hole for himself and Boots. Letting someone leave with allegedly stolen goods could raise questions as to the veracity of any allegations and reliability of any statements made.

As I have said previously and others have said subsequently, DO NOT PAY ANY MONEY TO RLP.

[Froot]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Thats what i dont get if he saw me before why didnt he stop me? it defeats the object or being security doesn't it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Thats what i dont get if he saw me before why didnt he stop me? it defeats the object or being security doesn't it.

My view of the security goon's actions in this matter is that he has compromised not only his own claims and statements, but has also compromised his position and that of Boots. The question that is most likely to be asked is, "Why did you allow the defendant to leave with goods you knew they had not paid for and not stop them? Is there any lawful reason or reasonable excuse for your failure to act?"

What lawful reason or reasonable excuse can he have? None that I can see. The worst case scenario that he has left himself open to is Aiding and Abetting Theft. And that effectively destroys the credibility not only of Boots arguments, but it also RLP's attempts to extract money from the OP.

[LT1990]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Hey guys, hope you can help.

Recently I was yapping away on my phone whilst shopping in Tesco, I paid at the self checkouts and went to leave but I had put the lip stick I was holding with my phone back in my bag. Absolute honest mistake, I never actually left the store and was stopped by an entourage of security staff. I found this really funny and didn't take it seriously at the time, was taken to a back room, offered to pay they refused and I gave it back. No police were called and within 5mins the staff were laughing with me as it was clear I was a silly mare. I didn't sign anything nor was a banned from the store. So I was very very surprised to receive a threatening letter from RLP saying I owed £89 for staff expenses! its ridiculous I was literally there for 5minutes and they got their product back annnnd a pretty good laugh and my reaction! they should owe me for comedy gold. I have read plenty of forms saying ignore ignore ignore, however I am really not prepared to be hassled by letters continuously. Is there any sure fire way to stop the letters. Also they haven't even spelt my name right on the letters.

Thanks

[CleverClogs]

Re: Retail loss prevention

I was very very surprised to receive a threatening letter from RLP saying I owed £89 for staff expenses!

Which is typical.

Why did you give the goons your name and address?

it's ridiculous

It certainly is, as no member of staff had been diverted from revenue generating activities which would be the basis of a successful claim. It is my belief that, if the claim was to go to court and if the claim was to be properly defended, Tesco would lose. Note: RLP do not issue any claims - their clients might.

Please see the attached file, which is the approved judgement in one such case; whilst it was only heard at a County Court and hence is not a legal precedent, it is nevertheless persuasive and should be used as a model of how to defend such a fatuous claim.

Is there any sure fire way to stop the letters?

The only proven methods are:

1. to pay the cheeky buggers what they demand
2. to get an injunction against RLP sending letters demanding money

[bizzybob]

Re: Retail loss prevention

If RLP do court, and the goods were recovered and saleable, then the quoted Oxford case would apply and they would likely lose, so I feel they would be highly unlikely to do court, just send an endless stream of toilet paper until they get fad up and move on to another more compliant victim.

[jon1965]

Re: Retail loss prevention

OTR true to form I have had a bust up
There are two theories about how to deal with RLP
1) Ignore them completely (not my favoured tactic as it maybe a sign that you would role over and not defend)
2) Send a letter stating that you deny any liability to them and will not enter into further correspondance .
I am told if you take option 2 they will up the anti for a bit and put you on a guilt trip..one letter said something along the lines " you obviously show no remorse for what you did" and various other bits n bobs.

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Cloggy's suggestion of obtaining an injunction against RLP has merit. However, you would also have to injunct the retailer involved as well. Both would go on the same court form as defendants. I suspect RLP would throw their toys out of the pram, having an injunction served on them and I also suspect a retailer wouldn't be too happy either. However, it would be interesting to see just how many retailers would use RLP's services after it got out a retailer had been served with an injunction as a result of RLP's actions. Trying to get an injunction set aside in such circumstances would, I suspect, be difficult, as both RLP and the retailer would have to prove to the court they had a right in law to make the demand and that a reasonable person would consider their actions to be reasonable or lawful, in the circumstances. That could be an obstacle a retailer and RLP may find difficult to surmount.

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Hey guys, hope you can help.

Recently I was yapping away on my phone whilst shopping in Tesco, I paid at the self checkouts and went to leave but I had put the lip stick I was holding with my phone back in my bag. Absolute honest mistake, I never actually left the store and was stopped by an entourage of security staff. I found this really funny and didn't take it seriously at the time, was taken to a back room, offered to pay they refused and I gave it back. No police were called and within 5mins the staff were laughing with me as it was clear I was a silly mare. I didn't sign anything nor was a banned from the store. So I was very very surprised to receive a threatening letter from RLP saying I owed £89 for staff expenses! its ridiculous I was literally there for 5minutes and they got their product back annnnd a pretty good laugh and my reaction! they should owe me for comedy gold. I have read plenty of forms saying ignore ignore ignore, however I am really not prepared to be hassled by letters continuously. Is there any sure fire way to stop the letters. Also they haven't even spelt my name right on the letters.

Thanks

It sounds like Tesco and RLP need to drop this like the proverbial hot potato, as they stopped you inside the store. Certainly, if RLP or Tesco tried to pursue this through to court, I am of the opinion a judge would be likely to strike out the claim, if the court's legal team didn't reject it before it ever got to that stage. I would certainly take this up with Tesco and ask them what the hell they think they are playing at.

Also, you are under no obligation to go with them to any back room or give them your personal details.

[teaboy2]

Re: Retail loss prevention

In regards to the black list - its worth noting that Cireco (http://www.integrityscreening.co.uk/about.html) is a director of RLP and of RLP other director (Mrs Jacqueline Ann Lambert) and RLP secretary (Miss Rhianna Jade Lambert) are directors at Cireco.

Cireco hold a database of alleged dishonest peoples details i.e. RLP's CMS database of all those caught shoplifting, they then share it with prospective employers whom ask for details about people that have applied for work.

Heres company director page for RLP (cireco is a director) - http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04...s-shareholders
Heres company director page Cireco (see both Mrs and Miss Lambert are directors) - http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05...s-shareholders

I rest my case!! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Given Cireco also get infomation from Credit reference agencies and from electrol role, i would suggest we all send them a SAR as a bet they likely have info on all of us, without, i must add, our permission of consent to have our information let alone share it with third parties.

[bluebottle]

Re: Retail loss prevention

In regards to the black list - its worth noting that Cireco (http://www.integrityscreening.co.uk/about.html) is a director of RLP and of RLP other director (Mrs Jacqueline Ann Lambert) and RLP secretary (Miss Rhianna Jade Lambert) are directors at Cireco.

Cireco hold a database of alleged dishonest peoples details i.e. RLP's CMS database of all those caught shoplifting, they then share it with prospective employers whom ask for details about people that have applied for work.

Heres company director page for RLP (cireco is a director) - http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04...s-shareholders
Heres company director page Cireco (see both Mrs and Miss Lambert are directors) - http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05...s-shareholders

I rest my case!! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Given Cireco also get infomation from Credit reference agencies and from electrol role, i would suggest we all send them a SAR as a bet they likely have info on all of us, without, i must add, our permission of consent to have our information let alone share it with third parties.

Cireco's activities smack of the activities of The Economic League and The Consulting Association. What I think most people would give to see the ICO and police force entry to Cireco's premises and take away their IT hardware and software.

[teaboy2]

Re: Retail loss prevention

Cireco's activities smack of the activities of The Economic League and The Consulting Association. What I think most people would give to see the ICO and police force entry to Cireco's premises and take away their IT hardware and software.

Well i just did a search of the ICO data protection register and Cireco is not registered as a data controller - Unable to see if the directors are. But it should be the company. Retail loss prevention is registered as they share the same address so the post code search brings up Retail Loss prevention, but not cireco. But cireco is not a subsidiary it is a separate legal entity and operating as a separate company. If anything, because Cireco is a director of Retail loss prevention then RLP is the subsidiary and Cireco should be registered as a data controller since its clearly the parent company.

Here is details of RLP data controller registration: http://www.ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=78252

[jon1965]

Re: Retail loss prevention

I am confused. It states on the website that they are a subsidiary of RLP.

How can a company be a company director?

[teaboy2]

Re: Retail loss prevention

If a company owns a stake in another company then they can be a director/shareholder - Because they are a director of RLP, then cireco is not a subsidiary of RLP, but RLP a subsidiary of Cireco as Cireco are the parent company since they own a share as a director of RLP.

[jon1965]

Re: Retail loss prevention

So the website lies then.