3rd letter from RLP

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

I'm up for kicking them and my pet scenario of the bully security goon stopping the confused elderly person when the cashier forgot to remove a tag, the door alarm bleeped, and they took the pperson to a room and searched the bag, found the receipt, let them go, then RLP invoice for the time.

I now purposely don't bag anything at Tescda, or Asco, i wheel the trolley out with the shopping as it was as I went around the store, I have the receipt clutched folded in my greasy paw. God help them if they accost me, I will let them spout shout and enquire before I show the receipt, having provided my details. If I keep schtum and they get police, I would show the receipt to the copper and ask WTF these muppets are playing at. What are the odds on getting a RLP invoice for the time wasted?


Kane again post up EXACTLY how you were treated and what level of force was used to get you to the room. You could also point your parents to this thread, as Beagles will help them to understand what chancers and how unethical RLP actually are.

BB if someone is under 18 no matter if they llok older, is it not still a LEGAL requirement that a Responsible Adult MUST be present before a goon or police can question? If so Primark are definitely in the soup and RLP possibly by proxy.

The "Appropriate Adult" requirement was introduced with the enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and is still in effect some 30 years later, in 2014. It is a provision that has proven to be effective in ensuring young people and those suspects or witnesses with special needs are treated properly. It applies to the law enforcement agencies, but any security personnel who are likely to come into contact with persons below the age of 18 years should be subject to an Enhanced Disclosure CRB check. You only need to look on YouTube to see how out-of-control the private security industry has become and how ineffective the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is as a regulator. However, having said this, it isn't the fault of the SIA. It is the fault of politicians and civil serpents who have, I suspect, intentionally under-resourced and neutered the SIA to allow the private security industry to effectively become a privately-run police force accountable to no-one but shareholders.

Turning to who is in the proverbial, Primark are definitely in it as they are responsible for any person working on their premises. If the security goon is employed by another company, that company is liable, too. RLP only enter the equation as a proxy to attempt to extract money, which I suspect the retailers involved know, themselves, they are not legally-entitled to recover. The Oxford Case sent a clear warning shot across the bows of the retail industry, but I suspect the next time such a case goes before the courts, the outcome is likely to be the torpedo that sinks CR and sends it down to Davy Jones' Locker

[bizzybob]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

That is a great big coach and horses through the gate if the security goons who WILL come into contact with children and vulnerable people are NOT compelled to have an enhanced disclosure, whatever civil serpent omitted them from the regulations, needs to be put into a nest of vipers.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Kane again post up EXACTLY how you were treated and what level of force was used to get you to the room. You could also point your parents to this thread, as Beagles will help them to understand what chancers and how unethical RLP actually are.

BB if someone is under 18 no matter if they llok older, is it not still a LEGAL requirement that a Responsible Adult MUST be present before a goon or police can question? If so Primark are definitely in the soup and RLP possibly by proxy.

The "Appropriate Adult" requirement was introduced with the enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and is still in effect some 30 years later, in 2014. It is a provision that has proven to be effective in ensuring young people and those suspects or witnesses with special needs are treated properly. It applies to the law enforcement agencies, but any security personnel who are likely to come into contact with persons below the age of 18 years should be subject to an Enhanced Disclosure CRB check. You only need to look on YouTube to see how out-of-control the private security industry has become and how ineffective the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is as a regulator. However, having said this, it isn't the fault of the SIA. It is the fault of politicians and civil serpents who have, I suspect, intentionally under-resourced and neutered the SIA to allow the private security industry to effectively become a privately-run police force accountable to no-one but shareholders.

Turning to who is in the proverbial, Primark are definitely in it as they are responsible for any person working on their premises. If the security goon is employed by another company, that company is liable, too. RLP only enter the equation as a proxy to attempt to extract money, which I suspect the retailers involved know, themselves, they are not legally-entitled to recover. The Oxford Case sent a clear warning shot across the bows of the retail industry, but I suspect the next time such a case goes before the courts, the outcome is likely to be the torpedo that sinks CR and sends it down to Davy Jones' Locker

That is a great big coach and horses through the gate if the security goons who WILL come into contact with children and vulnerable people are NOT compelled to have an enhanced disclosure, whatever civil serpent omitted them from the regulations, needs to be put into a nest of vipers.

Wrong thread - those comments should be on http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...primark-age-16

[bizzybob]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Thanks CC too many tabs open too little time

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Thanks CC too many tabs open too little time

I was a bit puzzled as to what it was doing on this thread, BB. I posted as a precaution. Thanks for pointing out the cock-up, Cloggy.

[Froot]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Got a letter saying the claim has been settled?

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Got a letter saying the claim has been settled?

How remarkable!

Assuming you've not paid them, does this mean RLP has been booted by Boots?

[Froot]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Not sure lol

[bluebottle]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Ask them to explain what is going on, Froot.

[CleverClogs]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

Got a letter saying the claim has been settled?

Can you scan or photograph the letter?

I'd like to see what they have to say for themselves.

[enquirer]

Re: 3rd letter from RLP

No contact would be a better bet. If they've screwed up, don't tell them. After all, if they send further demands, producing that letter in court would be rather jolly.