Shoplifting children!

[pashmina]

Hi guys, I'm wondering if you can help me please?
A couple of weeks ago, my daughters aged 16 and 17 were caught shoplifting in Boots. The police were called and all goods recovered (almost £80 between them!!) in tact. Although they were not arrested and charged, this will show up on an enhanced CRB check (I forget what proper name the police officer gave this, juvenile something? )
The girls have written a letter of apology to the store and subsequently have been barred from all Boots stores. This is the only time they have been im trouble and obviously, I have punished them myself too.
The other day, the 16 year old recieved a letter from RLP stating that £188.55 had to be paid to them on behalf of Boots, by her and her co defendant, to cover losses and compensation. I panicked and immediately telephoned RLP and set up an arrangement and made a payment of ten pounds (the girls money, my bank account) After which, I found this website. After reading on here, I do believe that they are asking for an unreasonable amount. The goods were recovered in a condition fit for resale and they instantly admitted liability so there was no fuss or extra staff required to assist.
Am I still able to question the amount or is it too late now or is there still something I can do about it? Thank you in advance for any advice

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hi guys, I'm wondering if you can help me please?

I'd be delighted to help.

A couple of weeks ago, my daughters aged 16 and 17 were caught shoplifting in Boots. The police were called and all goods recovered (almost £80 between them!!) in tact. Although they were not arrested and charged, this will show up on an enhanced CRB check (I forget what proper name the police officer gave this, juvenile something? )

I doubt that it would cause significant problems once they have reached 18.

The girls have written a letter of apology to the store

How very middle class - as if that would make a scrap of difference to a chain store that, through repeated takeovers, has completely lost its founder's ethos.

and subsequently have been barred from all Boots stores.

Ridiculous. The "ban" is unworkable and, besides, it might prevent the subject of the ban any access to prescribed medicine.

This is the only time they have been in trouble and obviously, I have punished them myself too.

Cane or slipper? :grin:

The other day, the 16 year old received a letter from RLP stating that £188.55 had to be paid to them on behalf of Boots, by her and her co defendant,

RLP trily has no sense of shame - they'll cheerfully bully anyone!

to cover losses and compensation.

Phooey!

Boots suffered no losses whatsoever, so no compensation is legally payable.

I panicked and immediately telephoned RLP and set up an arrangement and made a payment of ten pounds

That is a pity. Boots may get as much as £4 of that - they certainly don't deserve it.

I do believe that they are asking for an unreasonable amount.

Yes.

That is what they do.

The model of "civil recovery" that RLP follows was started in the American colonies (where it should have stayed) where punitive damages are commonly awarded by civil courts. In this country, damages generally have to be compensatory - they are meant to reinstate the claimant to their state before the loss occurred. Punitive damages are rarely - if ever - awarded in English courts.

The goods were recovered in a condition fit for resale and they instantly admitted liability so there was no fuss or extra staff required to assist.

Indeed.

There is also the manner of their arrest to consider. It is immediately obvious that the police officers who attended made no attempt to contact you, which is wrong. Nor does there seem to have been any "appropriate adult" present during their questioning, in contravention of section 57 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (link) and this failure alone may be sufficient to cause any record of the incident to be removed - or ordered to be removed - from any police or other official computer records.

Then there is the manner of their search to be considered. Only police officers are permitted by law to search someone or their bags - the security troll or other staff at Boots are not. If the search had been conducted before the arrival of the police, not only was the chain of custody of the evidence broken, it could have been alleged that some (or all) of the items discovered during the search had been planted there by the security troll to excuse an otherwise wrongful arrest.

You did not mention the manner of the girls' arrest - were they "arrested" inside the store, outside but near to the store, or some distance from the store? This is important, as one generally has a right to view items in daylight - and the closer to the store someone is "arrested", the more difficult it would be to prove the intention to steal.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone theft - but nor do I condone or excuse the attempts at unjustified enrichment made by RLP and similar companies.

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Thank you so much for the reply!
The letter was written because the police said that was what they had to do.

When the girls left the store with goods in their shopping bags and down their bra, the alarm sounded so they were called back into the store after stepping out about 5 steps. I believed the security guard called them both back in and told them he needed to check their bag. They reentered the store and obliged and confessed to things in other bags and removed the stuff from the bra!
The police brought the children home and spoke to me then. I had been informed by the children themselves about what had happened (one sent me a text so I called her before the police arrived) Apparently the security guard was aggressive in his manner before the police arrived. Also there was a nail varnish already in the room that they were also accused of taking.
There was no official arrest and the girls didn't get taken to the station.
As for the fine, can you tell me where I go from here with that please? Do I write to them stating I do not agree with the costs and I require proof that these are genine costs incurred? The letter also states that Boots are entitled to this compensation. Is this really the case?
Again, thanks so much for your response. It really means a lot as I have no one else to ask.
P.s As regards to the punishment, I really can't say except no bruises were left lol! ( suspension of allwance for a month and no boyfriend visiting privileges)

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hi Pashmina,

The concealment of items in their bras is, unfortunately, sufficient evidence to give reasonable cause to suspect an offence of Theft had been committed. However, what Boots did after their security staff stopped them cannot be either excused or condoned in any way. If the security goons put their hands into the girls' bags, they have acted unlawfully and contaminated any evidence. Also, they are trespassing. Only warranted police officers have the power of search, conferred by law. Retailers may claim they have a Common Law Power of Search, but I have yet to establish the existence of such a right. The aggressive behaviour towards a detained person is unlawful as any confession made would be inadmissible due to the possibility of it being deemed to have made under duress. The lie that the girls allegedly stole a bottle of nail varnish that was already in the back room more or less destroys the credibility of any case or claim Boots think they have or had.

Due to this lie on the part of Boots' security staff, together with other unlawful behaviour and failures to comply with statutory procedures, the veracity of any statements made by RLP are open to serious question and challenge. I note you have already paid £10 to RLP and my advice is to make no further payments to them until you have been given further and, if necessary, professional advice. I very much doubt you will get the £10 back, but there is nothing to prevent you making it clear to both Boots and RLP that it is an ex gratia payment, made as a gesture of goodwill only.

As for the question about Boots being entitled to compensation, they are not. RLP are being disingenuous to say the least. A case heard at Oxford County Court in May 2012, made it quite clear to RLP they are treading on the legal equivalent of a minefield without any warning signs to say they are on a minefield.

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hi Bluebottle
Thanks for your response. The girls are actually sisters, both my daughters. I know exactly why they did it! They are greedy little *****! It's just been Christmas and they got loads and their allowance was due the following week so they could have waited but they wanted the goods now! I'm glad they got caught and they were crapping themselves when they did! They are incredibly ashamed (as am I) and they promise never to do it again. No peer pressure was involved and they didn't encourage each other apparently. They both decided separately to steal.
The police were really nice with them and me actually so I can't really complain about them.....unless they didn't follow procedure!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

If the security goons put their hands into the girls' bags, they have acted unlawfully and contaminated any evidence.

Whilst if the security troll had delved into either wench's cleavage, that would (almost certainly) be considered an indecent assault.

I believe it may even have been unlawful for the security troll or any other male member (of staff) to be present during such a search.

Also, they are trespassing. Only warranted police officers have the power of search, conferred by law. Retailers may claim they have a Common Law Power of Search, but I have yet to establish the existence of such a right. The aggressive behaviour towards a detained person is unlawful as any confession made would be inadmissible due to the possibility of it being deemed to have made under duress.

Hence the need for an "appropriate adult" to be present during detention and/or questioning.

The lie that the girls allegedly stole a bottle of nail varnish that was already in the back room more or less destroys the credibility of any case or claim Boots think they have or had.

One might wonder how many other suspects had been alleged to have "stolen" that bottle of nail varnish or, indeed, if it was there solely to justify any number of wrongful pseudo-arrests.

As for the question about Boots being entitled to compensation, they are not. RLP are being disingenuous to say the least. A case heard at Oxford County Court in May 2012, made it quite clear to RLP they are treading on the legal equivalent of a minefield without any warning signs to say they are on a minefield.

Approved judgement attached - please read it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hi Bluebottle
Thanks for your response. The girls are actually sisters, both my daughters. I know exactly why they did it! They are greedy little *****! It's just been Christmas and they got loads and their allowance was due the following week so they could have waited but they wanted the goods now! I'm glad they got caught and they were crapping themselves when they did! They are incredibly ashamed (as am I) and they promise never to do it again. No peer pressure was involved and they didn't encourage each other apparently. They both decided separately to steal.
The police were really nice with them and me actually so I can't really complain about them.....unless they didn't follow procedure!

Hi Pashmina,

If this was the first time your daughters had done something like this, it isn't really worth the police going through the paperwork associated with processing a person for Theft unless the items involved are high value or a lot of damage has been caused. The view often taken is that being caught and scared shitless is often more punishment than being taken to the police station, then court. Also, I hope that your daughters will now realise that, unlike the standard teenage view of the police that all police officers were illegitimate at birth, they are just ordinary men and women who wear a black uniform for 10-12 hours a days and do a very dangerous job to ensure we are all kept safe, have families and were teenagers themselves, at one time, and did stupid things, like most teenagers. They are human beings after all, like your daughters.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

The police were really nice with them and me actually so I can't really complain about them.....unless they didn't follow procedure!

They didn't - they seemed to have tried using a bit of common sense.

The requirement that the girls should apologise to Boots plc (to whom in that company?) will have had no effect on that company whatsoever, as was proved by their reporting the matter to the loathsome RLP. It might, however, have helped the girls own up to their misdeeds and thus prevent them from offending again.

I believe that the incident will not have been officially reported - it will probably have been recorded as "no crime".

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

I hope that your daughters will now realise that, unlike the standard teenage view of the police that all police officers were illegitimate at birth, they are just ordinary men and women who wear a black uniform for 10-12 hours a days and do a very dangerous job to ensure we are all kept safe, have families and were teenagers themselves, at one time, and did stupid things, like most teenagers. They are human beings after all, like your daughters.

This applies even to PC Brian Plectrum.

He just kept growing.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Whilst if the security troll had delved into either wench's cleavage, that would (almost certainly) be considered an indecent assault. You are correct in your analysis, Cloggy. If the security trolls are SIA-registered, it would be a case of "JSA, here we come" as well as a possible lifetime ban from a number of employment sectors. Having to sign the Sex Offenders' Register wouldn't do their employment prospects much good either.

I believe it may even have been unlawful for the security troll or any other male member (of staff) to be present during such a search. The search was unlawful from the outset.

Hence the need for an "appropriate adult" to be present during detention and/or questioning. This applies to when they arrive at the police custody suite. Private security and retailers have no right, power or business to question alleged shoplifters or demand their personal details. I would argue that those who engage in CR may well be breaching DPA principles as to disclosure. They cannot use Section 35(2) as an argument for doing so as the Oxford case effectively kicks it into the long grass.

One might wonder how many other suspects had been alleged to have "stolen" that bottle of nail varnish or, indeed, if it was there solely to justify any number of wrongful pseudo-arrests. Strangely, that is what my thoughts are, Cloggy.

Approved judgement attached - please read it. It will open your eyes, Pashmina, and show you just how disingenuous RLP and their clients are. The reality is, civil recovery, as practised by retailers, is not to compensate but to unjustifiably enrich. And the law does not permit unjustifiable enrichment.

@@@@

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

This applies even to PC Brian Plectrum.

He just kept growing.

The file Cloggy has posted, Pashmina, is not as published by Ladybird Books. Far from it. However, I doubt you will be able to read it from cover to cover in less than two hours, if that, because you will be laughing so much. Whoever "edited" it is a comic genius.

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Thanks for all the info, it's really opened my eyes!
One last question if that's ok? Do I inform RLP that I'm not paying and why or shall I just ignore them from now on?
You guys are great! Thank you so much, I'm really grateful.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

As I remarked on another thread, capita eorum sunt plenis stercorum.

(Follow the link for the translation. :nerd

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Thanks for all the info, it's really opened my eyes!
One last question if that's ok? Do I inform RLP that I'm not paying and why or shall I just ignore them from now on?
You guys are great! Thank you so much, I'm really grateful.

I think it would be prudent for you to seek professional legal advice, Pashmina. I have a feeling you will be told what we have told you on this thread. It would help if you could scan and post up what RLP have sent so far. Apart from seeing just how disingenuous they have been on this occasion, it will also be useful in putting together a response which, hopefully, will put RLP and Boots back in their boxes.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hi guys, I'm wondering if you can help me please?
A couple of weeks ago, my daughters aged 16 and 17 were caught shoplifting in Boots. The police were called and all goods recovered (almost £80 between them!!) in tact. Although they were not arrested and charged, this will show up on an enhanced CRB check (I forget what proper name the police officer gave this, juvenile something? )
The girls have written a letter of apology to the store and subsequently have been barred from all Boots stores. This is the only time they have been im trouble and obviously, I have punished them myself too.
The other day, the 16 year old recieved a letter from RLP stating that £188.55 had to be paid to them on behalf of Boots, by her and her co defendant, to cover losses and compensation. I panicked and immediately telephoned RLP and set up an arrangement and made a payment of ten pounds (the girls money, my bank account) After which, I found this website. After reading on here, I do believe that they are asking for an unreasonable amount. The goods were recovered in a condition fit for resale and they instantly admitted liability so there was no fuss or extra staff required to assist.
Am I still able to question the amount or is it too late now or is there still something I can do about it? Thank you in advance for any advice

Juvenille Caution, by any chance? These have to be administered by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector.