Shoplifting children!

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Thank you so much for your time bluebottle and clever cloggs!
Here's the letter.

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

And part 2

[bizzybob]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Bear in mind that as the girls are under 18, they cannot be sued by RLP or Boots for their money oops exploratory invoice, as you have paid a tenner they may come after you as Parent. As they did not follow correct procedure Boots are potentially up Sh1t Creek with the paddle eaten by rats, Boots will have set RLP on them not the police, but you have had excellent advice from Cloggy and Bluebottle. I would be inclined to ignore them unless they start bombarding you with more threatOgrams. You could tell them tat as there was no actual loss, and security were merely doing their job as per their contract, there is no ground to demand squat as the Oxford Case, linked by Cloggy applies here. RLP are so afraid of the Oxford case they tried to take down blogs and sites highlighting the kicking they had in court in that case.

[Inca]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hiya..as your daughters did this on a whim,don't be too harsh on them,they got caught,noone died,,it's a typical teenage thing to do...hit them where it hurts (mobile phone usage is my personal favourite,my S/D did something and lost use of her iphone for a week,,,it was purgatory for her.and she tried to make it hell for us,but I can shout louder and longer than she can,,and I wasn't budging.

[bizzybob]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Hiya..as your daughters did this on a whim,don't be too harsh on them,they got caught,noone died,,it's a typical teenage thing to do...hit them where it hurts (mobile phone usage is my personal favourite,my S/D did something and lost use of her iphone for a week,,,it was purgatory for her.and she tried to make it hell for us,but I can shout louder and longer than she can,,and I wasn't budging.

Very true Inca. Can we take it you have just had a happy event? If so many congratulations.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Don't they ever learn? It's the sort of bulls**t they spout in their letter that lead to their client in the Oxford Case having their claim struck-out and being refused leave to appeal.

They have claimed your daughters were trespassers. Unless they can show your daughters had no right to enter Boots in the first place, they are going to have problems convincing a judge on that point.

The claims about their client incurring expense and why is totally disingenuous and I would go as far as to say it is coming perilously close to misrepresentation of facts. Their client tried this during the Oxford Case and the judge - a senior Circuit Judge - would have none of it.

The claims they make about the law shows an alarming lack of knowledge and understanding of the law. Private security are not permitted to interview members of the public they have apprehended due to PACE and Criminal Justice legislation governing the admissibility of evidence and conditions that must be complied with. The other matters that destroy or, at the very least, seriously compromise the veracity and credibility of Boots case is the actions of the security goons in searching bags, their aggressive behaviour and lying about the bottle of nail varnish.

The law, quite simply, does not allow a person or company to claim for alleged expenses they claim another person was responsible for which the law says they cannot claim and, certainly, not for expense incurred as a result of their own or their employees, servants or agents' wrongful, unlawful or illegal actions or ineptitude or incompetence.

Let other Beagles look in and comment.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Needless to say, the letter is somewhat disingenuous.

Yes, Boots would be entitled to receive compensatory damages to restore the company to how it was before any losses occurred but, as the losses that did occur are trivial even if they could be established at all, their claim is fanciful and fatuous.

To quote from RLP's letter, part of which seems to have been cut and pasted from other letters with no concern about whether it made sense:

Collectively a substantial amount of time was taken in vigilantly observing all actions and apprehending, detaining and interviewing everyone in relation to the incident. Thereafter Boots had to follow all recording, reporting and back office procedures in relation to and the other individual(s) actions and the goods involved.

As usual, RLP claims that the security staff were somehow diverted from the role for which Boots pays them but, unless that role is merely to look decorative or provide eye candy for sexually frustrated till attendants, their proper role is to deter or to apprehend suspected thieves. Hence, they were not diverted from any revenue generating or revenue protection role and that part of the claim must fail.

(Indeed, if the role of the security goon was to deter theft, that could have been better achieved by leaning over the girls as they were "dipping", telling them that their antics had been observed and telling them to put the stuff back.)

Then they claim that the administrative, management and shop floor staff were diverted from their proper tasks; if that were true (which one might reasonably doubt) there is no way that the time taken could account for even half of the sum demanded. Please read the Approved Judgement in the Oxford case, where this matter was dealt with in far greater depth.

Unusually for RLP, they have not directly referred to the equipment and measures Boots has to employ to prevent theft but, as that would regrettably be needed if one such incident or one hundred such incidents happened per week, the cost of such precautions can form no part of a genuine claim for compensatory damages from two children.

RLP is quite accurate when they state that, provided they do not seek to "recover" in excess of the losses sustained (as a direct result of the incident) such losses are recoverable in law. Their difficulty arose in the Oxford case when it was established that any losses actually suffered as a direct result of the incident were slight, trivial or non-existent, and far, far less than the sum claimed.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Very true Inca. Can we take it you have just had a happy event?

No, she's only got married.

Two people who were living together had a ceremony, held a party, went on a holiday and then resumed living together.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

In fact, in the Oxford Case, the two retail security staff committed the cardinal sin of telling porkies under oath, something that could have earned them up to six months in prison each had the judge been so inclined to come down hard on them. RLP claimed that the security staff were not used to giving evidence in court. Try not clever enough to lie under oath without getting caught out. Whoever was responsible for telling them to do that had a very lucky escape as that would amount to Perverting the Course of Justice had the judge found out who and referred the matter to the DPP.

[bizzybob]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Needless to say, the letter is somewhat disingenuous.

RLP is quite accurate when they state that, provided they do not seek to "recover" in excess of the losses sustained (as a direct result of the incident) such losses are recoverable in law. Their difficulty arose in the Oxford case when it was established that any losses actually suffered as a direct result of the incident were slight, trivial or non-existent, and far, far less than the sum claimed.

However they cannot demand nor pursue two minors in the County Court, the treatment at the hands of the Boots goons also leaves Boots open to a complaint to police regarding the unlawful search without an appropriate adult present, and some more streetwise offenders would have claimed sexual assault, whatever their age ib the same circumstances. As it is the goons should be aware the police may come feeling their collars if your daughters wish to complain about them. Either way there was no doubt that ANY touching or grabbing during the detention IS assault as they are children.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Unlike MuckDonalds, only 4000 members of staff at Boots UK Ltd are on "zero hours" contracts. (link)

[MissFM]

Re: Shoplifting children!

....... ANY touching or grabbing during the detention IS assault as they are children.

Actually bb.. surely it wouldn't be OK to "touch and grab" for adults, either?

[bizzybob]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Actually bb.. surely it wouldn't be OK to "touch and grab" for adults, either?

No it wouldn't but mishandling of children and vulnerable adults would be regarded as more serious, and the goon could end up being compared with Ken Barlow or Len Fairclough, or rather the actors who played them.

[bluebottle]

Re: Shoplifting children!

However they cannot demand nor pursue two minors in the County Court, the treatment at the hands of the Boots goons also leaves Boots open to a complaint to police regarding the unlawful search without an appropriate adult present, and some more streetwise offenders would have claimed sexual assault, whatever their age ib the same circumstances. As it is the goons should be aware the police may come feeling their collars if your daughters wish to complain about them. Either way there was no doubt that ANY touching or grabbing during the detention IS assault as they are children.

The behaviour of Boots' security goons has seriously compromised any case Boots' senior management may think they have. The search they conducted was unlawful from the outset. Private security have no right or power of search in such circumstances.

[pashmina]

Re: Shoplifting children!

Thank you so much to everyone that has responded! I read the Oxford case and it was incredibly helpful!
After talking some more with the girls, I found that the security guard didn't touch the children but he did remove their bags with contents in from the room. He ridiculed the girls and laughed in their faces! He also threatened to take the youngests phone off her when she triedcto text me after he refused to allow her to phone me. He also questioned them and took their names and addresses before the police arrived. As this has never happened before, the girls weren't aware of their rights and as because they were scared of tge security guard they spilled!
I don't really want to persue a case against Boots and their security team. All I want is this unreasonable fine to be dropped. I am prepared to go down that route if need be though as I believe I have enough evidence to prove this.
My thinking now is to write to Boots as this is who I have the issue with. I plan to tell them I am disputing the fine as it is unreasonable as firstly I believe that this will enrich them rather than compensate them due to there being no losses. Secondly, isn't the punishment supposed to fit the crime. The girls were stealing through greed, is that not what Boots are trying to do using RPL? And thirdly the tactics and methods of the store detective are somewhat questionable.
If anyone thinks I should add anything else or deal with it some other way, I would be really grateful for your input.
Thanks again guys!
Ps-Inca, don't worry I haven't been too hard on them, just suspended their allowance and spent all day trying to get their fine quashed!