Need help understanding RLP

[Guest]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Hi and welcome to LB. With regards to your points.

I do not think that anyone is arguing that there should not be cosequences for criminal acts, that is why we have criminal law you know the sort of thing, "innocent till proven guilty", "given a fair trial", "all extenuating circumstances being taken into consideration" that kind of stuff.
Any of the above apply to your trade? Isnt the truth more like how much can we screw out of this person guilty or not.

Seems to me like the rest of your post just tries to justify this enterprise, in reality though does the maths really indicate what you say, i would dispute that they do.

The security measures are there to prevent criminal acts surely, not to enable private enterprise by some shonky law firm.

Peter

[wales01man]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

The thinking behind RLP may be correct but the common complaint is the way the go about it why not tescos or any other retailer using their own staff not some outside bunch of parasites preying on the vulnerable,whilst i dont condone shoplifting or any theft the circumstances of the offence shouid be reflected in the actions after the fact we all remember a celebrity chef caught after several recoeded offences who appears to have made a career advancement after being caught?
In the case of the girl in this thread being caught and the family shame are likely the best punishment it should be placed on record by the police and if another offence happens court and if proven guilty punishment not the grief from some company paid by results a commonsense approach is needed not threatning letters designed ony to worry people

[messimoo]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

so agree with you mr B another tesco travisty

[CleverClogs]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Having worked in the retail loss prevention industry for some years i feel that my reponse here may not be welcome - but I have worked with RLP since their initial "pilot scheme" in the midlands.

It does seem a pity, then, that you can only advance the usual, tired and unconvincing rationalisations.

The idea behind Civil recovery is for retailer to recover their losses direct from wrongdoers (which i think is right!)

Except that it isn't - it is a way for a money-grubbing company to "make alleged crime pay" for them, but not to provide any meaningful recompense to the shopkeeper or the company that has allegedly been the victim of theft.

What fraction of the monies demanded does RLP pay to the retailer? Is it 40%, or is it less?

Although i do sympathise with a 16 year old being silly/bowing to peer pressure etc,

Why? I don't.
I believe she deserves a thorough spanking.

i also feel that it is important that there are real consequences for their criminal actions, thus ensuring that there is a real "deterrent" against repeat behavior.

The only effective deterrent against any crime is the sure and certain knowledge that the culprit will be apprehended. As usual amongst people of your type, you have confused deterrence with punishment.

What you have failed to comprehend is that, had a decent code of morality been inculcated, no deterrence would be necessary. Most people do not steal from shops, not because of any deterrence but because their own moral code does not permit this.

Now lets face it, without the actions of RLP there have been no real implications here for the offender (and i feel that she has been very lucky not to have been arrested and prosecuted), and a lot of the threads on here make out that there should be no punishment.

Wrong and wrong, respectively. You can have no idea how her family may have reacted to what happened - for example, she may have been "grounded" or suffered some other loss of privileges.

Secondly, whilst most contributors to this thread are opposed to the money-grubbing antics of RLP, they probably do not condone even petty theft; to argue that they do is just botty-water.

Retailers are forced to spend thousands and thousands of pounds annually on CCTV systems, EAS equipment, manned guarding, training etc to prevent theft. This is all money that could be spent employing extra staff to give customers a better shopping experience (Not to mention creating jobs!), and bring prices down.

Such is the traditional rationalisation offered by RLP and its addle-pated supporters. What they take care not to reveal is that at least 50% of the money demanded would be retained by RLP.

I wonder if you would all be so sympathetic and defensive to this offenders RLP bill which will probable be around £250.00 if we had to pay it for her........................ WELL GUESS WHAT - YOU DO!!!!!!! ***the average household annual shopping bill is £120.00 more expensive due to retailers trying to recover lossess caused by shop-theft!

So what? The retailers would have to bear the same costs regardless of the attempted antics of RLP.

What you have done is what RLP glibly does, which is to fail to understand the difference between direct and indirect costs. Theft prevention comes under the heading of 'overheads' or indirect costs just as much as would the purchase of shop window dummies, as the cost does not vary with the number of sales.

The only damages to which a retailer may be entitled are those directly related to the alleged theft. As the security goon(s), shop assistant(s) and manager would have to be paid whether or not anyone attempted to steal from the store, it is neither reasonable nor lawful to claim any part of their wages from the alleged thief. Nor does the case advanced by RLP help their case - Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water - as little or no time by the staff had been diverted from revenue generating activities. The security goons do not generate any revenue (indeed, if they are offensive or truculent to honest customers, they may reduce revenue) and nor does the store manager as his/her role is that of supervision.

Try to look at this from the other side:

I do not need to do that, as my late father was a shop keeper.

Shop-theft has the following effects:
*Reduces pay for retail staff (Even redundancies due to lack of profit!)

Wrong! The pay for retail staff is based on the time worked rather than the profitability of the store.

*Less staff employed to assist YOU and ensure you are served quickily

Wrong! Assuming you meant fewer staff, the number of staff employed does not decrease if the level of theft increases, nor would a decrease in the level of theft result in more staff being employed.

*Higher prices at the checkout for YOU

Wrong! The retailer may choose to absorb the costs of 'shrinkage'.

*Disciplinaries for poor performing managers/staff

Wrong! Unless they had been a party to alleged theft or had failed to prevent theft where such was part of their role, no shop worker could lawfully be punished for the actions of another.

*Lack of availability of stock for YOU

Wrong! Stock levels do not depend upon whether or not those goods are stolen unless one were buying from a receiver of stolen goods.

*Wasting of police time

It would only be a waste of police time if there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

The list goes on and on

I am sure that it would; I am equally sure that none of your rationalisations would withstand scrutiny.

so lets get real here

Please try.

I might appreciate the novelty, even if you do not succeed.

- any deterrent is welcome to me.................................

Including Shariah 'Law'?

or maybe we should get her home to a nice cup of cocoa and a cuddle for the terrible experience she's had at the hands of Tesco!

If she had been unlawfully detained by any staff employed by Tesco, she should (through her parents) seek damages for false imprisonment. If successful, she should get rather more than what RLP is demanding from her.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

just out of interest TopBoy...
what RLP do you work with atm??
And just for the record, I am a mum, i have 3 kids and if any of mine did it, id throttle them! However the reason that most companies install CCTV is due to assaults from members of the public, which leads to sick time, which costs more per annum than £13 worth of smellies in a carrier bag. The highest cause of sickness is through stress, and in customer facing roles (again I have personal experience here) the biggest cause of stress is actual, or threat of, verbal or physical abuse.

The reason that goods are so expensive is due to high diesel prices resulting in haulage companies raising their fees to pay their staff.

RLPs would get more sympathy if they stopped playing the playground bully.

[Guest]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

HI
Just as an aside , i am sure i remember reading in one of the trade journals that theft from supermarkets, comes under the generic term of "shrinkage" and appears as a liability on the accounts as such.
I also remember that on analysis 85-95% of this was caused by the staff "misplacing" or mishandling goods.

Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

HI
Just as an aside , i am sure i remember reading in one of the trade journals that theft from supermarkets, comes under the generic term of "shrinkage" and appears as a liability on the accounts as such.
I also remember that on analysis 85-95% of this was caused by the staff "misplacing" or mishandling goods.

Peter

Exactly, Peter. It should also be noted that 90% of theft by shoplifting from retailers is carried out by organised gangs, 9% is down to what is known as "pilferage" (theft from employer by retail employees) and the remaining 1% by those who do it for "kicks" or as a result of incompetent retail security staff alleging the innocent have shoplifted. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be in RLP's interest to take into account retail security staff incompetence as that would affect their revenue stream. There are ways of hitting back at RLP, particularly in cases where incompetent retail security staff have falsely or wrongly accused the innocent of shoplifting, using the civil law system.

Would I be correct in thinking that one of the points you are making in your post is that retailers can claim "shrinkage" against their tax liability?

[Guest]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Hi
Yes and they do, this is an integral part of their business plan and always has been, Pilfering is a very small proportion of their overall allowance for shrinkage.

Have to be careful here because no one is condoning theft of any kind, but having said that it is unfortunately a fact of life for the retailer and is contained within their balance sheets in exactly the same way as wages, utilities and other running costs.

The idea that costs for handling theft are somehow bolted onto the business model and present an extra cost to the consumer is a false one. So attempting to claim damages is inappropriate, just as , say helping someone to carry their bags would be, in purely financial terms they are both part of the business of the shopkeeper, (what they are paid for).
Any income generated for handling these cases would represent a profit on their books, not recovery of damages.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Ok, here we go,

Having worked in the retail loss prevention industry for some years i feel that my reponse here may not be welcome - but I have worked with RLP since their initial "pilot scheme" in the midlands. The idea behind Civil recovery is for retailer to recover their losses direct from wrongdoers (which i think is right!) Although i do sympathise with a 16 year old being silly/bowing to peer pressure etc, i also feel that it is important that there are real consequences for their criminal actions, thus ensuring that there is a real "deterrent" against repeat behavior. Now lets face it, without the actions of RLP there have been no real implications here for the offender (and i feel that she has been very lucky not to have been arrested and prosecuted), and a lot of the threads on here make out that there should be no punishment.

Retailers are forced to spend thousands and thousands of pounds annually on CCTV systems, EAS equipment, manned guarding, training etc to prevent theft. This is all money that could be spent employing extra staff to give customers a better shopping experience (Not to mention creating jobs!), and bring prices down. I wonder if you would all be so sympathetic and defensive to this offenders RLP bill which will probable be around £250.00 if we had to pay it for her........................ WELL GUESS WHAT - YOU DO!!!!!!! ***the average household annual shopping bill is £120.00 more expensive due to retailers trying to recover lossess caused by shop-theft!

Try to look at this from the other side:

Shop-theft has the following effects:


*Reduces pay for retail staff (Even redundancies due to lack of profit!)
*Less staff employed to assist YOU and ensure you are served quickily
*Higher prices at the checkout for YOU
*Disciplinaries for poor performing managers/staff
*Lack of availability of stock for YOU
*Wasting of police time
.................................................. ...The list goes on and on so lets get real here - any deterrent is welcome to me................................. or maybe we should get her home to a nice cup of cocoa and a cuddle for the terrible experience she's had at the hands of Tesco!

Topboy, you clearly did not read my signiture along with that of Bluebottles. If you had, you would know that bluebottle is a retired police officer, you would also know that am a businessman. What do businessmen do, well usually they trade in something or another, the majority are in retail/wholesale just like i am, which is not much different to having a shop on the highstreet. Do i as a wholesaler that sells goods agree with RLP and the actions of a minority (Yes thats right a Minority) retailers do. No i do not, and the reason is because it doesn't cost the retailer any loss as it is recoverable from tax or insurance.

You try to support RLP and their claims by claiming the amount of money demanded from ALLEGED (Yes Alleged, because they have not been proven guilty) shoplifters is to recover the costs of staff time spent dealing with them. Thats ******** as by law they must pay their staff a wage so those members of staff would have been paid regardless of what duty they were doing at the time. Truth is more money is lost through staff taking time off sick than by any amounts of theft where theft losses are reclaimable.

Yet you do not make any mention of the fact that you have an unlawful database in breach of the Data protection act that contains peoples names referring to them as alleged dishonest persons and supply that data to any firm doing checks on a person, again in breach of the data protection act. All whilst not have a registered data controller for the company responsible, your sister company Cireco Limited. You are therefore committing defamation everytime someone uses that database and sees the inaccurate data. The data protection act is clear that all data must be accurate, so its is your company and sister company that is the biggest offender off them all, and you sir are clearly a hypocrite! Which means you are certainly not the Topdog!


As for your list effects, well anyone with a brain knows that all those are avoidable and largely happen as a result of economic change or poor business management. Theft and loss of stock which can be replaced on a daily basis by the bigger companies, does not play any part in any of the results you listed. Losses from theft are reclaimed from either insurance or tax. You say it results in lower wages for staff, thats ******** almost all retailers pay their front line staff minimum wage as required by law and have done for years, their wage can not be lowered. Higher level staff such as managers can earn £30 - £50,000 a year and executives can earn anything from £100K to millions per year, perhaps if the executives took a pay cut they could then pay their frontline staff more and their would be less redundancies. If they changed their shop targets to more easily obtainable and reflected the economic area of the shop, then less managers and staff would need disciplinaries as their target system would be much fairer and reflective of the economic area the shop is in rather than being geared to what are largely unrealistic targets that actually depend on people coming into the store, something that is out of the control of staff and managers. So how is disciplining them for poor performance when their ability to hit targets is down to getting people into the store fair? It is not at all fair and its the jobs of those that advertise the business to get people into the stores not that of the managers and staff. Higher prices at check out are not in anyway connected to theft losses which as i said are reclaimed anyway, highprices are down to basic economic changes and as your clearly not an economist and fail to understand how things like inflation works and how the price of crops increase and the cost of diesel effects the end prices then all i will say is INFLATION is the cause of higher prices which is caused by higher prices of other materiels used to produce and transport the goods to the point of sale - Ohh and prices have increased inline with the increase of cost to produce and transport goods, funny that considering your saying it increased due to theft! As for wasting police time, sorry but who is it that is wasting police time, unreasonable accusation throwers that have no commonsense, or the alleged yet not guilty theft? If they were guilty then the police will deal with them however they deem apporiate and they do do so. So sorry but those that are only accused of theft or have already been dealt with by the police are not wasting police time, but those calling the police making inaccurate accusations are the ones wasting police time. If it was a woman crying rape when there was no rape, they would be thrown in jail for wasting police time and for making false or unproven accusations against an innocent person.

So you can try justify RLP's actions as much as you want, but you clearly are only saying what your employers have told you and trained you in to thinking/saying. You have been indoctrinated in to thinking what you do is just, by your employers whilst your employers knowingly breach the data protection act and base their demands for money that simply would not stand up in court in the majority of claims your company have dealt with - Yes we have all heard they claim to have won in a number of cases, but as yet no details of the cases have been given by RLP and no details as to whether the claim was defended or not have been given either. Perhaps thats because you they were not defended our because you have not won a single claim in court where it was defended.

[wales01man]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Well said teaboy2 parasites money grabbers are all these firms are i sustevt the owners of these firms are the same people who run the debt collectors who try to use the same tactics to scare if only people faced with threat of action knew how little these clowns can do they would not be in fear of their actions even more interesting would be to know what type of contract they have with the retailers regading cost and action they can pursue I do not condone theft/shoplifting but we have a legal sysem in place to take action if needed but then it seems big retailers have little regard for the lwas unless it suits them

[teaboy2]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

Lol cheers walesman, i actually added more to my post after what i originally posted, just to make it even clearer to him

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

you gotta hand it to him guys, hes got nerve.. no brain maybe but certainly nerve!!

When i worked in face to face customer services, the constant worry was he/she is irate, he/she is gonna clout me. This is the main reason for CCTV. also it lowers insurance premiums a bit...
To justify wrecking someones life with pointless letters and threats with "thats why the prices are so high" SHOE REPAIRERS!

Every industry that deals with consumables be it milk, bread, loo rolls, have accidents/things going off etc. They can claim off of their insurance for it, also the mark up they put on the products to begin with soon cover the things they lose.

I think someone threw dolly out of the pram when they realised that people were begining to say why am i paying so much? i think we all agree, if the OP had got a letter saying goods £13.. fine, £20, the majority would have said.. lesson learned. Theres a fine line between deterrant and money with menaces.. and i think a lot of RLPs are doing a tightrope act.. and a few have fallen off!

[Guest]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

HI

Unfortunately shoplifting is a fact of life, this is nothing new, I was doing accounts for Cooperative stores 20 odd years ago and i can assure anyone who is interested that there has always been an allowance within the budget for this, unfortunate but true.

Insurance companies will inspect stores and sanction them by increasing their premiums if they do not take all necessary steps to mitigate their costs in this area of their business.

The time taken by their staff to call police or process offenders is built into the budget, it is not an extra cost, you cannot claim damages for making a business do what it a normal part of its daily routine.

The argument that these "fines" will somehow remove the obligation for the store to include these costs in there budget is ill founded.
There will always be the case of the mother whose child slips a packet of sweets into her bag or the distracted person who fails to pass an item through the automated payout, it is a cost that is inherent with the way they perform their business.
If they want to profit by a huge turnover of goods, then the methods they have to employ to take payment will be open to error and sometimes abuse, this is a cost of the way they do their business.
If they do not like it then they must go back to the old model of the shopkeeper behind the couter handing goods over to the purchesser.

Peter

[Monzter]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

The police woman said that she was going to take a restorative action - I would have a first warning and that it wouldn't come up on any CBR checks. It would be kept on police file in case I ever get mixed up in anything like this again though.

Hi there,

I'm not very knowledgeable on RLP, but was your first warning an official caution? If it was then it will show up on a CRB 'enhanced' disclosure. You get an enhanced disclosure for working with children and vulnerable adults etc and nothing on your police record is removed or spent as such, due to the nature of the job. I know this because I have a drunken and disorderly caution from when I was 18 (Ooops lol) and this is on my current CRB records. I was also told by the police and even the duty solicitor at the time that it wouldn't 'stop me getting a job or anything'. Which to be fair it hasn't - I have declared it ever since I almost lost a job for not declaring it and then it showed up on my enhanced disclosure.

If it's not an official caution it may not be the same, or it may be removed from your records when you turn 18 - but it's something maybe you should find out about as it may give you a nasty shock a few years down the line as it did with me.

I hope you've managed to get this sorted - nothing like a brush with the law to scare you half to death is there - I remember the feeling well!! Good Luck.

[teaboy2]

Re: Need help understanding RLP

First warning is basically a written/verbal warning its not a caution so will not appear on the CRB checks. It is only kept on the police computer for a limited period i believe.