Civil Procedure Rules

[GlasweJen]

No, it was only a few days ago, still in the process of talking with the police etc (who can confirm i was in a locked office) before filling in the forms.

[PI Guy]

I would consult a solicitor who knows scottish law and sue for false arrest don't wait for the police. They will certainly settle expect to get about £3000 to £7000 settlement.

[mcjohnson]

The law is quite clear that a person can not be forced to move from the location at which the citizens arrest took place. Of course, most stores will try and coerce you to move as having someone suspected of an offence stood in your doorway until the police arrive could be pretty disruptive. Any attempt to make the individual move against their will could, and should, result in assault / false imprisonment / kidnap crinimal charges.
Any LPA can only claim for their material losses, they can not pass on their operating costs to the individual and this should be borne by the organisation. The operating costs bear no relation to the losses that the organisation have incurred, and can not be billed under this pretence. Essentially what your saying is "we're billing you £150 to be able to bill you £150!!!". Thus, if I stole a pair of shoes worth £30, all you can bill me for is £30.
So I fall on Pat's side of the fence for this one.

[nitecard]

Very interesting what you say mcjohnson.

RLP are claiming the following:

value of goods or cash stolen -
£0.00
Staff & management time investigating/dealing with your wrongful actions -
£82.50
Admin cost resulting from your wrongful actions -
£24.75
Apportioned security & surveillance costs resulting from your wrongful actions -
£30.25

I am thinking of invoicing them for my time in dealing with their unwarranted claims!

[PI Guy]

Originally Posted by mcjohnson

The law is quite clear that a person can not be forced to move from the location at which the citizens arrest took place.

please link to the "LAW" that you refer to.

[emsgeorge]

WHY, oh WHY do people has some sort of misconception that theft isnt comitted until you LEAVE the store. As soon as there has been an oppertunity to pay, and the person fails to do so, then the offence is complete. Please dont put into the minds of peoples heads that if they shoplift, and then get to within 1 metre of the doors, spot security and drop the suff, that they cant be touched - it only makes securitys job harder, and more embarrasing for the shoplifter !!.

With regard to RLP - is everyone sure that they cant charge what they are ?? - some posters on here seem to of conveniently forgotten my reply that stated that UNLIKE the private parking companies, that RLP HAVE TAKEN CASES TO COURT, ARGUED THE TOSS, AND HAVE WON - Tesco V KULAR for a start - where the court agreed that the costs were wholly reasonable.

Im one of the people who thinks the PPC's are barking up the wrtong tree - but RLP seem to have sorted out the legal side of things, and are quite happy to take you to court to justify the costs.

Anyone actually taken them to court - would be interesting to see their defence papers, and see what cases they site ?

[Bookworm]

Yes, but cases like Tesco v Kular are County Court proceedings = no legal precedent has been set. Therefore, each and every case would be judged on its own merit. While it may be the case that a judge will award their recovery costs to the company in cases of proven theft, I would think that:
a) that won't necessarily be the case where the offence hasn't been proven on the balance of probabilities.
b) that it doesn't give RLP blanket permission to charge what they want, when they want, to whoever they want. As I said elsewhere, imagine the racket that would ensue! Check every second person's bag on "suspicion", then charge them hundreds for the privilege!

[MARTIN3030]

I wrote to TKM head office following the series of alleged incidents here,to ask them to explain their policies for these kinds of incidents and also if there are plans to improve their labelling systems.
To date they have not replied but I will let you know the response.I think they should be given the chance to give their side of the arguements,and fully substantiate their actions in the procedures they employ to deal with incidents we have been reading of.

[nitecard]

We are losing sight of my original post - my partner did nothing more than peel back a sticker to reveal the previous price.

Kular was found guilty in a criminal court and then sucessfully sued for civil damages.

My partner is being accused by RLP of a criminal act for which she has NOT been charged.

[Bookworm]

I don't think we are losing sight at all, that is exactly the point I was making.

[MARTIN3030]

Theres been lots of input to your thread from all sides nitecard.The general consensus is that RLP dont have a case from what you have said.Bookies post (61)....clearly answers the question.
If they do take it to court then its up to RLP to substantiate their demands are reasonable.

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

While it may be the case that a judge will award their recovery costs to the company in cases of proven theft, ......

That is the be all and end all words to this whole subject. No one can just send a bill through the post without proof and if they had this then they should also send that proof with the bill.
But they never will have proof unless a court has convicted them as a theft is not a theft until convicted, until then it is only 'alleged'.

[GlasweJen]

EMSG, I can't say I agree with you, in the case you site Tesco is pursuing and not RLP for one thing and where RLP would be allowed to recover what is reasonable in the case of the OP TXMaxx have already got the price of the shoes plus the shoes back, there was no trespass as the OPs partner actually purchased other goods at the store and so had a valid reason to be there and RLP have sent her a fine for an unitemised amount.

[emsgeorge]

And RLP should be able to justify its costs, the costs of TK Maxx, and the costs of the investigation - by providing some evidence.

When an alledged offender gets reported to RLP, a telephone call is made to them to report the case, followed up by a simple 2 page document, which details the offenders 'details'. On the second page, is a small box (about the size of a compliments slip) to write the detils of the incident in.

If RLP need further information, then they usually write to the store concerned (in this case TKM), and ask for either a full statement, cctv and supporting evidence etc.

If they dont return these documents, from what i have seen, then the case is dropped.

One of my original points though, is that peeling back, peeling off, pulling back etc etc a price label is technically Criminal Damage - there is a cost involved with having a member of staff to re price the item. You caused damage to an item that wasn't yours, incurring someone else a cost.

And yes, before anyone points it out - it is petty, but its an offence, to which they might decide to take action on..........

Whether TK / RLP go down this line is another thing!.

[Bookworm]

it is petty, but its an offence

Says who? Last I checked, this can only be decided by a court of law.

Until they have been condemned, it is an alleged offence, and I don't believe that RLP or anyone can impose their costs on an alleged offender.

IF RLP think they have a case, and IF RLP decide to take it to court, and IF the courts agree that the person committed an offence, then yes, they can go and recover their costs. Before that, no, I don't think so, and I think any attempt to do so should be met with a firm "sod off, see you in court".

[emsgeorge]

Of course Bookworm - you are right, and I forgot to pu