Civil Procedure Rules

[Annoying Twit]

In the case of HMV versus Plummer, HMV recovered £1,464. There are lots of cases if you check http://www.proactivestrategies.com.a...%20Reta%85.pdf there are lots of cases. But in all these cases, the people whom "costs" were recovered from actually stole stuff. So as pointed out several times in this thread, these aren't precedents for people who aren't guilty of shoplifting.

[emsgeorge]

Wow, thanks Annoying Twit !. That research paper, although based for New Zeland / Austrailia, had a lot of UK info in it, regarding the cases put to court.

Hopefully the OP will have their answer back from TKM head office, as they should be back fom christmas now !.

[Conniff]

I think this nicely tells them to shove their demand for payment where the sun don't shine:

From the English Bill of Rights:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

[nitecard]

I was thinking, they claim to have cctv of my partner swapping labels and as such demanding money, as this is untrue surely they are demanding monies by fraudulent means and this must be illegal ???

[emsgeorge]

Have they got your partner (either CCTV or witnessed) peeling off labels, pulling at tickets, looking at CCTV cameras etc ?.

As you say it was done in the lift - and having been in tkm, I assume they think its one of those red reduced labels - have they got footage of the ticket having no reduced label before going into lift, and having one on after exiting the lift ?.

Did your partner get bailed, or released NFA.

[nitecard]

My partner was bailed to reappear at the police station on the 21st Dec, (no bail money requested) she went their and went through the video as per previous post.

She has not been bailed again.

There is absolutely no evidence against her, all she did was peel back the label to see what the previous price had been (nothing unreasonable) and I do not think that is on cctv. In fact she told the police that is what she had done - it is not on cctv.

Her solicitor said they had no case and the police officer said that she would be writing to her.

The RLP claim that they have cctv of her swapping labels is a blatant lie!

As we bothe run our own individual businesses I am considering invoicing our time in dealing with their fraudulent claims - better that trying to claim some form of injury through their allegations.

[Conniff]

I am considering invoicing our time in dealing with their fraudulent claims

That would be great - and put one of those minature transmitting camera in as well and then we can all see their faces when they open it.

[PI Guy]

Originally Posted by nitecard

To keep my original post up to date.

My partner went back to the local police station just before Christmas(with solicitor) and was shown the cctv footage of her in the TKM in question, she had to provide a running commentary. As expected the cctv showed absolutely no wrongdoing and they are now trying to imply that she swapped labels when she went into the lift (no cctv in lift). This proves her innocence.

This is good news for you on the criminal charge situation (wherte the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt") but keep in mind that RLP's case is not dependant on that case but rather a civil case where the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities". Good luck with it anyway and if you need the MD's email, I have it.

[counsellor]

hi nitecard

I was wondering if you would let me know your law firm as I have a civil recovery with TK Maxx and need some advice.
thanks

[nitecard]

Hi counsellor

I have sent you a PM.

[Annoying Twit]

Problem with Retail Loss Prevention "Creative Writing"? [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Most retailers require Loss Prevention to possess a number of elements before making a shoplifting apprehension, among them witnessing the subject actually select the merchandise. In many cases we don't see the person early enough to see selection, but have everything else to indicate a shoplift. As a typical example, we don't see the subject select 8 pairs of Levi's Jeans, but see him go to a secluded corner, pull an empty bag out of his coat, bag the pants, and then quickly walk out the door.

In these cases, it is standard for the store detective to write in his report that he actually did witness selection of the merchandise, since without this element charges usually won't be filed and the store will come after him for not following policy.

!!!!!

[PI Guy]

Originally Posted by Annoying Twit

Problem with Retail Loss Prevention "Creative Writing"? [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com



!!!!!

What this describes may happen from time to time but if i ever found out that one of my SD's or SO's did this would find themselves out of a job so fast that their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

[nitecard]

pardon my ignorance of abbreviations - what is a SD and SO??

Normally I can work it out but this time .......

[PI Guy]

Sorry a SD is a Store Detective and a SO is a Security Officer

[emsgeorge]

If I were to be stopping the OP, in their circumstances, then I would need to see:

Selection of the original garment, at full price (either good cctv shot or to witness by eye)

Selection of the reduced price garment, and to be able to see the reduced price on the garment tag.

The OP enter the lift, and exit the lift.

Confirm that the price had been swapped to the other (full price) ticket.

That an attempt to pay for the garment was made.

[fbnts]

Just subscribing

[nitecard]

Good news - the police have just returned all the property they took and there is to be no further action - quote cps "not being realistic prospect of conviction" surprise surprise.

As RLP have put in writing that they have cctv of my partner switching labels (untrue) I am about to invoice RLP for £200 for our time in dealing with their fraudulent claim.

We have heard nothing from RLP since our last reply to them on 7 December.

I'll keep you posted.

[jampot]

Originally Posted by nitecard

Good news - the police have just returned all the property they took and there is to be no further action - quote cps "not being realistic prospect of conviction" surprise surprise.

As RLP have put in writing that they have cctv of my partner switching labels (untrue) I am about to invoice RLP for £200 for our time in dealing with their fraudulent claim.

We have heard nothing from RLP since our last reply to them on 7 December.

I'll keep you posted.

Good luck... I'm all in favour of schemes which offload the cost/burden onto genuine offenders, but systems should be in place to ensure the general public is protected.