Thread: Former TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager - available for questions !

Your missing the point big time, there are lots of examples where customers have goods on them and the customer has come up with a rational explanation, but the security guard or whoever have applied the one fits all policy, because there not paid to think, the policy does the thinking for them.

Originally Posted by maxxer

Certainly there ARE guards who have no idea of any of their 'powers', responsibilities, or laws.

Perhaps what you see, rebel, as guards doing 'black and white', is, in fact, the guard saying 'you know what, I'm not judge or jury, I'm letting the police decide'.

One of the rules in tk's (as I've said before) is that if they don't admit their guilt, the police are called. - and that's a truthful admission, not a 'I want to get out of here, so I will say anything'. In fact, nobody knows what the 'referral criteria' is when they are stopped, so there's no reason to lie to us, is there. If people come on here and say 'I got let go, no police called', then, at the very least, they've admitted their guilt, on camera, and recorded on mic.

Something which nobody in their right mind would do if they are innocent.

Rebel, I do understand what you are saying.

However, things aren't always as 'policy led' as you would like to think. As I've said before, there's lots of 'signs' that people give out, that makes you think its not a genuine mistake. Its those cases, where the customer says 'I didn't mean to', we think differently. Some will try to 'pull the wool over our eyes'.

Besides, as I keep saying, we aren't judge and jury. Nor could you say we are totally impartial, by the nature of who employs us.

The police listen to both sides of the story, then make a decision. A lot of the time, they will view the footage. There and then, before deciding.

In one move, you say that security are overzealous, yet you don't seem to like the idea of calling the police, to let them make an impartial decision.

I've been in situations where people have protested their innocence, police called - only to admit it in interview.

There's a fair number of people who, even though its all on camera, deny any wrongdoing, even down to denying picking up the item that's now in their bag, removing the security tag and price ticket etc. We go on the evidence as it presents itself - if there's no dishonesty displayed, then they would be stopped outside, their mistake shown to them, and that's it (either item taken off them, or walked back to the store and item paid for)


How possibly would you like security to deal with people they suspect of theft then ?.

Originally Posted by maxxer

Besides, as I keep saying, we aren't judge and jury. Nor could you say we are totally impartial, by the nature of who employs us.

The police listen to both sides of the story, then make a decision. A lot of the time, they will view the footage. There and then, before deciding.

In one move, you say that security are overzealous, yet you don't seem to like the idea of calling the police, to let them make an impartial decision.

Very welcome and reasonable words.

Originally Posted by maxxer

Rebel, I do understand what you are saying.

How possibly would you like security to deal with people they suspect of theft then ?.

I am surprised a prolific poster like Rebel has not replied to this question?

I'm not prolific, but I know how I'd like them to deal with it.

Simply put, I'd like them to be legally required to call the Police every time, no exceptions. I accept there are some good security guards out there, but the bad ones are really bad. That type might be less inclined to get involved in some of the more disturbing allegations that we see cropping up. I can't help noticing that whenever disabled people are being forced to get out of their wheelchairs because a shop assistant forgot to remove a tag, or mentally unwell, elderly people are being detained in small rooms without access to their medication, nobody ever mentions the Police being present or even called.

I'd like to ask the OP whether he has ever known of any cases, in his personal experience, going to court when an alleged shoplifter has refused to pay the civil recovery demands? What does the shop do when RLP or whoever they use, tell them that their letters have all been ignored?

Nope, not in my time with the business.

When we first did civil recovery, all we did was phone them up, give information over the phone as to who they were, what they did, addresses, date of birth etc. We had to send off a form with the info on too, which was carbonated, and which RLP supplied to us.

Before I left, tail end of last year, RLP asked about 20 mins of questions - did you see them select it, conceal it, remove tags / packaging etc.

We never provided statements to them (mg11's), nor ever had to go to court for any civil cases.

Originally Posted by Holly117

I'd like to ask the OP whether he has ever known of any cases, in his personal experience, going to court when an alleged shoplifter has refused to pay the civil recovery demands? What does the shop do when RLP or whoever they use, tell them that their letters have all been ignored?

Thanks for that. Do you think if RLP had come back to the shop to report a lack of acknowledgement from the alleged wrongdoer, and recommended court action, the shop would do it? I should be grateful if you would read through my thread and tell me what you think about my situation if you have the time.

Hi, I think your information about going to court is out of date. I've also received court papers about a shoplifting in TK Maxx and the amount they are now claiming is the original £137.50 plus £80 court fees and £35 solicitor fees, so the bill is now £252.50. I looked on RLP's website and they show the cases they have taken to court recently. I don't know what to do now because one person has to pay £1900.00. I wish i'd paid the £137.50 now. I don't know what to do either

Originally Posted by ebone

I looked on RLP's website and they show the cases they have taken to court recently. I don't know what to do now because one person has to pay £1900.00. I wish i'd paid the £137.50 now.

No, no, no. Read it again, and look for cases which resemble your own. They have mixed in a few cases of serious breach-of-trust fraud, but that has nothing to do with RLP claims for alleged shoptheft. They do not list any case which they have won in court against a defendant who denied liability. The whole thing is an exercise in bluff. Have you received a summons from a Court, or just some sort of threat about it? Look carefully, upload if you want comment (remove your details first).

Originally Posted by ebone

Hi, I think your information about going to court is out of date. I've also received court papers about a shoplifting in TK Maxx and the amount they are now claiming is the original £137.50 plus £80 court fees and £35 solicitor fees, so the bill is now £252.50. I looked on RLP's website and they show the cases they have taken to court recently. I don't know what to do now because one person has to pay £1900.00. I wish i'd paid the £137.50 now. I don't know what to do either

HHmm..You posted the exact same post on another thread.

Hi, I'd like to ask MAXXER if there was any practice regarding people that have been banned from entering TK Maxx? Do they use a special software to track back banned people entering TK Maxx again or is just up to the security memory? How would they treat it in case someone banned is entering the shop again? .... and do they circulate information/pictures of banned people between stores? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Surrender

Hi, I'd like to ask MAXXER if there was any practice regarding people that have been banned from entering TK Maxx? Do they use a special software to track back banned people entering TK Maxx again or is just up to the security memory? How would they treat it in case someone banned is entering the shop again? .... and do they circulate information/pictures of banned people between stores? Thanks.

Yes..everyone who has been banned from TK Maxx has a chip 'inserted' in them

Originally Posted by andydd

Yes..everyone who has been banned from TK Maxx has a chip 'inserted' in them

Not quite.

There's no photo sharing between stores, unless you happen to be a national target for either bulk thefts, or refunds.

If you are banned, don't go in a store. We used to loudly ask people to leave if they came in again.

If you don't leave, in theory, you can be ejected. In reality, unless there's 2 or more lpi's, they won't go hands on.

We used to take a photo of each banned person, and attach it to their banning notice (photo taken from the cctv system and printed out).

Edit to add: a lot of the stores are on a 'shopwatch' type scheme, where they are all linked by radio. They also photo share, and we used to input our photos onto the system, as did all the other retaillers. The shopwatch co-ordinator decided which photos to put on the sheets, as many people get caught in other stores as well.

There's also the people who claim its a mistake, and then when we checked the photos, it would appear they made the same mistake in several other shops . . . . . .

It's a RLP leaflet stuck to their forehead, lol

Originally Posted by andydd

Yes..everyone who has been banned from TK Maxx has a chip 'inserted' in them

Originally Posted by maxxer

Edit to add: a lot of the stores are on a 'shopwatch' type scheme, where they are all linked by radio.

Pretty effective system, when well-used. I monitored one for a few days (with consent and an issued handset, for professional reasons). The community tracking of professional thieves & junkies in the town centre was GPS-accurate, so shop staff could be waiting by each door to refuse them entry as they walked down the precinct. Some outlying retailers complained that it just drove all the crime out to the fringes, and there did seem to be some evidence of that.

To add to this thread (as its info related):

We used to have targets as a store, for th number of shoplifters we needed to arrest, the total value recovered, the number of fraudsters / refunders (and a value), and the number of da's (dishonest associates/staff).

Non compliance with the stores targets would mean a bad review the next year. (Would loose you points)

Training:

The company provided no physical intervention training at all throughout my time. There we no couses on arrest and restraint, or safe restraint / breakaway techniques. Quite surprising considering the numbers of death's caused / as a result of security / police interaction these days.

We also had no further law training, apart from our first training, when we first joined. The socpa changes still haven't (up until tail end of last year) been told to staff, and so its likely that every single arrest made by tk security has been unlawful, since the socpa legislation took over. (I'm not a legal eagle, so someone help me here !)

Head office is very good at putting policies out, but useless at actually training the lads and ladies to be the best. There are some lpi's that, although good people, I wouldn't want in court next to me. They simply don't know the law behind why they do their job, and wouldn't fair well under cross examination.

We used to ask on a regular basis for training in restraint, self defence, supply of stab vests in rough areas, and some sort of 'newsletter' or similar to update us on new law, cases etc. None of it ever happened.

Originally Posted by maxxer

The company provided no physical intervention training at all throughout my time. There we no couses on arrest and restraint, or safe restraint / breakaway techniques. Quite surprising considering the numbers of death's caused / as a result of security / police interaction these days.

We also had no further law training, apart from our first training, when we first joined. The socpa changes still haven't (up until tail end of last year) been told to staff, and so its likely that every single arrest made by tk security has been unlawful, since the socpa legislation took over. (I'm not a legal eagle, so someone help me here !)

That's really poor. And the predictable result is that some strong, aggressive guards exceed their authority and infringe people's civil liberties, and other more cautious guards don't feel sure of how and when it's safe to challenge someone. An unsatisfactory situation for all concerned.
It's also common to find that the security staff are employed through a contractor or subsidiary company, so the High Street brand name can distance itself when something goes wrong and the writs start flying.

Originally Posted by Anus Horribilis

That's really poor. And the predictable result is that some strong, aggressive guards exceed their authority and infringe people's civil liberties, and other more cautious guards don't feel sure of how and when it's safe to challenge someone. An unsatisfactory situation for all concerned.
It's also common to find that the security staff are employed through a contractor or subsidiary company, so the High Street brand name can distance itself when something goes wrong and the writs start flying.

Fully agree. I worked in the retail trade before I joined the police force. You do need to physically witness a theft taking place. All too often, poorly-trained, ill-disciplined and, in some cases, inept and incompetent retail security staff cock-up spectacularly and land the retailer with a writ for wrongful arrest, unlawful detention, assault, battery and other civil torts and criminal acts. In my experience, if the evidence isn't blindingly obvious and the retail security operative has stopped someone because they "think" the person's been shoplifting, the OP is correct that detentions by retail security may not only be unlawful, but illegal also.