Hello, a friend of mine working for superdrug has been accused of theft. As far as my friend is aware they don't have any proof to confirm or deny that they have stolen money as there are not any cctv cameras around. My friend categorically states he did not take any money, but I do semi-question his story. My question is this, what are the chances that superdrug would have got covert cctv installed in the area if they suspectes someone of stealing from them? Is it an easy process for a company to go down?

 

 

 

 

I am not sure why you posted this on this thread, as I have never worked for Superdrug, but ........

 

 

as a general rule: no, police aren't involved in the installation or siting of covert cameras. In fact, they wouldn't even get involved until called usually. They cant get commercially involved anyway, nor can they recommend you use a certain cctv supplier.

Maybe not in the case of a business the size of TK Maxx, but they do in the case of small businesses. It is usually a Crime Prevention Officer (CPO) who will advise.

 

Superdrug certainly used to have their own in house, although very small, loss prevention team, who used to concentrate on staff thieving. If there was cash going missing, then yes, they will of popped a covert camera up to see who was doing it.

 

 

don't forget, even without camera footage, there are ways of telling if someone has taken cash - a sealed float would be made up for the till, double counted by 2 or more people, only one person on that till, and then cash is checked secretly on the persons breaks, or someone is actually stood watching the cashier. People give off alert signals when they are about to doo something uncomfortable or naughty, and we are trained to look for those signals - so the person watching wouldn't even need to be close to the cashier all the time.

 

 

Just because they don't tell you that they have got it on camera, doesn't mean it isn't. At an investigatory interview, telling the accused tht they took a tenner, will only result in them admitting to the tenner. If you tell them they were seen taking cash, but not when, they will admit to all the money they have taken (its a bit more complicated than that, buy you get the impression, like an open question).

I can't believe what I am reading. If I had engaged in tactics like that when a policeman, I would have had my arse kicked round the station yard by the station superintendent. Whilst the retail industry may feel these tactics are acceptable, my gut-feeling is that if the tactics described were put under the spotlight of strict scrutiny and compliance, they would be found wanting.

@@@@

Hi,

I'm currently working as an Associate at TK Maxx, and I'm interested in applying for an LP Officer role. If you could provide me with some advice, I would be very grateful. My main questions are:

• What are the LPO's main duties?
  
• What can an LPO role lead to?
  
• What does the interview involve?
  
• What skills and qualities are required to be successful as an LPO?
  
• Why did you choose Loss Prevention as a career?
  
• What do you like or dislike about working in Loss Prevention?
  

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you

So i've been wondering, what if someone just stole an item from the tk maxx store and ran with it while the alarm goes off, are the LP / security staff supposed to run after him ?

So i've been wondering, what if someone just stole an item from the tk maxx store and ran with it while the alarm goes off, are the LP / security staff supposed to run after him ?

If they do, they so entirely at their own risk.

That's what i thought, it would be really stupid as they wouldn't be legally protected outside the store perimesis ! am i correct ?

That's what i thought, it would be really stupid as they wouldn't be legally protected outside the store perimesis ! am i correct ?

What do you mean "legally protected"?

Their rights in and out of the store are identical (those of citizens).

The only extra rights they have in store is the right to ask you to leave, at which point you become a trespasser.

Spot-on, BazzaS.

To answer your question about legal protection, RayanD, private security do not enjoy the powers, privileges and protections that warranted police officers enjoy as part of their duties and responsibilities of the office of Constable. The alarm you refer to is not as reliable as retailers and the manufacturers would have people believe.

By "legally protected" i meant, If per example they go outside the store and try to arrest someone for suspicion of stealth/shoplifting, and in the end that person turns to be innocent .. what if he files a complaint against the store security or LP ? would they have been still doing their job or would that be pushed too far.

They cant try and arrest anyone. They can just detain them for a set period until police arrive and take over.

By "legally protected" i meant, If per example they go outside the store and try to arrest someone for suspicion of stealth/shoplifting, and in the end that person turns to be innocent .. what if he files a complaint against the store security or LP ? would they have been still doing their job or would that be pushed too far.

Both the retailer and the security company that provided the security goon would be liable. The retailer would be liable because the goon was working on their premises for their benefit and the security company would be liable as it would boil down as to whether the goon had been adequately and properly trained.

Arresting an innocent person is a very serious matter. Accusing them of dishonesty, moreso. Retailers and private security need to bear this in mind.

By "legally protected" i meant, If per example they go outside the store and try to arrest someone for suspicion of stealth/shoplifting, and in the end that person turns to be innocent .. what if he files a complaint against the store security or LP ? would they have been still doing their job or would that be pushed too far.

Any citizen using their (limited) power of arrest has the same rights & RESPONSIBILITIES, be that store staff / non-store-staff, or inside the store or not .

I'm still confused by what "legal protection" you thought / think existed for store staff.

Any citizen using their (limited) power of arrest has the same rights & RESPONSIBILITIES, be that store staff / non-store-staff, or inside the store or not .

 

I'm still confused by what "legal protection" you thought / think existed for store staff.

1st Paragraph - Absolutely spot-on.

2nd Paragraph - You're not alone.

 

Is a wrongfully arrested/detained customer allowed to demand a copy of the CCTV footage? Yes they are. Can the retailer redact faces? No, the retailer cannot do that as it could then be reasonably argued that the retailer had edited it. Any footage that is used for evidential purposes must be raw and unedited footage. This was clearly illustrated in a case I was involved with on another site I post on when it was shown CCTV footage had been edited. The CPS were forced to concede "No Case to Answer" and the alleged complainant is now facing an investigation and possible prosecution for Perverting the Course of Justice, as well as Making A False Report and Wasteful Employment of Police.

 

Sorry for the thread bump but I would love some clarification on the above point.

Surely the retailer or any other registered data handler has a duty not to release the data of other people without their permission. That includes CCTV footage of people in the background of a shop.

If someone wanted to make a claim against the retailer for false arrest

and made a subject access request to get the CCTV of the incident,

wouldn't the retailer be opening themselves up to potential litigation

for releasing the CCTV of people in the background without their permission if their faces were not pixelated?

Can't a copy be given to the person making the CCTV request with the faces of others who have not given their permission pixelated?

And if the case goes to court the original raw footage will be shown only in the courtroom?

Isn't this a legitimate compromise that should protect the data handler from being sued for releasing images of people in the background who have not consented to their images being released to a third party?

Why would you make a claim for false arrest?

Because the false arrest may have cost you money, harm, personal injury, damage to reputation.

There was no false arrest though

There was no false arrest though

That would be for a court to decide.

Sorry for the thread bump but I would love some clarification on the above point. Surely the retailer or any other registered data handler has a duty not to release the data of other people without their permission. That includes CCTV footage of people in the background of a shop.

 

If someone wanted to make a claim against the retailer for false arrest and made a subject access request to get the CCTV of the incident, wouldn't the retailer be opening themselves up to potential litigation for releasing the CCTV of people in the background without their permission if their faces were not pixelated?

 

Can't a copy be given to the person making the CCTV request with the faces of others who have not given their permission pixelated? And if the case goes to court the original raw footage will be shown only in the courtroom? Isn't this a legitimate compromise that should protect the data handler from being sued for releasing images of people in the background who have not consented to their images being released to a third party?

If a retailer is approached by a solicitor acting for a customer who has been wrongfully arrested,

any redaction of faces, etc., would prejudice the retailer's case

as it would suggest the CCTV had been tampered with to save the retailer's skin.

As for being sued by customers for not pixelating their faces,

this would only apply to footage that was made publicly available via media outlets such as YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion or broadcast or press media.

Also, check Section 35, Data Protection Act 1998.

That would be for a court to decide.

actually it would be for the police to charge then the CPS to deem it worthy.

JFI : it isn't "false arrest". It is "unlawful arrest" (or 'wrongful arrest') that is the wrongful act where an arrest is made where it isn't permitted by law.

Similarly, for where the term "false" is used, it is for "false imprisonment", which can occur after an unlawful arrest.....

actually it would be for the police to charge then the CPS to deem it worthy.

Disagree.

An action for the tort of wrongful arrest would be heard in a civil court.

The police and CPS might decide not to proceed for the alleged offence the unlawful arrest was supposedly made for (if one was stated!), but a civil court would be the arbiter of if the actual arrest was unlawful or lawful, if a civil claim for unlawful arrest was made.

Admittedly, if a criminal charge was successfully prosecuted, that would make success in an unlawful arrest tort case unlikely.......

If a retailer is approached by a solicitor acting for a customer who has been wrongfully arrested,

any redaction of faces, etc., would prejudice the retailer's case

as it would suggest the CCTV had been tampered with to save the retailer's skin.

 

 

As for being sued by customers for not pixelating their faces,

this would only apply to footage that was made publicly available via media outlets such as YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion or broadcast or press media.

 

 

Also, check Section 35, Data Protection Act 1998.

OK thanks. Would the approach have to be made by the complainant solicitor or could the complainant demand the raw unedited footage themselves?

I still don't know how a retailer could protect themselves from litigation if the data subject anonymously decided to upload the raw footage to the Internet with other peoples faces unredacted. They released the footage to a third party and may still be liable as the original and only data handler involved in the case.

It's just that I've made CCTV subject access requests in the past (not through a solicitor) with a view to taking legal action and these were the reasons I was given for not being allowed the have original raw footage.

I sought clarification from the ICO and they agreed that the data handler did the correct thing by redacting the faces of people in the background. We're they wrong? Could I have legally demanded the unedited raw footage?

A solution : supply (as a result of a DPA / SA) Request edited footage (3rd party faces pixelated).

Supply for court proceedings, where a court requires unedited footage, the same footage but without the pixelation.

If a 3rd party tries to claim their privacy was infringed : "acting under the court's authority".

OK a scenario that was put to me by a representative of a data handler who did not want to give me Raw unredacted footage.

"We give you raw footage including that of a third party who had not given permission.

We password protect the disc/memory stick/SD card and only you and us know the password. You get home and make a copy of it for safekeeping but you don't password protect your copy. You lose your copy IE: drop it on a bus, get burgled, someone takes remote control of your computer via a virus etc and this unedited footage ends up being being made public.

Suddenly the third party who did not give us permission is being seen by millions of people on the internet because we gave you that raw footage.

You are not a registered data handler you are a member of the public. Therefore you do not have the same liabilities as we do as registered data handler. So if the above scenario were to happen and as a result of your negligence the data was made public we are still more likely to be sued than you because we were the only registered data handler involved. If we receive a request from the court directly to release the raw footage into their care then we will comply but we will not give it directly to you or your legal representative".

Is this nonsense? If so, why?