It certainly makes interesting reading to see all the people on here,

ex police officers and such,

going out of their way to offer advice to thieves on how to avoid incurring these 'civil recovery' costs.

I would personally doubt the legitimacy that a lot of these people have done the jobs they say they have.

Shoplifting causes billions of pounds of loss year in, year out.

How many decent people do you suppose have lost their jobs due to cutbacks as a knock on effect.

Decent people who want to work and pay tax, provide for their families in the proper way by going out to work and not playing the benefits system.

Are we doing them people a service by essentially offering legal loopholes for shoplifters to avoid punishment?

If someone is detained wrongfully I agree whoever is responsible should be dealt with in a severe disciplinary scenario.

But this is an example of the society we live in where there are threads telling people how to avoid shoplifting penalties......

.........If I started a thread stating

'I've been caught shoplifting, can someone help me I've had a letter saying I owe money'

I'd fully deserve to be told its entirely my own fault and I have no right to expect sympathy.

That I chose to act dishonestly, with a lack of integrity,

and that people like me cause honest hardworking people their jobs through my greed and immoral compass.

What kind of a world are we living in where we offer support to assist shoplifters to continue behaving as they do knowing there are ways out of everything.

Why not some proper life advice, have some self respect, some human decency and don't steal from shops!!

It certainly makes interesting reading to see all the people on here, ex police officers and such, going out of their way to offer advice to thieves on how to avoid incurring these 'civil recovery' costs. I would personally doubt the legitimacy that a lot of these people have done the jobs they say they have. Shoplifting causes billions of pounds of loss year in, year out. How many decent people do you suppose have lost their jobs due to cutbacks as a knock on effect. Decent people who want to work and pay tax, provide for their families in the proper way by going out to work and not playing the benefits system. Are we doing them people a service by essentially offering legal loopholes for shoplifters to avoid punishment? If someone is detained wrongfully I agree whoever is responsible should be dealt with in a severe disciplinary scenario. But this is an example of the society we live in where there are threads telling people how to avoid shoplifting penalties...............If I started a thread stating 'I've been caught shoplifting, can someone help me I've had a letter saying I owe money' I'd fully deserve to be told its entirely my own fault and I have no right to expect sympathy. That I chose to act dishonestly, with a lack of integrity, and that people like me cause honest hardworking people their jobs through my greed and immoral compass.

 

What kind of a world are we living in where we offer support to assist shoplifters to continue behaving as they do knowing there are ways out of everything.

 

Why not some proper life advice, have some self respect, some human decency and don't steal from shops!!

FIRST off.

Penalties can only be awarded by a COURT. RLP have no more right to threaten a member of the public with fines and money demands than you or me.

Second

There is a criminal system of law that operates in this country. Noone condones lawbreaking here IF a crime happened (And in many of these cases they didnit) then there is a nationally recognised process to deal with it. Condoning vigalante actions outside the process is just as immoral! ESP considering RLP has no oversight and uses complete rubbish to bully people into paying speculative invoices.

NOW

If someone came here and said I stole XX and have been arrested and being taken to court then their help would prob be along the lines of explaining the process.

Now im reporting this thread as this is a discussion tagged onto someones else s problem

Post's moved to new thread.

It certainly makes interesting reading to see all the people on here, ex police officers and such, going out of their way to offer advice to thieves on how to avoid incurring these 'civil recovery' costs. I would personally doubt the legitimacy that a lot of these people have done the jobs they say they have.

Got any hard evidence to back up your statements?

Shoplifting causes billions of pounds of loss year in, year out.

And how much is the long-suffering consumer ripped-off to the tune of by the retail industry every year, eh? Which industry has been caused cheating the consumer out of millions of pounds? Oh. It's the retail industry - and they got caught by statutory regulators and got fined for doing it.

How many decent people do you suppose have lost their jobs due to cutbacks as a knock on effect. Decent people who want to work and pay tax, provide for their families in the proper way by going out to work and not playing the benefits system.

Where are you drawing this dross from, the IDS Bumper Book of Fairy Stories? What you've written is political rhetoric.

Are we doing them people a service by essentially offering legal loopholes for shoplifters to avoid punishment?

The courts are the authority appointed by Parliament for punishing offenders, not the retail industry behaving as if it has the legal authority to operate an alternative justice system, which it has not.

If someone is detained wrongfully I agree whoever is responsible should be dealt with in a severe disciplinary scenario.

I have yet to see any retail security staff subjected to "severe disciplinary action" by employers for wrongful arrest, unlawful detention and imprisonment. What I have seen is retailers doing their utmost to bully those they have wrongfully arrested and accused of shoplifting into submission.

But this is an example of the society we live in where there are threads telling people how to avoid shoplifting penalties...............If I started a thread stating 'I've been caught shoplifting, can someone help me I've had a letter saying I owe money' I'd fully deserve to be told its entirely my own fault and I have no right to expect sympathy. That I chose to act dishonestly, with a lack of integrity, and that people like me cause honest hardworking people their jobs through my greed and immoral compass.

The reason the retail industry's access to the criminal courts is restricted is due to them clogging the criminal justice system with cases involving goods of nominal value. In one case, a Circuit Judge at a Crown Court threw out a case of an alleged shoplifter who had allegedly "stolen" an item which had a total value of £0.65. Yes. £0.65. It costs a minimum of £2,000 of taxpayer's money to take a case through a magistrates court. And that is for a straightforward "Guilty" plea. Is it right the retail industry, which is a consortium of corporate bodies, should be subsidised by the taxpayer? No. It is not right.

What kind of a world are we living in where we offer support to assist shoplifters to continue behaving as they do knowing there are ways out of everything.

90% of shoplifting is carried out by organised gangs, 9% by retail employees and the remaining 1% by, mainly, drug addicts. We offer support to people who have been targeted by incompetent retail security.

Why not some proper life advice, have some self respect, some human decency and don't steal from shops!!

Why not suggest to the retail industry it stops ripping off the consumer?

When you have quite finished speaking out of the lower end of your alimentary canal, you might wish to read and inwardly digest the bold red text.

The retail industry also do not help themselves. Having worked in the industry before for 12 years at various sites some of the blame comes back to the company.

EG

In a store with a large shoplifitng problem from under 18's, putting a prmotional end opposite the front door that contains losts of bottles of wine of Alchaol and then wondering why the stock is going out the door without being paid for.

I worked in the retail industry before I joined the police, SabreSheep, and what you say is absolutely spot-on. The retail industry is its own worst enemy. Even when you point out the industry's shortcomings, the response of its senior management appears to be along the lines of "Stick Fingers In Ears and Sing 'La La La We're Not Listening'".

I suppose we'd all have a bit more 'understanding' with what RLP 'do'

if we were confident the money 'actually went back to the 'wronged' retailer'.

the fact is it doesn't.

just lines the pockets of people to fund pumping out more of these bogus claims...

bit like DCA's really....

dx

So am I correct in thinking this is a forum designed solely to assist the financial well-being of people who have been caught shoplifting? Or actually, is it not encouraging people to do so, knowing they can pop on forums like this having been caught and learn how to wave all punishment? Civil recovery, whilst admittedly is run like a cash cow, is in my experience of having worked in retail a great deterrent to a lot of your 'average' offenders to prevent them from re-offending. By that I mean people who have jobs, who aren't desperate and have offended needlessly. These people beg to avoid police involvement, and are only too happy to pay civil recovery as they understand they don't deserve to get away with it scott free, but don't want a criminal record.

A lot of police officers were in my experience delighted with use of civil recovery, as it meant more cases were dealt with 'in house' and kept crime figures down.

Is it permitted to submit a counter argument to the general opinion??

Old Bill, to reply in brief.

Firstly, the 'long suffering consumer' in the context of this conversation is the one that chooses not to pay, therefore any martyrdom in this instance is grossly misplaced.

Secondly, I do not have a degree in advanced mathematics, yet the impact of billions of pounds of shrink on the profitability of a business, caused by shop theft, I believe speaks for itself. What does a business do when profitability is compromised? Make cutbacks! You've mentioned parliament, so look up government statistics on national shoplifting figures.

Thirdly, what the retailer has the legal right to do. Well once SCONE has been established on cctv, they have the right to detain an offender, forcefully if that offender refuses to return to the store. If they are assaulted by an offender, they have the right to defend themselves. Once detained, if the offender is a minor, parents or police must attend to deal with. Police should also always be called in the case of a vulnerable person. However for the vast majority, having detained over 1000 shoplifters in my previous years, it was always my choice to involve the police or not, my choice to ban the offender or not, (if I believed it was a genuine mistake, and you know with experience, I would not) and my choice via the company to serve civil recovery or not. If a person had no id, was violent or uncooperative I involved police.

Fourthly, I agree fully that people who prosecute for petty offences such as 0.65p are lacking in common sense.

I am appealing for a bit of common sense. I never once wrongfully detained anybody, and I would be prepared to bet that considerably less than 1% of people are innocent after being detained, particularly if all elements of proof have been captured.

In the main the police force I dealt with were great. Most officers would go on standby for me outside the store, and wait for an offender to leave to make the stop. This is unequivocally the correct way to deal with offenders, to determine is simply to postpone. Generally speaking they would then ask me what I wanted doing, and I would normally say whatever is easiest for them. You would get the odd awkward officer that loves the RJ system and believes an apology is sufficient, but thankfully that level of incompetence was very few and far-between. There is also the officers that feel they have the right to withhold an offenders details believing security/loss prevention have no right to this information. Wrong again! Rlp simply provided us with a letter quoting the data protection act, which in the past I have hand delivered to an inspector to obtain details, following a sergeant deciding to back his officer. The details and an apology were swiftly forthcoming.

So in short, the police like to also make their own rules from time to time. Nobody is perfect, certainly not rlp, and there are security out there who do behave in a deplorable way. However in the case of personal debt, I appreciate people warrant all the advice. But in the instance of avoiding civil punishment for shoplifting, I feel this is sending out the wrong message. Rlp are also quick to state it is civil action, not a penalty fine.

So am I correct in thinking this is a forum designed solely to assist the financial well-being of people who have been caught shoplifting?

 

Your words, not ours. We do not condone shop shoplifiting in any form, but we also don't accept sending out speculative invoices on numerous occasions to alleged shoplifiters who haven't been found guilty by the courts.

Or actually, is it not encouraging people to do so, knowing they can pop on forums like this having been caught and learn how to wave all punishment?

 

Your words, not ours. Have you read the CAB reports on civil recovery, it might be an idea. We're not saying 'shoplifters' shouldn't be punished, but that's why the courts exist. Suprisingly, 'shoplifters' have rights, a right to a 'fair' justice system.

Civil recovery, whilst admittedly is run like a cash cow, is in my experience of having worked in retail a great deterrent to a lot of your 'average' offenders to prevent them from re-offending.

 

There you have it, 'run like a cash cow', unfair, unjust. As to whether 'it's a deterrent', unless you have access to a lot of data for the whole of the UK, you can't make such a statement.

 

 

By that I mean people who have jobs, who aren't desperate and have offended needlessly. These people beg to avoid police involvement, and are only too happy to pay civil recovery as they understand they don't deserve to get away with it scott free, but don't want a criminal record.

 

Again sending out speculative invoices regardless of background is unfair, unjust. Unless you know everything that goes on in peoples lives, their background, their health etc I wouldn't go judging people. Anybody who has paid civil recovery's speculative invoice has done so not understanding fully. They have done so by being threatened and bullied.

A lot of police officers were in my experience delighted with use of civil recovery, as it meant more cases were dealt with 'in house' and kept crime figures down.

 

Well, it doesn't represent what's actually happening then does it. When they cut 1,000 police jobs because of the false figures, they will be the first to moan.

 

Is it permitted to submit a counter argument to the general opinion??

We appreciate sensible posts.

Hi rebel, thanks for the reply.

In response:

Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime?

Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases?

I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make

Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point.

Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery?

I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life.

Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it?

I have gone to court personally with no cctv evidence, relying entirely on what I saw against the word of the offender. Her solicitor tried to make the case that her client had come in the store with the stolen items and that they were her property. I had no evidence to counter this other than my witness statement and recollection, yet despite this I won the case purely as my expertise in this one area of the law was sufficient to see my case defeat the lies concocted by the defence.

So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice?

I had data for the whole of the UK for my company, which has nearly 400 stores across the UK.

You are completely correct also that police are the first to complain when there are cuts. But believe me there are police officers posting on here who would be quick to complain if we involved them for every single shoplifting incident, yet also complain by us taking civil action.

Shall we welcome offenders in with open arms? Some police love you to deter, which incidentally is loved equally by the offenders themselves as they dodge a bullet. Police know they will only go round the corner and rob someone else, but that is fine as they won't have to deal with it.

I remember a police officer ranting at me for allowing them to steal it on camera, and not going out and deterring them as she doesn't want us to create crime, (or more accurately, compromise their performance figures). Yet when she saw I dealt with 85% in house, it was amazing to see how she suddenly completely accepted the way I did my job.

The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.

I am what they call "Old School". Apart from a group of decent, honest police officers in individual police forces - the Tories got rid of the older more experienced officers through redundancy which raises questions as to why - the ones you have masquerading as serving police officers aren't fit to hold a British Rail Travel Warrant, let alone a warrant of the Office of Constable. Police officers who pander to the wishes of corporate entities are not acting in accordance with the law and, certainly, it raises questions as to whether this brings them into conflict with Police Conduct Regulations. Certainly, the oath of attestation every Constable swears does not include any declaration that they will protect the interests of corporate and commercial entities above those and/or in place of those of individual persons.

Once again, you have made arguments which make out the retail industry to be the victim. I feel myself and others who have worked in the retail industry have highlighted the reality and that is that the retail industry is its own worst enemy. 90% of all retail theft is carried out by organised criminal gangs. You also conveniently neglect to mention the poor reliability record of security equipment and the shortcomings and inherent failures of EPOS. Retail staff I have spoken to and who work for major retailers freely admit that EPOS has a high failure rate, especially the software used to operate it. Mis-scans are all too frequent. (A mis-scan is where the operator/customer passes an item in front of the laser scanner, the EPOS unit beeps to confirm it has scanned the item, but it does not register the item on the tally. I have had this happen to me and only discovered a mis-scan had taken place when I got outside the store. And that was after going through a manned checkout during a busy period. I went back inside and pointed this out to them and they then admitted that such incidents were not infrequent.).

You criticise Restorative Justice. RJ is there to allow commonsense to prevail and prevent instances of retailers clogging up the criminal courts with petty cases, often to the detriment of victims of more serious crimes. Alleging a police officer is incompetent because they use RJ and not what the retailer wants is an insult to the good, honest and decent police officers who use commonsense and shows contempt for the law by the retail industry.

The officer who refused to provide you with the details of alleged offenders was acting correctly and lawfully. The inspector who overruled them needs to go back to the training school or be investigated. Retailers are not entitled to be provided with the details of alleged offenders until after case has been disposed of by the CPS and the courts. The reasons for this are manyfold, but the main one is to ensure compliance with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Right to A Fair Hearing and Presumption of Innocence Until Guilt is Proven Before a Court of Law) which the police, CPS and courts are required to comply with, they being public authorities within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act.

The Civil Recovery industry's modus operandi is legally-questionable. However, there is legislation on the way that will make it very difficult for the Civil Recovery industry to operate, thanks to the indefensible and unacceptable actions of operators within the Civil Recovery industry. The Civil Recovery industry has brought this upon itself and I have no doubt there will be an almighty howl of protest from the retail industry.

Civil Recovery, in the UK, has been very one-sided and if there had been a compulsory levy on retailers to finance a statutory fund to compensate those whose have been wrongfully/falsely accused of retail theft to balance it out, then your arguments might have more credibility.

However, now the legislation is on its way, will there be a thread entitled "RIP - RLP"?

My turn!

If you have read any of my posts, you will see that I have never condoned shoplifting not have any other member of the site team as that is completely wrong. This is an anonymous forum and as such we have to assume that the facts we are told are true and deal with them accordingly.

Could you tell us how many people you have apprehended had mental health issues?

could you tell us how many people you have apprehended are subject to emotional or physical abuse?

You will be surprised at how many we see here who have shoplifted and cannot explain the reason why. You will also notice where people have come here basically bragging about what they have done get very little (if any) assistance and they soon disappear.

The bigger problem is RLP and the stores who employ them. If a company OR RLP claim the actual costs involved rather than the spurious claims they make then we would support them more.. As was made plainly clear in the Oxford Judgement, the claims made could not be substantiated although RLP claim that a later case was won on exactly the same grounds. Unfortunately, we have no proof of this as there has been no documented record of this case.

The problem with claiming the actual costs (if any) is that RLP would close down within days. Profiteering on the backs of shoplifters (some of whom are vulnerable) is plainly wrong and I have no problem whatsoever assisting those that need help.

If the stores felt what they were doing was right, why have there been no court cases since July 2012? They know the Oxford case would be very persuasive in a respondents defence.

We then have the issue with the security guards. Aside from the facts that some do not know how to do their jobs properly and feel they have more power than they actually have, Their wages are already paid for so how can the stores, via RLP, demand as part of the settlement, a proportion of the costs already borne by the retailer.

I know you will disagree with me and that is fine. All I suggest is that you read as many threads where RLP have tried it on and suddenly disappeared.

 

Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime? Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases? I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make

Firstly, it is a basic tenet of English law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is why a conviction is necessary, following a trial, and why there is no place for an alternative 'justice' system. Your views also show why security guards are no substitute for properly trained police officers.

Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point. Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery? I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life.

You appear to be condoning blackmail.

Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it? I have gone to court personally with no cctv evidence, relying entirely on what I saw against the word of the offender. Her solicitor tried to make the case that her client had come in the store with the stolen items and that they were her property. I had no evidence to counter this other than my witness statement and recollection, yet despite this I won the case purely as my expertise in this one area of the law was sufficient to see my case defeat the lies concocted by the defence.

A good example of how, and why, the criminal justice system operates.

So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice?

Better a guilty person is acquitted in court than an innocent person harassed and bullied by the likes of RLP.

The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.

That is a matter for the retail industry to take up with government. If the setting up of pseudo justice systems was applied to other areas, it would be called vigilantism, and just as inappropriate as it is in retail.

I do not agree that civil recovery is a deterrent; in most cases, getting caught is the deterrent. Civil recovery does not address organised gangs of shoplifters or career criminals who are responsible for the vast majority of retail thefts.

In many of the cases we hear about the accused person is vulnerable by way of age or mental health, but that is not taken into account by either shop security or the civil recovery operator. It is, though, by the criminal justice system - another reason why civil recovery is inappropriate.

Let me ask you a question: If what you say correct, why did the Law Commission say that civil recovery claims have no real basis in law, and that the civil recovery industry uses 'aggressive and misleading tactics'?

Your posts show why the civil recovery system is flawed and why the criminal justice system is the proper, and only, authority for dealing with theft. You do not understand fundamental aspects of the law, you are convinced that you never make mistakes, and you think that civil recovery operators can issue fines. Perhaps more worryingly, you come across as a big-timing security guard who revels in the faux authority that you imagine the ability to 'fine' people gives you.

I do not condone theft, and I think thieves should be dealt with - but by the appropriate authorities, not bullies who appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, and whilst I agree with some of the points raised, I disagree on anything relating to RLP.

You have made many assumptions about this forum, which are completely your own opinion. However, the majority of people posting here in relation to RLP are your typical opportunist theif, probably with no previous criminal convictions, and people who have never been in trouble with the police before. These people are generally the ones who make a stupid decision to take something that they can't afford or do not want to pay for.

We live in a country which everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's for the CPS to meet the standard of evidence required to provide a successful prosecution. Most first time offenders, should the amount stolen be of a lower amount, will receive a fixed penalty notice, and will be banned from the retailer. For most people, this is enough for them to never do the same thing again and they learn their lesson, pay the fine, the cost to the tax payer is absolutely minuscule.

It would be for the retailer to pursue the individual in the county court should they wish to recover damages. Now then, if no damages have occurred, then why should a moronic firm such as RLP be entitled to any money? The offender has already been dealt with through the courts.

The Oxford case in 2012 showed the RLP do not have any basis in law to make these silly charges. RLP is nothing more than a money making scheme and it's got nothing to do with justice or punishment, but simply to make as much profit as possible.

I refer you to this little gem. The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading regulations amendments 2014 which cover the the use of civil recovery.

s16 is very relevant

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/343753/bis-14-1430-misleading-and-aggressive-selling-rights-consumer-protection-amendment-regulations-2014-guidance.pdf

Also this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423208-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-new-Low&p=4523005&viewfull=1#post4523005

And this is from a 'reputable' company who are acting as the agents of the stores who are liable for their agents actions.

It would be for the retailer to pursue the individual in the county court should they wish to recover damages. Now then, if no damages have occurred, then why should a moronic firm such as RLP be entitled to any money? The offender has already been dealt with through the courts.

 

A good point. Interestingly, Prof Josh Bamfield, the man who originally introduced civil recovery to the UK, saw it as something to be applied after a thief had been properly convicted in a court of law.

I refer you to this little gem. The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading regulations amendments 2014 which cover the the use of civil recovery.

 

s16 is very relevant

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/343753/bis-14-1430-misleading-and-aggressive-selling-rights-consumer-protection-amendment-regulations-2014-guidance.pdf

 

Also this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423208-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-new-Low&p=4523005&viewfull=1#post4523005

 

And this is from a 'reputable' company who are acting as the agents of the stores who are liable for their agents actions.

Thank you for posting up the piece of legislation I alluded to but could not remember in an earlier post, Silver Fox. Retailers seem to think using the likes of RLP to demand money from people won't result in them being held to account. Unfortunately, they will be held to account whatever, no matter how much they protest it was RLP. Harassment by Proxy is an offence by Section 7, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Responses in 'blue'.

Hi rebel, thanks for the reply.

 

In response:

 

Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime?

 

I'm not saying that, because that doesn't happen at the moment, The police can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for £80.

Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases?

 

The courts stated that is not fair or acceptable, the retailer lost.

I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make

 

That 99% is not possible, not even in the 400 stores in the company you work for, I very much doubt you or your company carried out a poll / survey at the time of the incident. If your going to make such statements please back up with how you arrived with the 99%.

 

Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point.

 

Shoplifters don't want a 'fair justice system', laughable.

Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery?

 

That would depend on the job they did in the company? Social Responsibility the company feels for it's employees. You some how think it is automatic, it just isn't. I would go as far as to say it is very rare.

Again, how many retailers have taken shoplifters through the court system? Not many.

 

I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life.

 

I bet they'd give you a glowing reference. Laughable. CAG can advise on speculative invoices. Again, how many retailers have taken shoplifters through the court system? Not many.

 

Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it?

 

The retailer should pursue a case through the courts if they believe they have a case.

 

I have gone to court personally with no cctv evidence, relying entirely on what I saw against the word of the offender. Her solicitor tried to make the case that her client had come in the store with the stolen items and that they were her property. I had no evidence to counter this other than my witness statement and recollection, yet despite this I won the case purely as my expertise in this one area of the law was sufficient to see my case defeat the lies concocted by the defence.

 

Did the cctv evidence show that indeed the goods were purchased elsewhere and weren't stolen? Wasn't the CCTV working? Civil Recovery mute the cost of Surveillance camera's, not working not good.

So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice?

 

The justice system is very flawed, we see a lot of strange judgements, that's why judgements can be appealed if they fit certain 'criteria'.

We have no way of know what happened in the case you quote, besides it is very strange the retailers has no CCTV footage.

 

I had data for the whole of the UK for my company, which has nearly 400 stores across the UK.

 

That is meaningless because there are thousands of retailers out there.

 

You are completely correct also that police are the first to complain when there are cuts. But believe me there are police officers posting on here who would be quick to complain if we involved them for every single shoplifting incident, yet also complain by us taking civil action.

They haven't got a choice, they have a job to do, on the whole they do a good job. They have various tools they can use.

Shall we welcome offenders in with open arms? Some police love you to deter, which incidentally is loved equally by the offenders themselves as they dodge a bullet. Police know they will only go round the corner and rob someone else, but that is fine as they won't have to deal with it.

 

I remember a police officer ranting at me for allowing them to steal it on camera, and not going out and deterring them as she doesn't want us to create crime, (or more accurately, compromise their performance figures). Yet when she saw I dealt with 85% in house, it was amazing to see how she suddenly completely accepted the way I did my job.

 

If you can prevent crime that is what you should do, that is common sense. Maybe that is why the police get upset, 'prevention' is a key word in police speak. Then you have employees in stores playing 'cops and robbers' with 'Walkie Talkies'.

The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.

 

If you prevent crime in stores before it happens, then that would drastically reduce crime stats.

Could you tell us how many people you have apprehended had mental health issues?

 

could you tell us how many people you have apprehended are subject to emotional or physical abuse?

How many people have you [the OP] falsely detained and accused of theft ?

Before anyone says "it doesn't happen", I draw your attention to this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?427290-Police-gave-our-deatils-to-tkmaxx-when-we-hadnt-stolen-anything

At the end of the day

It is against the law to STEAL

It is also against the law to harass, bribe and commit acts of vigilantism.

RLP is the latter.

2 wrongs do not justify a right. If you want people to abide by the law, you have to be willing to do the same, or your complaints are hipporcritical. You cannot demand proteciton udner the law whilst setting up and operating an unlawful second system.

Or actually here is a point. If you work in Loss prevention like you imply, maybe you like the idea of RLP. Extra money for you? No Shoplifters = to no job for you so maybe just maybe you like the idea of having a captive market to bully and harass. Makes sense why prevention in retail does not happen.

How many people have you [the OP] falsely detained and accused of theft ?

 

Before anyone says "it doesn't happen", I draw your attention to this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?427290-Police-gave-our-deatils-to-tkmaxx-when-we-hadnt-stolen-anything

He's already said he never makes mistakes. RLP also always assume everyone is guilty.

Bullies invariably believe in the invincibility of their actions.

I will try and reply to all, but will start with this one.

No I never falsely detained anyone in all my years. I started at 18 as a security officer, I then became a store detective, a profit protection manager, then changed companies and jobs, which I cannot mention on internet forums due to company policy. I am certainly not a security guard that gets excited by a bit of authority, to reply to one previous post.

As for false arrests, I think they are irresponsible, completely unacceptable and that companies should be liable to pay compensation that greatly exceeds a civil recovery charge in every instance. A thorough investigation should also be launched into the person responsible, with dismissal not ruled out.

I also don't think using rlp is always appropriate, there are many instances for many different reason I have chosen not to down the years. I also speak to all shoplifters with decency and respect, and can't stand when I see people doing otherwise.

I will never accept in the case of shoplifting that deterring beats detaining. People have jobs to do, they don't have the time to spend their whole say deterring unless a uniformed officer.

The scenario is simple. Offender gets caught in one store, police take to the cells, no more offending at least on that day.

Offender gets deterred, then in the next shop, then gets away with 500 pounds worth of stock from the next place. Some offenders can be deterred, most can't. There are some that even don't get deterred when arrested. But companies spend millions on deterrent equipment such as cctv, tags, eas barriers, clam shells, loop alarms, security signage etc. If someone still decides to steal, they deserve to be caught.

If someone is stealing hundreds of pounds worth of stock from different shops, then some powerless company like RLP isn't going to have any effect on them. Sure, people who steal deserve to be punished, and they deserve to be punished with the full force of the law, but powerless third party private companies should have no place in trying to collect money which isn't due to them.

If the retailer considers it has suffered loss through the actions of a shoplifting incident, then it's up to the retailer to litigate through the civil court system to recover any money.

We all know security costs as you mentioned are factored into the price of goods and products purchased from the retailer.

RLP got destroyed in the Oxford case, and a district judge pulled their claim to peices (whilst only county court judgements have persuasive force in civil law, it still sets a fantastic defence against RLP), which had no basis on law or reality.

Punish through the criminal justice system. If damages occurred, then it should be for the RETAILER to litigate, and not some powerless firm that likes to pretend they have some kind of basis in law.

I will try and reply to all, but will start with this one.

 

No I never falsely detained anyone in all my years. I started at 18 as a security officer, I then became a store detective, a profit protection manager, then changed companies and jobs, which I cannot mention on internet forums due to company policy. I am certainly not a security guard that gets excited by a bit of authority, to reply to one previous post.

Unless, in every single case where you detained someone, there was a criminal trial, it's impossible to know whether or not the detention was correct or not. I do not doubt that you believe that you never made an error, but you cannot prove it.

You may have progressed in your career, but your arrogance still shines through. Perhaps the years have made you better informed, but none the wiser.

As for false arrests, I think they are irresponsible, completely unacceptable and that companies should be liable to pay compensation that greatly exceeds a civil recovery charge in every instance. A thorough investigation should also be launched into the person responsible, with dismissal not ruled out.

So, what independent external oversight was there into all of your 'arrests'? The fact is that the only way to determine whether an arrest was appropriate or not is when the case is processed through the criminal justice system, something we all say is a good thing, but you say is unnecessary because you and RLP can decide if someone is guilty and punish them without bothering with the law.

I also don't think using rlp is always appropriate, there are many instances for many different reason I have chosen not to down the years. I also speak to all shoplifters with decency and respect, and can't stand when I see people doing otherwise.

There you go again, judge and jury. It should be really simple; if you suspect someone of stealing, call the police and let them deal with it, whether or not you like the outcome. What qualifies you to decide, for example, whether someone is suffering from a mental health problem?

I will never accept in the case of shoplifting that deterring beats detaining. People have jobs to do, they don't have the time to spend their whole say deterring unless a uniformed officer.

 

The scenario is simple. Offender gets caught in one store, police take to the cells, no more offending at least on that day.

 

Offender gets deterred, then in the next shop, then gets away with 500 pounds worth of stock from the next place. Some offenders can be deterred, most can't. There are some that even don't get deterred when arrested. But companies spend millions on deterrent equipment such as cctv, tags, eas barriers, clam shells, loop alarms, security signage etc. If someone still decides to steal, they deserve to be caught.

So are you now agreeing with us that the best people to deal with shoplifters are the police?

As for deterrent, it is one of RLP's selling points; thanks for confirming what we already know, that it doesn't work.

Retailers pass on the costs of their preventive measures to their customers. It's an overhead like any other.