i took some small items from Superdrug.

the total cost of them all would have been £10 or less.

It was really stupid and my first offence.

The security guard saw me and took me to a room, and

asked if i had taken anything else.

she then asked to see some ID (i used my provisional licence).

She filled out 1 piece of paper.

She told me that i would be getting a letter in the mail telling me about a fine i will have to pay between £50 and £150

(will the envelopes be obviously a fine from the outside?

How many letters will they send?

i don't want my parents to know as i'm so embarrassed!)

The police were not called in my presence

(so i assume they didn't call them at all?)

they said that i was banned from superdrug for the next 6 months.

She did not stipulate whether it was a nationwide ban or just that store..

I then walked through the shopping centre to go to college

and the security guard told me that i wasn't allowed in any shops,

only to walk through. is that permanent?

how long does it last?

I was calm throughout the whole process because I thought reacting another way may aggravate them.

The items were returned and were in a suitable condition to be sold.

I am 17 and i live with my parents.

I don't have a job

- will it hinder me from getting one in the future?

and will it stop me from getting into uni?

and will i get a criminal record or anything like a caution?

Thanks and i know it was stupid, and it won't happen again.

I'm so embarrassed! Please help!!

Please read the other threads

The advice is the same

It is not a fine. It Should not be paid despite what they send you

It willnot impact on yoru job prospects

Please pay for all your shopping in future

I then walked through the shopping centre to go to college and the security guard told me that i wasn't allowed in any shops, only to walk through. is that permanent? how long does it last?

The security guard, is he from Superdrug, or is it the shopping centre security

If it the security guard from Superdrug, then I don't think he has any right telling you this, how ever if it the shopping centre security, how on earth do they know about this, unless the shops and centre are in some such of scheme, to pass on details of known shoplifters

The security guard, is he from Superdrug, or is it the shopping centre security

 

 

If it the security guard from Superdrug, then I don't think he has any right telling you this, how ever if it the shopping centre security, how on earth do they know about this, unless the shops and centre are in some such of scheme, to pass on details of known shoplifters

The first was someone from superdrug and then a shopping Centre security guy talked to me and told me I wasn't to enter any shops.and I assume the superdrug guard told them?

The security guard, is he from Superdrug, or is it the shopping centre security

 

 

If it the security guard from Superdrug, then I don't think he has any right telling you this, how ever if it the shopping centre security, how on earth do they know about this, unless the shops and centre are in some such of scheme, to pass on details of known shoplifters

Also the superdrug guard never said I would be banned elsewhere that they may keep an eye on me but that it was up to them.so she didn't tell them to ban me

there will probably be a public right of way through the shopping centre

so they cannot stop you entering or walking through.

even if its a private shopping centre

the security lot at the Harvey Centre in Harlow tried this one on

and was regularly stopping any student walking through

if you've not received a formal letter banning you from all the shops in the centre

then its rubbish

if you've not read other threads

IGNORE RLP TOTALLY

it CANNOT effect your future jobs

it is NOT anything criminal [no police.courts involvement]

nor can it effect uni entry.

forget it

get on with your life

dx

I agree to ignore RLP (or any similar firm) attempting to "fine" the OP / to "recover costs"

I disagree about the right to access a private shopping centre.

there will probably be a public right of way through the shopping centre

so they cannot stop you entering or walking through.

even if its a private shopping centre

 

 

the security lot at the Harvey Centre in Harlow tried this one on

and was regularly stopping any student walking through

 

 

if you've not received a formal letter banning you from all the shops in the centre

then its rubbish

 

 

if you've not read other threads

 

 

IGNORE RLP TOTALLY

it CANNOT effect your future jobs

it is NOT anything criminal [no police.courts involvement]

nor can it effect uni entry.

 

 

forget it

get on with your life

 

 

dx

How old is the shopping centre?. Do the pathways keep the name of previous roads that were built on, or were new paths formed, and how long have they been in use?

There is no automatic right of way across private land, although one can be formed "by prescription".

The most common route for this ("lost modern grant") requires 20 years uninterupted usage (so, if the centre has new paths less than 20 years old there can't yet be an automatic right of way)

The usage must also be "as of right" - without force, secrecy, or permission.

If there is a sign noting it is private property with no right of way but there is permission for the public to enter : no automatic right of way as the "permission" defeats any claim of lost modern grant, unless there was 20 years usage "as of right" prior to the permission.

On what basis are you claiming there will probably be a public right of way?.

There might, there might not : more details would be needed,

and if the path is less than 20 years old, it is more probable there isn't a right of way absent evidence to the contrary.

I agree to ignore RLP (or any similar firm) attempting to "fine" the OP / to "recover costs"

 

I disagree about the right to access a private shopping centre.

 

 

 

How old is the shopping centre?. Do the pathways keep the name of previous roads that were built on, or were new paths formed, and how long have they been in use?

 

There is no automatic right of way across private land, although one can be formed "by prescription".

The most common route for this ("lost modern grant") requires 20 years uninterupted usage (so, if the centre has new paths less than 20 years old there can't yet be an automatic right of way)

 

The usage must also be "as of right" - without force, secrecy, or permission.

If there is a sign noting it is private property with no right of way but there is permission for the public to enter : no automatic right of way as the "permission" defeats any claim of lost modern grant, unless there was 20 years usage "as of right" prior to the permission.

 

On what basis are you claiming there will probably be a public right of way?.

There might, there might not : more details would be needed,

and if the path is less than 20 years old, it is more probable there isn't a right of way absent evidence to the contrary.

It is a festival place shopping centre and the guard said that I could walk through it just not go into individual shops

Hi Luckynote and welcome to CAG.

I have one question. When will you be 18?

I ask this as RLP (on a previous thread) sent a letter to a girls parents as she was under 18.

If you have just turned 17 then I think the advice to ignore is slightly erroneous.

I suggest a two line response (when you get the letter)

" I acknowledge no debt to you nor to any company you claim to represent."

" Take notice that Under the Data Protection Act 1998, I refuse you permission to pass any of my details on to any other third party."

This should stop them writing to your parents but won't stop them passing the alleged amount on to their pet debt collector of the day.

DO NOT ring RLP unless you can record the 'mistruths'

That'll do for now. Let's see what bovine excrement they send you

I will be turning 18 on April 20th... so not tooo far off. But far enough. and okay, the lady at superdrug said that the 'fine' will be sent via post and will arrive in about 2 weeks.

Hmm! That is still 3 months away so they may still decide to write to your parents. What they should do is write you a letter stating that if no contact is made, they will contact your parent/guardian. As for the 'fine' it is nothing of the sort. RLP work on the premise of guilty before innocence.

as they didn't call the police while i was there could they still call them? or has their 'window' (as it were) closed?

Window? What window? Just ignore them. Completely.

I have received my letter.it is indeed from Retail Loss Prevention. It States that I must pay £147 as per your insructions I plan to ignore it completely. It says on an additional piece of paper enclosed that they cannot let any third parties know of the incident because of the data protection act. I'm assuming this includes my parents? Also. Will they send me many more letters?

Ignore it completely. And yes, jackie will get more desperate and send you a few more letters which are full of rubbish and arent based in reality. Then when she gets bored, she will try and get a DCA involved ( who cannot do a single thing), then you wont hear anything else.

Hi again,

may I have a copy of both bits of toilet paper? If you are happy to do so, please send them to me via PM. You don't need to give me any personal detaila and ensure all identifying data is removed. If you can make sure they are in pdf format, that would help immensely. As to what to do just look up a post.

I have received my second letter. Stating that they will contact my parents. They said that if I felt this was not okay then I could email, phone or send a letter, I have sent them an email with the following "Hi there,

I am emailing regarding the incident in Basingstoke on the 14th January with Superdrug.

I understand your claim fully. However I acknowledge no debt to you nor to any company you claim to represent.

Take notice that Under the Data Protection Act 1998, I refuse you permission to pass any of my details on to any other third party. Including my parents/guardians. I only allow you to contact me directly.

I request no more letters be sent to my house. If you have anymore information for me, an email is suffcient." is this okay??

That should be fine. I doubt they will stick to email contact though. They want to rely on the embarrassment factor although they should contact you in the way you want.

I suspect that they will still send a letter via snail mail and after telling them that you will only communicate via email, this could be seen as harassment but still, early days.

I would make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the threat to contact your parents as they have no proof that you are a vulnerable person, so in doing so it would be a breach of the DPA.

They are saying that in an attempt to coerce you into paying. That is unlawful.

I would make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the threat to contact your parents as they have no proof that you are a vulnerable person, so in doing so it would be a breach of the DPA.

They are saying that in an attempt to coerce you into paying. That is unlawful.

Unfortunately, I thought this too until one other user (Curado) got a letter sent to her parents so I queried it with both the ICO and Liberty. The excuse being that if no contact is made between the alleged shoplifter and RLP, they have no way of knowing if they are vulnerable or not as under 18s still living at home are considered to be under the control of the parent/guardian.

This is the reason I say to communicate to RLP that the 'shoplifter' does not acknowledge any sum owing and removing the right of RLP to contact any other third party (including parents/guardians)

I received an email from Liberty quite a while back and I can post it up if that would help.

have received the response ( via email)"Thank you for your email received at our offices on 13 February 2015. We note that you would like no letters to be sent to your home address, therefore we have amended our records accordingly.

From your email it would appear that you advise that no debt is recognised in relation to this claim.

For clarity we confirm that you were observed selecting goods to a total of £6.78. You then left the store making no attempt to pay for the goods. When apprehended you advised the guard that you were aware this was theft.

As a result of these apparent intentional actions in depriving our client of its goods, our client is entitled to be compensated for your conduct and the disruption to its business caused. If you wish to dispute our client’s version of events you are required to submit a full written defence along with your version of events for further consideration. If the events are not in dispute, we require proposals for settlement of our client’s claim.

We look forward to hearing from you within the next 21 days. If we do not hear from you our client’s claim will continue."

Ignore them. The worst thing you can do is play letter tennis with them

If you wish to dispute our client’s version of events you are required to submit a full written defence along with your version of events for further consideration.

Why? They are in no authority in any sense of the word to make demands or instructions like that.

You now have it in writing that they will contact you the correct way so that is all that was needed.

From now on, the only time to respond is if court papers turn up and at this time, I can't even see that happening.

Remember, RLP act for Superdrug and as such cannot begin any claim.

Thanks for all the advice and I will now ignore them completely once more

Hi, I'm aware that this thread is well over a year old, but I'd like to know what happened? Did they continue to send letters or did they switch to emailing?