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.

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Hi, I think your information about going to court is out of date.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

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.

Hi, I think your information about going to court is out of date.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.

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

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:-)

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

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.

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.

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.

Very interesting read!

My case is with a different retailer but I have a question maxx.

You mention that TK used both video equipment and microphones to record detainment.

When they do this, do they have to inform the accused of its operation and use as evidence?

I'm just curious as I want to know if I would have been recorded; as I wasn't informed as such.

The data protection signs we used to have to have, did have the words 'video and audio is recorded'.

My team used to tell people that audio was being recorded, and to think carefully what they said.

Theres no law that says you have to verbally tell people - the signage does that for us. In tk stores, theres signs in the holding room.

It does depend on what system the retailler has chosen to install. TK's generally spend a decent amount on cctv kit, and have the best / latest systems. There are some retaillers out there who spend the minimum, and dont bother with mics in holding rooms - some dont even bother with holding rooms, they just have managers offices etc. Very dangerous, as if you get someone who is violent, then theres all sorts of stuff they can use in the managers office.......

We had a number of people who told us one thing, then 'invented' something completely different by the time they got to the police station. Sadly for them, they told their 'new' story, whilst the police knew what they'd said to us. Needless to say, a caution turned into a charge and court appearance.

TThere are some retaillers out there who spend the minimum, and dont bother with mics in holding rooms - some dont even bother with holding rooms, they just have managers offices etc. Very dangerous.

I agree. A customer who is falsely arrested by store staff would be very foolish to allow themselves to be led into some dodgy back room, out of sight from independent witnesses. They might be mistreated or have property planted upon them, or worse.

youve accidentally cut off the quote there, to make it look different than what was actually written and meant... oops !

If you think people who are shopping want to become 'independant witnesses', look how many people drive by when you next see a car accident, or a fight on the street. People these days have a 'dont want to get involved' attitude.

Its a safety thing as well for security - refuse to come back in, and most likely, you are going to be restrained and dragged back in. sec 3 crim law act. By refusing to coe back, I'm forming the opinion you are going to try to escape my custody. In my time, I have used force lots of times. Never ever have I been interviewed, arrested, charged etc. Nor challanged in court for my use of force. You'd think that a defence solicitor would jump upon a chance to introdue unlawful force into their clients case if they could. Nobody has though, which makes me think taking back to a holding room is totally acceptable.

By refusing to coe back, I'm forming the opinion you are going to try to escape my custody.

Really? I'm nearly 60 years old and female. I'd refuse point blank to move out of public view so would you feel justified in quoting your sec. 3 to manhandle me?

youve accidentally cut off the quote there, to make it look different than what was actually written and meant... oops !

It wasn't an accident. You have previously told us that many stores employ untrained guards who lack the skills and judgement to perform their duties, and/or do not have safe procedures for surveillance in 'holding rooms'. Old bill has told us his observations of "poorly-trained, ill-disciplined and, in some cases, inept and incompetent retail security staff".

So you are surely not recommending that a customer who is falsely arrested should allow themselves to be led away into some unknown and unsafe environment, where they will be at the mercy of some minimum-wage thug? I realise that you are not that sort of chap, and I have praised your integrity here, but how is a falsely arrested customer to know the difference?

Its a safety thing as well for security - refuse to come back in, and most likely, you are going to be restrained and dragged back in. sec 3 crim law act. By refusing to coe back, I'm forming the opinion you are going to try to escape my custody. In my time, I have used force lots of times. Never ever have I been interviewed, arrested, charged etc. Nor challanged in court for my use of force. You'd think that a defence solicitor would jump upon a chance to introdue unlawful force into their clients case if they could. Nobody has though, which makes me think taking back to a holding room is totally acceptable.

The words you are not seeing are "falsely arrested". You are making a presumption that the customer is a criminal and that they will be the ones on trial after any incident. I am sure that is often true, and I don't much care about what happens to thieves who are caught red-handed.

But I am addressing this from the sole viewpoint of a falsely arrested customer, and I assure you that if you ever tried to "restrain and drag" me to some back room out of sight you would be very sorry. I don't mean that to sound like some sort of messageboard macho, but I mean it very sincerely nonetheless. (My icons don't work, so imagine a friendly and self-depracating smiley here please.... )

I agree. A customer who is falsely arrested by store staff would be very foolish to allow themselves to be led into some dodgy back room, out of sight from independent witnesses. They might be mistreated or have property planted upon them, or worse.

Strange as this might sound, AH, I have dealt with such cases when I was in the police force. I won't post what I and other police officers said to retailers and their security staff in such cases as it is not fit to be posted. Use your imagination as to what was said.

youve accidentally cut off the quote there, to make it look different than what was actually written and meant... oops !

 

If you think people who are shopping want to become 'independant witnesses', look how many people drive by when you next see a car accident, or a fight on the street. People these days have a 'dont want to get involved' attitude.

 

Its a safety thing as well for security - refuse to come back in, and most likely, you are going to be restrained and dragged back in. sec 3 crim law act. By refusing to coe back, I'm forming the opinion you are going to try to escape my custody. In my time, I have used force lots of times. Never ever have I been interviewed, arrested, charged etc. Nor challanged in court for my use of force. You'd think that a defence solicitor would jump upon a chance to introdue unlawful force into their clients case if they could. Nobody has though, which makes me think taking back to a holding room is totally acceptable.

A person is under no obligation to return to a store and, as a retired policeman, I would say that you have been extremely lucky not to have been found in breach of the law. If a person has done nothing wrong, retail security staff have no right or power to detain or restrain them or require them to return to a store. Bringing retail security staff under stricter control than at present is, IMCJ, long-overdue.

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 agree with you 100%. It would put a stop to a lot of civil recovery [problem]s.

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.

High Street brands are vicariously-liable for the actions of hired thugs, sorry, security personnel, they hire through another company, whilst they are working on their premises for their benefit. They're also liable for HSAW infringements by them.

Strange as this might sound, AH, I have dealt with such cases when I was in the police force. I won't post what I and other police officers said to retailers and their security staff in such cases as it is not fit to be posted. Use your imagination as to what was said.

It doesn't sound strange at all, Old Bill. Some idiot grabs a passing hausfrau and drags her into the manager's office, makes her turn out her pockets and handbag and realises he's made a mistake. She's recovering her nerve now, and talking about calling the Police or a solicitor. Idiot realises he's looking at wrongful arrest, assault and/or disciplinary action. Easiest thing in the world to pick up a lipstick or whatever's handy, and drop it in her bag.

My very firm advice to any innocent person who is stopped in a shop is to firstly ask loud & clear "are you arresting me?". If the answer is not a loud and clear "Yes" then walk away. If they do say that they are arresting you, then tell them you will wait peaceably for the police to arrive.

Stay within a few paces of where you were stopped, sit down if you can (it may be an hour before an officer arrives). Keep your bags and pockets secure, do not allow anyone to search you or examine your property. If you have a mobile phone, call a calm, reliable friend or relative and ask them to come to support you. Also call the Police and check that an officer is on the way, and also that they understand you deny the allegation completely. Ask a passing shop employee to call the duty manager, and when they arrive tell them that you will be making a complaint about the security guard's false accusation. Ask them to provide contact details of their head office.

If you have paper, start keeping a diary - the exact time and place you were stopped, what words were said, the name of the security guard etc. Ask nearby witnesses if they would mind being contacted by the Police to give statements, and if they will leave you a phone number for that purpose. If you don't have paper, use text or voicemail messages to record contemporaneous details.

You may be upset and angry, but stay calm and measured in your conduct - no swearing or shouting. Keep your head held high, try to make eye-contact with passers-by - shake your head in disbelief, roll your eyes, tell them you've been falsely arrested - you have nothing to be ashamed of and you are deserving of support and sympathy. The Police officer will arrive soon, and you will be proven to be innocent.

Jojo03, I've unapproved your last post. Unless you have evidence either that TK Maxx's policy is to hire people with a particular mentality, or the individual's motivation for the job, please don't make such comments. They may be regarded as actionable and cause problems for you and CAG; they certainly do not show you in a good light.

Jojo03, I've unapproved your last post. Unless you have evidence either that TK Maxx's policy is to hire people with a particular mentality, or the individual's motivation for the job, please don't make such comments. They may be regarded as actionable and cause problems for you and CAG; they certainly do not show you in a good light.

Fair enough, sorry I am just angered by them after my experience. You can remove this now.

Completely understand how TKMaxx have made you feel, Jojo.

Hi Maxxer

I have called tkmaxx customer service and they do;t want to know about the refund, all I can say is good for you that you'v left them as from now I will never shop there, they a bunch of [edit]s, selling items that they say is almost 60 % less then retail but the fact is that their items are mainly last season or defected and that's why the original store never sold it, and employ [edit]s as security , shame on them I hope everyone finds out about them.