Jump to content

Lpi004

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Lpi004

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I give up. Fight the big bad wolf, bleat, moan, shout whatever. Just don't commit crime and you'll never have to worry about paying rlp your savings.
  2. Actually the reason the police might be called is simply because if the offence is proven in a criminal caught, then it much easier to prove in a civil court ( which is the method stated by rlp to recover costs). It seems that my opinions aren't liked on this forum? I am not employed by rlp and therefore have no wish to protect the big bad wolf. However I struggle to find sympathy for people who clearly break the law. The op states that she stole items, so why are people now crying that she should take tescos to court? Everybody is now a victim because they got caught? Surely we only hear o
  3. I think you're missing the point, the OP's girlfriend was guilty... By admission. that means she would never have a trial, she stole, she admitted to it and I respect that. She's not a victim of the big, bad security men picking on the vunerable... You help her to fight rlp if it makes you feel good. I'll stick to the ones that actually have been treated unfairly.
  4. I'm sorry but that's rubbish. The intent was to gain the wallet at a cheaper cost than it should have been. I'm well aware of TK Maxx policy and know what is required before somebody can be detained. The OP knew what they were doing was wrong, but like a large majority of the general public are unaware that it's actually a crime. At some point between being approached, escorted to a holding area, having the facts relayed to you and signing a banning order, even the most intimitaded or nervous of people would voice some kind of objection. At that point the police would have been called simply t
  5. Actually I am inclined to believe that there are people who are victims of circumstace. It's mainly for that reason that I risk posting on these forums at all. I just don't like it when people who are guilty (often by admission) of causing loss moan when they are expected to pay for it. As I've stated before, just because no police were involved at the time, doesn't mean they can't be later on. Assuming they had been involved and assuming your girlfrind had been lucky enough to be arrested for theft (of the difference in values) then you'd be paying the goverment £80 for what could be as littl
  6. How exactly is it betterment? The cheapest contract security officer may only get £6 an hour in wages, but the store will be paying 3 or 4 times that to have him on site. Factor in all of his managers, training costs, sia costs, holiday cover and insurance and suddenly it's getting pricey. You don't pay a plumber what you think he's worth, you pay the cost or you don't have the job done. It's not like stores operate a recovery system covertly, they make it well known in an effort to deter potential crime! Millions of pounds are spent every year on trying to stop theft, Cctv systems cost bi
  7. Those people who commit theft or occasion loss should always pay the fine. The argument that the guard is getting paid regardless just doesn't cut it. Whilst that guard is dealing with 1 incident, he can't be dealing with the other three that could be happening. When you park your car in a car park, do you think there's no need to pay for a ticket, as the land would be there anyway? Would you cry and moan if you got a fine, because the man who ticketed your car was getting paid anyway? Your nephew didn't commit a crime, his detention wasn't required and no costs were incurred by the store.
  8. You just better hope rlp don't contact the store involved and update them on you ignoring their fine. Whenever that's happened to me I've just made a quick call to the boys in blue and provided them with a statement and some CCTV. Then you'll have a knock at the door and your girlfriend gets to spend a few hours in a cell. I hate to sound mean, but theft is a crime and it has consequences. She was caught, she was lucky enough not to be arrested so pay the damn fine and don't do it again. I do have sympathy for the genuine people on here who are victims of circumstance, not those who drive-
  9. I can tell you from someone in the loss prevention industry, that the guard made the wrong choice and that rlp should never have been involved. Your nephew had a very lucky escape from making a stupid mistake. Rlp have no chance at all of getting any money from him. As stated no crime was committed and a store ban and firm talking to are the worst possible consequences.
  10. What you did was commit a criminal offence and Tk maxx had every right to detain you and refer you to rlp. That "security guard" viewed all of that from a CCTV screen and was obviously happy that there was clear intent on your part. Infact you obviously knew you'd done wrong, or you would have voiced some kind of denial during your detention, which would have resulted in police intervention.
  11. Actually I'd say it probably is, at least for the more reputable retailers. Interstingly alot of retailers are swiftly moving away from targeting external theft at store level. Instead they'll pick up a contract with a uniformed guarding company, with the strict instructions to deter possible theft. It costs far more to a company in both money and reputation to accuse their customers of theft than it does to stick a traffic warden in the corner.
  12. Unfortunatly I dare say there's a great deal of information I could help people with, most of it though would be of equal interest to the dishonest people who no doubt also read these forums...
  13. I'm not disputing there are real victims on these forums, however from the little information given by the OP I am quite happy to say that this probably isn't one of them. Unfortunatly it would be unethical for me to go into too much more detail.
  14. An intersting fact is that cases of a value lower than the rlp minimum value are actioned on a case-by-case basis, to avoid adverse publicity. What were they thinking letting this run? I would have been more than happy to have had the goods back and at most issued a banning letter (assuming those involved in the detention were as convinced about the intent here as it seems). Even if there was clear intent, the paperwork involved would have outweighed the potential recovery of such stock?
  15. Getting it wrong when it comes to this kind of thing equates to A p45 and the end of your career. I make damn sure I get it right every single time. I save all my mistakes for my love life... Most companies work on the principal that if you fail to follow correct procedure (which is generally pretty bullet proof) then you face the consequences. Do not past go etc.
×
×
  • Create New...