Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Losspreventionguy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About Losspreventionguy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, A few things; Firstly, you can stop worrying about your previous employer having evidence of your thefts (and yes, taking things that you deem unsaleable is still theft), firstly because what DX said is true - the store will not waste hours of time searching through CCTV, but also because nobody keeps CCTV for more than 31 days. The law states that CCTV images are not kept for any longer than is necessary, which is a bit ambiguous, but the 'industry standard' has been unofficially set at 31 days. I know of no other retail business that keeps footage for longer than this, so even if they wanted to, there is zero chance that they will be able to review footage from more than two months ago, which is when you said you left your employment there. Secondly, I'm glad you got caught. That may sound harsh, but reading through your post, it is quite clear that the seriousness of your stealing would have only got worse. You were caught stealing low value, petty items. It's only human nature that the more you get away with something, the further you push your luck. You would have eventually upgraded (maybe with the encouragement of your so-called 'friends') to stealing higher value, less petty items; this would have landed you in trouble with the police, your details being shared around the town etc. You may not think it would have escalated to that, but your attitude was staggeringly complacent - thinking cameras probably don't work, not that serious, if I'm not stupid about it I won't get caught etc - and this is an attitude I've come across hundreds of times before. The difference with you, is that you clearly are remorseful and are now aware that actions have consequences. You are clearly quite an intelligent young person. My advice to you if you will permit me, is to think about potential consequences of your actions in all areas of your life, not just when it comes to deciding whether or not to shoplift. The first one being, whether continuing to be friends with these people will have further consequences down the road, particularly if you are soon to be a caregiver for your family. In summary; you were caught, dealt with at the time, you have paid RLP (nobody would advise you to do that including myself, but when you are trying to put something behind you, I can understand why you did it), and the chances are you will never be thought of again by those who dealt with you. You can put this all behind you, concentrate on the important things in your life and treat it as one of life's lessons (many more will follow). Best of luck in your exams. LPG
  2. If you receiving letters is not unusual or causes you any problems then I would just follow the advice of BF and DX and ignore them, and certainly do not pay them anything. In fact, don't enter into any conversation with them at all, because then they have you on the hook. They will know that they have got the correct address at the very least; so just ignore them. The thing that concerns me reading these posts, are the amount of security and loss prevention personnel who are stating that they are issuing fines and going into details regarding payment options etc. I don't know whether they are doing this because it makes them feel powerful, or just through naivety and ignorance, but they really shouldn't be doing it. The standard practice is to read the 'Notice of Intended Civil Recovery' (which is a mass photocopied A4 handout) to the detained person, and not to enter into conversation about it, and to refer any questions about civil recovery to the phone number on the sheet. It infuriates me that security and loss prevention staff are acting like they are issuing on the spot fines. Regarding photos, I've noticed a few posts noting the concern regarding this. Security staff have been taking photographs ever since I started nearly 20 years ago. It used to be with Polaroid cameras, and then stapled to the arrest paperwork. The main purpose of this was, should the offender commit another theft after they had been issued an exclusion order, it would be proof the next time they were arrested in that store, that they entered as a trespasser, and as such rather than being arrested for theft, they would/could be arrested and charged with burglary. Things have obviously moved on since then. Almost every town now has a Retail Crime Initiative, run at county level. i.e. Warwickshire Retail Crime Initiative, Northamptonshire Retail Crime Initiative etc, which then have offshoots at town levels, which cover the town centres. These are membership schemes which the retailers pay for, and includes radios to link retailers and town centre CCTV, police, town rangers etc, as well as crime reduction advice, meetings, signage etc. These are intelligence fed - they rely on intelligence fed into the scheme from the police and retailers themselves - this includes retailers reporting the details of persons that they have detained for theft, fraud, criminal damage or things such as harrassment and antisocial behaviour. Photo galleries of prolific offenders form part of the intelligence, and they used to be distributed in monthly / quarterly folders, which you had to sign for. In each town there is usually a police officer that is the point of contact and acts as a liaison between the retailers and the police. In the three areas I have worked, that police officer is usually the one that has the oversight of the Retail Crime Initiative for that area and decides what offenders are 'targets' etc. I can only assume that is the case across all of them, but I'm happy to be educated if that is not the case. The app that the OP was referring to is most likely ACIS (Active Crime Intelligence System), that is web based, and now includes an app. To be honest, it really is a great idea and handy bit of kit, and the information has never been more secure. Only one person per store can have an account and they have to sign a document with the terms and conditions which have a lot of restrictions. You cannot under any circumstances display photographs, even in staff only areas. You can show photos to members of staff (i.e. be on the lookout for this person, they are constantly stealing the type of things we sell etc). The app takes the place of the old incident reporting and folders. You still have quarterly galleries with the photos and details of people that have been given exclusions from the whole town centre. You can submit photos and incident reports directly from within the app, detained persons, crimes with CCTV that did not result in an arrest can have the CCTV screenshots uploaded for ID purposes, and the police can also use it for wanted persons, missing persons, vulnerable persons, details of new crime trends etc. When somebody is detained, their details can be searched on the system (you have to fill in a screen first for the reason for the search) to see if they are already on it. Here is the good part - when I upload information or a photo etc to the system, that is immediately watermarked with my details. If I open a report, or a photo on the system, it is immediately watermarked with my details. So if I decided to be an idiot, and try to share a photo on social media, or print it out and display it, I can't do so without my name and store plastered all over it. It is very strictly enforced, and it has also contributed to keeping security staff safer, as it also has warning markers for certain offenders such as whether they are known to be violent, drug users, have infectious diseases such as hepatitis etc. It is also beneficial to some prolific offenders, as warning markers can appear if the person has a history of mental illness or self harm, which allows those more professional security personnel to be able to adjust the way they deal with certain people. Everything you upload, view, search or do is logged. The long and short of it to the OP is; they may have taken your photo and you may be on the system - but by your own admission you stole, and you intended to steal. If you are not planning to do so again, then you have nothing to worry about. Better that, than your record on police files! I'm glad it's been dealt with in store, for the sake of £5 I think you have probably learnt not to make decisions like that again. I wish you the very best. NB I'm very conscious I have probably hijacked this post, and for that I apologise. I totally understand if a member of the site team want to delete or move this post - it's just the same concerns kept cropping up and this seemed as good a place as any to respond to them. LPG
  3. Hi There, RLP tend to be more successful in their Employee Theft/Fraud cases than in ordinary shoplifting cases. As mentioned before, since the Oxford case, RLP do not file court action in relation to shoplifting cases any more, relying instead on intimidating letters and threats to make people cough up. HOWEVER - Employee cases are treated very differently by RLP. They apply far more effort into these cases because the courts are more likely to find in their favour. I know this because in the last 5 years, I have had three RLP employee fraud cases that were upheld by the courts. What is important though, is the amount of money you stole, or the loss incurred by your actions. In the cases of successful court decisions that I know about, including the ones I investigated, were in the thousand of pounds, sometimes tens of thousands. I have not heard of successful RLP cases involving a case in the hundreds of pounds or less - again, since Oxford, I would suggest that RLP won't risk the costs of taking a case through the courts unless there is potential for a substantial reward (they work on a commission basis - they take a percentage of the money received or 'won'). I appreciate you may not wish to tell us the amount you stole, or the details of what you did - but that could very well make the difference between whether to be concerned, or living life with a little less tension. Another mitigating factor was whether you were arrested and prosecuted for the offence, or whether it was dealt with by simply resigning or being dismissed. A successful criminal prosecution gives ammunition to their case. Simply, if you took a few hundred pounds or less, I truly believe you can totally forget about RLP chasing you or seeking to enforce it legally. The fact you say you are ashamed shows remorse and I hope you get back on your feet with the knowledge of what could happen if you were to do something like this again. If the police have not been involved you have been very lucky, and if the company have accepted your resignation then you really have won the lottery, as there is a good chance that this will not be disclosed in any references for further jobs. Please please learn from this. I have seen good people make bad decisions that have ended up costing them far more than their jobs. Best of luck. LPG Edited : spelling
  4. hi can superdrug rlp make me pay the 300 pound if i dont can they take my possessions

  5. Hello, First things first, were you given a ‘Notice or Intended Civil Recovery?’
  6. As DX says - it is not a fine. Ignore any mail from RLP. It is a speculative invoice and they rely on people's fears and lack of knowledge of their rights and hope they pay up. As far as the photograph goes - yes they can share it, but they can not display it. Most stores are members of retail crime partnerships and initiatives - this allows for the sharing of intelligence and information (including photographs). This is also allowed under Data Protection Act and GDPR as it’s for the purpose of the detection and prevention of crime. I take photographs of every shoplifter I arrest (unless they are under 16), and their details get passed to the county retail crime initiative - this gets shared with every retailer in the county. If it is a particularly high value theft, aggravating circumstances (violence, drugs etc), or the same person has been reported more than once, the retail crime initiative sends out monthly bulletins with ‘targets’ - photos and details. In short, they were within their right to take a photo of you, but as long as this was a one time thing - nothing will ever come of it. LPG
  7. Hi, In the 16 years I’ve been involved in Loss Prevention, I’ve never heard of an ‘Advanced Civil Recovery Check’ - I don’t mean to sound patronising, but are you sure that’s what it’s called? Do you have the form for this check that you could redact any personal details and post? From what I understand businesses are being advised to steer clear of this Cireco database for a number of reasons - firstly, the majority of names on it have NOT been convicted of a criminal offence - just reported by LP and security staff without police involvement. The majority are low level thefts in which the offenders could give the details of anybody they want to. And as an LP Investigator - I could report my neighbour if I wanted to. There is no oversight. Secondly, Cireco are believed to be getting into trouble for the retention of their data. I.e they still have details of alledged shoplifters going back 10 years. Even the police have to ensure that certain information is expunged from their systems after a period of time, and it appears that they have tried to just create a database to rival the Police National Computer, just without the oversight. GDPR should hopefully kick them in the nuts. A side note, you said you were taken to the till - did you end up paying for the items you stole? If you did - Civil Recovery should not have been actioned. Im sorry this doesn’t really answer your main question. But without seeing the check form, I couldn’t tell you. I would be very surprised if this has any negative bearing on your proposed employment. Best, LPG
  8. The honest answer is YES they can. The fact is though, if they were going to inform the police they would have done it there and then. If they contact the police and report it as a crime, then the person reporting will have to complete varying amounts of paperwork including a full witness statement. Not to mention waiting on the phone for a fair amount of time to report it in the first place. The store / security don't want to waste 2-3 hours of staff time for a £5-£6 theft. Tell your friend he has been silly and to use this as his only chance. I know plenty of security teams that DO call the police for £5-6 thefts. LPG
  9. Hi Lym89, Silverfox is correct in that the time to act has passed. The cost to benefit of viewing hours, maybe days of footage depending on when the empty box is found just isn't worth it. King is also TECHNICALLY correct in that if you were being observed at the time taking the item from the shelf, taking it into the fitting room, and then returning the box to the shelf which is found to be empty, then I would suggest that would fall into the category of REASONABLE grounds for believing you had taken the item which is covered by PACE and gives the person observing you the power to detain you. HOWEVER; in the real world, retailers change their legal definition of an arrest from REASONABLE grounds, to '110% certain' before their security will execute an arrest. In short, I don't think you need to worry about the retailer investigating this empty box and then detaining you for it at a later date. There's more chance of you finding rocking horse droppings than that happening. I do however need to address something else. I currently work for a retailer who also sells cosmetics, fragrances and health & beauty items amongst other things. You mentioned in your post that you have taken to 'sneaking items into the changing room and opening the SEALED boxes' to quality check them. As you probably already know, cosmetic items are sealed for health and hygiene purposes, and the retailer will not sell them if they have a broken seal. This is the reason retailers have testers. This is also the reason that cosmetic items are non-returnable. So what you are actually doing by opening the sealed boxes is committing the offence of criminal damage, which can also find you being detained / arrested. All very well if you then buy the item, but if you don't, then the store has lost the ability to sell it no different to if somebody had stolen it. I suggest the fact that you 'sneak' the items into the changing rooms to do this means you know what you are doing is wrong. The above may sound harsh, but I'm just being honest and trying to give you the facts. Remember, whilst you can't return cosmetic items if they aren't suitable (my employer allows this if the seals aren't broken), if the item is broken then it constitutes a faulty item which the retailer is obliged to at least exchange, under your statutory rights. My suggestion to you is, if you are using the same retailer to purchase your cosmetic items from and you are constantly finding them broken, then either the retailer or their supplier aren't treating their stock very well, and I suggest you use another retailer. All the best LPG
  10. A Community Resolution, like others have said, is basically an agreement between the police, the store, and yourself that’s says, instead of being arrested and prosecuted, we are going to deal with it here and now. You should have been issued with a form that the police filled in and you had to sign. It’s a small A5 carbonated form that when is done, is split amongst the three of you. The police keep the white copy, the victim (in this case the store) keeps the yellow copy, and the offender (in this case you) keeps the green copy. On this form there is a section for the police to put what has been agreed - for the majority of my jobs, it simply says ‘exclusion order served’ for some it may be a letter of apology (which isn’t a bad idea whether it is in the CR or not). NB if anybody is interested and wants to see a CR form, let me know and I’ll pull one out, redact the information and post it. Like others have said it is not a criminal conviction, so you would be telling the truth to say you have no convictions (as long as you didn’t have any prior to this). It is recorded on police systems though. So if you are required to have an enhanced disclosure as part of your job (which from what I understand - a teacher does need) it MAY show up. Ultimately, it’s down to the person processing your enhanced disclosure to decide whether it is relevant to the role. So really it’s in the lap of the gods. I’m sorry and I know it’s not what you want to hear but I’m just being honest - I don’t mind admitting that I really wouldn’t know which way that would go, as to whether they would deem it relevant. It basically comes down to dishonesty - so if you were going for a job that involved you being in charge of money - it would certainly be disclosed. Teaching? I’m not too sure. As others have said. Simply ignore RLP. Please see your GP and put an end to this pattern of behaviour before it becomes worse. I wish you the best of luck. LPG
  11. Hi Loopylass. You will find the people here are very helpful and try not to judge - we all make silly decisions at some point. Swapping prices on items is actually seen as more serious than shoplifting, because it is actually fraud - and should it have gone to court - it would have been dealt with as such. So please, if you ever have those gremlins tempting you to do it again, don’t. BankFodder is absolutely correct in what he says. The fact you didn’t realise your daughter put some items in the pram would have been negated by your offence. Also, and I say this with respect, it is your responsibility as to what your daughter does. If your child was to pick something up whilst shopping, all they need to do is see you on CCTV looking at your daughter just once for a second (which I’m sure you would do at some point whilst you are shopping) and that’s game set and match. So without presuming to tell you how to do your job as a parent, please keep an eye on her whilst shopping from now on, now you know she has a penchant for grabbing stuff, to make sure it doesn’t happen again. With regards the ‘fine’ - take note of what everybody here and in the hundreds of other threads are saying. Firstly it’s not a fine. Us security and Loss Prevention staff have NO powers to issue fines. A letter will come from RLP. And like everybody else says, ignore them. They will eventually send it to a debt collector, who you can also ignore. They prey on the fear to pay up. I’ve not known a case where RLP or a debt collector have legally enforced this debt in nearly 15 years. If your mum doesn’t open your post then I would stick to the ignore them advice everybody is giving. However if you are genuinely worried about your mum finding out I would simply send their letter back with “not at this address” written over the envelope. I don’t recommend having ANY sort of contact with RLP - but this may be the safest way to try to stop the letters from going to your mothers. Certainly don’t phone them - this will make them believe they have you on the hook. Please take the advice from the kind members here about seeking help for why you’ve made this decision, particularly if this is becoming a regular thing - remember we aren’t judging you - and see your GP. Take care. LPG
  12. You are mostly right. The powers of arrest that Loss Prevention staff have are exactly the same powers as you have to detain somebody who has broken into your car, for example. These powers are granted to us under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is sometimes called a 'citizen's arrest.' We don't really 'read their rights' in this country. For an arrest to be legal, you have to identify yourself and inform the offender what they are being arrested for as soon as reasonably practicable. This goes for both Police and private citizens. The police then caution the arrested person "you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence etc etc" Now, best practice in most companies (including the one I work for now) is that LP caution the offender before engaging in conversation with them. I personally steer clear of doing this if I can help it as it can very quickly turn a calm cordial situation into a fraught one as you sound very much like a 'wannabe copper.' I prefer the term 'detain' to 'arrest' for the very reason above - decent Loss Prevention teams are often tarred with the same brush as the 'wannabe coppers' but in reality, to pinch a few words from the legal definition of an arrest - you are depriving somebody of their liberty in order that they answer a criminal charge, so by detaining somebody for an offence, you are in fact arresting them.
  13. I 100% agree with you. But alas, you are correct in that at the moment at least, it is a pipe dream. The lack of police involvement in retail crime at the moment is very concerning. In fact, a colleague of mine who works in a different area to me was told by a Sergeant "unless it's kicking off don't call us, we wont come - regardless of value" Now, you will not find anybody more supportive of our police force and the officers who put their lives on the line every day than me - but for an officer to actually state "we won't turn up" is quite frankly, disgusting and plain wrong - regardless of the offence. Some years back, the police changed their KPI mechanism, so instead of focusing on particular crimes (usually robbery, burglary and vehicle theft) they simply went to Detected Crimes and Undetected Crimes. When I called in a shoplifter that I had arrested you wouldn't believe the amount of officers fighting and arguing over who came to the job - because a well trained, experienced LP or Store Detective would, by the time the police arrived, have written their own witness statement, burned the CCTV footage, exhibited it in evidence bags etc etc. All they needed to do was arrest the offender, go straight into interview and job done. Easy detected crime for their figures. The 'decriminalisation' of shoplifting has been going for some time now, from the system above, we then went to on the spot fines / fixed penalties, to community resolution / restorative justice. And now, they quite frankly simply don't turn up - and when they do, they do whatever is in their power to avoid actually arresting the offender. I don't blame the officers one bit. This is mandated from way above their ranks. There HAS to be a deterrent when it comes to ANY crime really. Retail crime is no exception. Arrest was a deterrent. Even an on the spot fine was a deterrent (albeit not a very good one). They have both gone. The only deterrent left is Civil Recovery. i.e. 'If you shoplift from us it will cost you a lot of money.' In a way I can't really blame the retailers - what else are they to do? I am in no way defending RLP here by the way - I think they are a bunch of ambulance chasing vultures. It's only my opinion Silverfox, but unfortunately I think that far from seeing the back of RLP - I think we are going to see a major push in their direction as retailers run out of other avenues to pursue. Sorry for the rant!
  14. Hi DX, Quite frankly, yes. Companies decide at head office level who to use, usually RLP as they are the most prominent, and procedures are in place that state that, provided the offender meets the referral criteria - Civil Recovery must be served upon them (It's actually a simple mass photocopied A4 piece of paper that you just give to the detained person). Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action against the Loss Prevention Officer / Store Detective etc. There is one company in particular that analyse their Civil Recovery referral rate vs arrests and are very aggressive in their pursuit of it, analysing the submitted arrests and if they see no reason as to why certain arrests weren't referred to RLP then their Loss Prevention are brought into an interview to explain why.
×
×
  • Create New...