Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Losspreventionguy

  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
  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 w
  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 b
  4. Hello, First things first, were you given a ‘Notice or Intended Civil Recovery?’
  5. 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 sho
  6. 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 lev
  7. 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 secu
  8. 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
  9. 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 wha
  10. 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,
  11. 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 a
  12. 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 - regardl
  13. 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 agg
  14. No, it's not pedantic at all. You are correct it was indeed a choice that, in retrospect, I hope the OP realises was a big mistake to make! I just try to be a nice guy and give them the benefit of remorse Just to add Silverfox, You give fantastic advice here (you helped me on CAG in a previous life, as I mentioned in a different thread), and I feel I maybe am encroaching slightly as the long term members here already give good sound advice, however I would like to give back by giving the (hopefully) benefit of my experience and knowledge - and unfortunately this is the only th
  15. Hi Silverfox, and thank you for the welcome. Whilst I agree that RLP do indeed prey on the worry of consumers or attempt to intimidate them into coughing up, I can only refer to my own experience, in that I have been serving Civil Recovery on people for close to 15 years (please don't judge me!). You have to telephone RLP to report the incident (although they have now do online reporting too), and before you get into the particulars of the offender, or incident, they ask a couple of questions, such as "is the offender under 16 or over 65?" and "did the offender pay for the
  16. This one is very simple. They cannot issue civil recovery against you because you paid for the goods you had taken. If you read back in this forum you will notice that when people are detained for theft, and they offer to pay for the goods they are refused - this is because they cannot issue civil recovery against them if they do. So you won’t hear from RLP at all. If they try to even contact RLP regarding this case, it is one of the first questions that is asked by RLP, before even the name of the offender - Did the offender pay for the items? If the answer is yes, it isn’t even continued. So
  17. This thread is probably dead now and the OP probably isn’t monitoring it now, but whilst I agree that RLP will do nothing to get ‘their money’ it is worth mentioning that if the OP continues this pattern of offending and continues to rack up civil recovery ‘debt’ there is always the slight RISK that it will eventually amount to enough for it to be financially worth it for them to go to court for it, and I’m sorry, but as soon as the court sees an habitual pattern of theft - they will win. Unlikely i know, but not beyond the realms of possibility. Don’t give them that opportunity and nip it in
  18. The other replies here are absolutely right. Ignore RLP - I have over 10 years experience dealing with Civil Recovery and trust us when we tell you - nothing will happen, but please do prepare yourself for some quite intimidating letters. These will initially be from RLP, then they will be from a debt recovery company - just rip them up and throw them in the bin. Try not to worry about them. With regards to the ticket swapping, most people see this or tell themselves that as they are paying (albeit not the correct amount) that it is less serious than shoplifting. The offence is actually
  19. Hi Everyone, I have been helped on these forums in the past in matters of finance and debt by the amazing people on this forum who give up their time to help people who they have never met. I’ve never been able to repay them. I am a Loss Prevention professional with 15 years experience, in various roles ranging from Store Detective in my early years to Internal Investigator to Area Loss Prevention Manager. I have worked for Littlewoods, H&M, Marks and Spencer, Debenhams and TK Maxx amongst others. I am currently employed in Loss Prevention for a major well known national retail
  • Create New...