Jump to content


Retail Loss Prevention


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5866 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I bought three pairs of shoes, which I paid for at Tk maxx Manchester UK, still inside the store I was stopped by a security guard asking me to go with him to his office, they told me I was recorded on camera changing the price tags on two pairs of shoes. I wasn’t given the option to see the video. The shoes in matter were originally in this store 39.99GBP and 29.99GBP a total of 60GBP, at the till I paid a total of 78GBP for the three pairs of shoes. Also I recall that the cashier said, “I’m not sure of the price of these shoes” to which I replied, “Can you check the price with the codes?” the cashier ignored this, did not call anyone to check the price and priced out the shoes making random conversation. I am not british and I have never done anything like this. I guess I expected that if someone saw me changing the price as I did not hide to do it, would come and tell me off or at the till, I would be asked to pay full price. The reason why I did it is as stupid as the incident itself, I saw those shoes at a different price in another tk-maxx but didn’t have my size so I thought it would be easy to change the tags in this tk-maxx for a similar price I saw in the previous tk-maxx store.

In that room with the shop security guard and other people, I wasn’t given any options of what could happen to me under the circumstances for example if I admitted or denied it. I recall being mocked by other staff that kept coming in the room. The security guard, who never said his name to me, said he wouldn’t let me go unless I provided all my personal information at the same time the guard suggested I might have committed credit card fraud? He wanted to keep even the pair of shoes for which I paid properly. One of the people in the other room came and told him that wasn’t possible because they couldn’t prove it, anyways he rang the police to come and deal with it but I guess they told him as the value of the goods were under 100GBP and I paid in the till to their cashier the store needed to deal with it. Anyways two policemen came and the security guard told them that the shop would deal with this. The two pairs of shoes were confiscated by the store, the amount I paid for the two pairs was not refunded, I offered to pay the correct price for the shoes but they didn’t allowed me to do so. I was told that Civil Recovery (Retail Loss Prevention: [email protected]) would send me a letter with a fine for the incident to recover administrative and time costs of the issue. I was asked to sign a paper to be able to go, when I came home I realized the space to be filled regarding the incident was left in blank the document merely stated I was banned from the retailer. I feel that I was treated unprofessionally and unfairly because I am not British. Another point is that this store didn’t have visible signs regarding Civil Recovering schemes. I am very stressed about the whole situation. The two policemen came to my house to verify my address I asked them about my situation they told me they were sure what happened was a mistake not a crime and that I would never do it again. I know my action was morally wrong and it is not worth all the stress I am going through, I acknowledge what I did is wrong and I ´ve already instructed myself over the internet regarding this issues in the UK, I´m truly sorry and there will not be a next time. I will tell other foreigners about the outcomes if they were to do the same I did, certainly not worth it. Luckily I was not arrested by the police and wasn’t given a caution. I have been researching on the net regarding Retail Loss Prevention and all I have found is that I will have to pay for loss recovery administrative cost.

 

What is my legal situation and what would you do if you were in my situation?

Are first offenders treated like persistent ones by RLP?

Will I have to pay whatever amount of money RLP say I must pay?

Points to be taken into consideration:

- I have never committed any crime or had a legal issue. I am not British.

- The cashier said she wasn’t sure of the price on the shoes and I asked her if she could check the price code with the shoes, she ignored this.

- I paid for the goods.

- I was still inside the store when the security guard detained me.

- Not being British I wasn’t informed of my rights if I could have had any.

- Police did not arrest me.

- I was not given a caution.

Thank you very much in advanced, I am ready for harsh, partial and impartial comments.Regards, Lara

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I

What is my legal situation and what would you do if you were in my situation?

Are first offenders treated like persistent ones by RLP?

Will I have to pay whatever amount of money RLP say I must pay?

 

Points to be taken into consideration:

 

 

 

Your legal situation is that you have not been charged or convicted of any crime.

RLP assume that everyone they target is an 'offender', but, since you have not been charged or convicted of an offence, this is untrue and probably actionable.

No, you won't have to pay RLP anything. They will be unpleasant and put pressure on you, but if you stand up to them they can be dealt with. You will get plenty of help and support here.

 

RLP have no legal authority whatever. They like to take a rather pompous stance that implies that they are helping to prevent crime, but the reality is that what they do is just a way to make money.

 

Have you actually heard aything from RLP yet?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Scarlet,

 

I´ve been reading about RLP, I wonder if the RLP security people´s goal is to prevent or to let people do something wrong so they can charge them later.

 

I still haven´t received anything from RLP. I am returning for good to my country and worried I won´t be able to deal with RLP. Someone who posted a thread relating tkm and RLP, I think, got a letter from RLP very soon. Someone in the site mentioned that if they were to take action they would have done it by now and that I could return to my country safely. I just wanted to thank you for the information you provided Scarlet.x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, hello hello

 

I think you should probably start your own thread about this to allow folk to notice you. This is the Debt Collection Agency Forum and you may not get noticed by the right folk to help you. Here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-stores/ might be better. (I'm not sure - what soes anybody else think?)

 

Main thing is not to panic. You've done a silly thing, you were not trespassing at the time. But don't ignore it - like parking fines, such things are best sorted out and you're in the right place to get the advice to do that.

Any help and advice is offered in good faith, based solely on my own knowledge and on experience gathered from this site. I am not qualified to offer legal or financial advice, which you should seek from an expert before making any important decisions. My opinions are therefore offered without liability.

 

If I've been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lara Blues... I don't think you'd have taken the trouble to come on this site if you weren't genuine.

 

Although you went voluntarily to "the office" you were then told that you were being arrested. It doesn't have to be physical to be an arrest - being verbally told of your detention is sufficient. (And you were told that unless you provided certain information you would not be released).

 

You need legal advice really. It may well be that you have an action for false imprisonment. Confiscation of something you have paid for is also another issue. If you have paid the price asked for by the shop it could be regarded as theft. I would write to TK MAx and give them the date and times of the incident. Say that you require a copy of the video as you are conisdering legal action for false imprisonment and for the return of goods you have purchased. Say that if they refuse to forward a copy of the video they should preserve it for use as evidence in proceedings you will be bringing.

 

The County Court system can deal with both of the claims you can make but false imprisonent cases have a jury. See a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edz

 

this is a difficult case here, was the OP indeed restricted from leaving the shop? if so it would give rise to a claim under tort for false imprisonment ,(walters -v-WH smith & sons ltd 1914 ) unless she was lawfully arrested

 

the problem we have here is that to advise on such matters on an internet forum we can only go on what is posted which is surely not the full story

 

i have books on cases of wrongful arreast in my personal law library and the levels of compensation which can be awarded and the figures can in certain cases run into thousands of pounds compensation the most prominent cases are the cases of Thompson and the case of kennith Hsu in the court of appeal although these cases were for unlawful detention by police

 

 

i feel that you are right that a solicitor should be consluted on this

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read your other thread about this case. I suspect that you have already admitted the deception to the shop and the police so it is unlikely that you have any redress against the shop at all. The arrest was most likely lawful and the goods that the shop "retained" can be claimed as a credit against any other civil action that the shop may wish to take against you.

 

Shops can charge whatever they like for goods. When I was younger I worked in a supermarket after college. It had a price book which had 3 prices for each item it sold. The price depended on where the shop was located - so the price at TK Max was probably not wrong - so was you did was probably fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me I would have refused to go with the Security Staff unless they actually arrested me. They would have difficulty proving anything as you had not actually left the store so technically you had not committed an Arrestable Offence therefore I believe any arrest would not have been lawful and you would have good grounds for a civil claim for False Arrest, Unlawful Imprisonment and Assault. These store Security Guards have no more legal power than any member of the public. It seems that when they put their Rentacop Uniform on they think they have the legal powers of a 'Constable'

Link to post
Share on other sites

there seems to be a trend with incorrect prices with tk maxx, me and the missus got a load of items, got to the till and one of the items was one of them multiple drinks/bottle holders the price tag on it was 10.99 but the clerk said they were 12.99, a couple of staff members starting moving in (makes sense now) so I went and got a trolley put every one in it and took them to the till, each one had 10.99 on it, oh I thought these where 12.99 said the clerk, anyway we had about 180 pounds worth of items and I said did you think after spending this much I would stiff you for two quid, long and short we just left everything at the till and said we didnt want any of it, we went somewhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ODC has a valid point, if I recall correctly, there isn't any offence until the person physically leaves the premises.

 

As a youngster we used to wander around stuffing stuff up our jumpers and inside our coats to get the attention of and wind up the store detectives, then make sure we put it all back on the shelves before we left, followed at every step by sherlock and co.

 

We were never charged with anything, but then we never actually took anything

Link to post
Share on other sites

the leaving the premises is a convention used to establish the intention to deprive ownership

 

sections 1-6 Theft Act 1968 sets out what constitutes theft

 

Definition of “theft”

1. Basic definition of theft.

— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).Annotations:

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1

S. 1(1) applied (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 148(8), 168

 

 

2. “Dishonestly”

— (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a)

if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

 

(b)

if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

 

©

(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

 

 

(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

3. “Appropriates”.

— (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

4. “Property”.

— (1) “Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

(2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say— (a)

when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or

 

(b)

when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or

 

©

when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.

 

 

For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as staututory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.

(4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

5. “Belonging to another”.

— (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).

(2) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.

(3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.

(4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.

(5) Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

6. “With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

— (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

 

there have been cases where it has been held that a person leaving a shop with property has not committed an act of theft where the necessary mens rea has not been proven, an example was a case i am aware of where a person took an item out of a newlook store and was showing it to a disabled friend who was unable to get in to the store( Before the DDA came in) the store detectives were heavy handed and the person was taken to court, the case was thrown out cause it was held that the appropriation was not dishonest nor was there intention to deprive ownership

 

there have also been a couple where the person has commited theft where they have not left the store but have the required means rea and actus reus for the offence so things are not as clear cut as we often think

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's something quite disturbing here.

 

Clearly TKM have a problem with people changing price labels, but the way they are going about solving it seems questionable to me.

 

Surely they should question the price at the point of sale and refuse to sell them

 

By allowing customers to pay for the goods, aren't they are accepting the customers 'offer to treat' and a contract has been made and ownership of the goods passes to the customer. To then confiscate the goods and not refund the money, to my (albeit non-legal) mind amounts to theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah you're right Michael

 

once the contract is formed and fulfilled the ownership would change and to take it back would be theft for sure

 

my post above was more aimed at any allegations of theft on the part of the OP taking goods from TK maxx rather than TKMaxx taking from the OP

Link to post
Share on other sites

there have also been a couple where the person has commited theft where they have not left the store but have the required means rea and actus reus for the offence so things are not as clear cut as we often think
It would be extremely difficult to prove the Mens Rea if the person did not leave the shop.

 

People should be aware of their legal rights when approached by these Rentacops. Police will very often refuse to arrest a shoplifter if they were detained by a 'Security Guard' inside the premises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be extremely difficult to prove the Mens Rea if the person did not leave the shop.

 

People should be aware of their legal rights when approached by these Rentacops. Police will very often refuse to arrest a shoplifter if they were detained by a 'Security Guard' inside the premises.

 

Hi ODC

 

Im Not gonna disagree with you there, it would be difficult but not unprovable

 

people should aslo be aware of the recent changes in the PACE Act to

 

s110 of the SOCAPA makes serious changes to the powers of arrest of citizens

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

once the contract is formed and fulfilled the ownership would change and to take it back would be theft for sure

 

my post above was more aimed at any allegations of theft on the part of the OP taking goods from TK maxx rather than TKMaxx taking from the OP

 

Well, effectively TKM are alleging theft by the OP (by changing the price label), but only after they have been paid for (ie TKM have acepted the OP's 'offer to treat') and therefore now belong to the OP.

 

I appreciate that TKM are using this to combat losses, but surely, by subsequently 'arresting' and confiscating the goods with no refund, they themselves are breaking the law

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael

 

wouldnt it be great if the law was easy :)

 

to be honest, in these situations without all the facts we can only debate the rights and wrongs of what we are told

 

it would appear their actions from what we are told are wrong and yeah i would say unlawful, there is also the issues of whether an arrest took place or not and was it lawfull or not

 

its a nightmare, but i feel there may be more to this than we are being told

 

 

regards

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ODC

 

Im Not gonna disagree with you there, it would be difficult but not unprovable

 

people should aslo be aware of the recent changes in the PACE Act to

 

s110 of the SOCAPA makes serious changes to the powers of arrest of citizens

 

regards

paul

And at the end of the day these Rentacops are just citizens no mre no less

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, As I said it´s been nearly a month and I haven´t received anything from RLP and I am leaving the Uk permanently. Other people with issues with tkm&RLP, who have posted in this site, seem to have got a letter within a week.I´m ok now and if I ever get a letter here or in my country then I will deal with it, meantime I´ve found peace of mind and I honestly know what I did was a mistake and now I can move on. Hellohello, I think TKM does have an issue with pricing and could persuade decent people to do a wrong thing. I am sad that I can´t shop there anymore as I was banned, I wanted to buy some gifts for my family back at home at a different TKM shop but was advised not to, as someone from tkm security staff could recognise me and ask me to leave then I would be really embarrased; Manchester is such a small city. so I would say if you want to continue shopping there perhaps may need to clarify the situation and the banning paper they gave you. I called the shop to ask and they give a lifetime banning and also from all the other tkm shops. For the rest of the repliers, just wanted to say thanks for the comments and also that, things happened as I related here, I didn´t mean to commit crime but the fact is that I did it and truly regret it , I should have asked the staff and If they didn´t match the other shoe-price then just not having arranged it myself. Another fact is that TKM needs to sort their pricing issues to avoid theft and as previously mentioned, it could persuade decent people to do a wrong thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lara - everyone on here has made a mistake at sometime in their life. No one is perfect - la vida es una lección larga.

 

I'd go to another TK shop and pay by cash (just in case your credit card etc has been logged). It isn't likely that you'll get recognised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sad that I can´t shop there anymore as I was banned, I wanted to buy some gifts for my family back at home at a different TKM shop but was advised not to, as someone from tkm security staff could recognise me and ask me to leave then I would be really embarrased

 

I am baffled by that comment Lara. If I felt that a shop had mistreated me then it would certainly be the last place I would want to spend my money in.

 

As I said on another thread, if you are concerned RLP will try contacting you after moving, phone them and check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...