TK MAX and RLP -PRICE SWITCH WOOLY JACKET

[jack7777 1]

Hi ya,

 

My girl friend was caught for switching the price tag on woolen jacket. Security Admin issued her notice of intended civil recovery and banned her from TK Maxx. It has been week and nothing happened yet. This matter was not escalated to Police.

I need your help

 

1.Should i pay money to Retail loss prevention

2.Will tk maxx involve police at some point & file crime record.

3.Will she have to face court.

4.Will she get any criminal record aganist it.

 

Any help is most welcome. What do i do next ?

 

thank you

 

jack

[flyingdoc 727]

If the police were not involved at the time of the incident then it is unlikely that they will do so at this stage - I doubt that they could prove their case at this time unless they have and keep any CCTV and my thoughts are if they had that evidence why did they not inform the police at the time.

 

Civil recovery is a civil matter and if they were to issue an invoice and you pay it then there would be no need for the courts to be involved, therefore no court record.

 

From what I understand they write to you and ask you for an amount of money and you decide whether you wish to pay or not - if you refuse they take you to court.

 

It may be that the security although they knew what your GF was doing didnt have enough evidence to prove it which is why they didnt involve police.

 

1st thing await the rlp request - you have the option to pay or not to , in which case they would have to go and prove their case in court.

 

The burden of proof is less in civil proceedings and they would obtain a court judgement against your gf - which if paid within 30 days should not be entered into her credit record.

 

As there was no police involvement at the time I very much doubt that the police will ever be involved and that the chances of a criminal record is pretty much nil.

[Rob S 270]

If the goods were recovered by the store, then what is there for the store to claim under the RLP scheme? If they took someone to court who didn't pay what they were claiming, what would be the loss for them to attempt to claim back in such circumstances?

[ForestChav 238]

But surely if the store still have the item no losses were incurred. The security staff would have to be paid regardless of whether they had this to deal with or not.

 

And surely if no losses were incurred - and there wasn't even a theft so no crime was committed - none can be recouped.

[dx100uk 9,351]

And surely if no losses were incurred - and there wasn't even a theft so no crime was committed - none can be recouped.

 

sorry don't agree, there should be some kind of punishment. if it were me, i'd thankfully pay the retail loss costs and thank my luck stars i'd not got a criminal record out of it.

 

dx

[ForestChav 238]

sorry don't agree, there should be some kind of punishment. if it were me, i'd thankfully pay the retail loss costs and thank my luck stars i'd not got a criminal record out of it.

 

dx

But why? No theft has been committed, since the item has not been permanently taken from the store, and no losses have been incurred, since the item has not been removed, and the guards would be paid anyway. So what is there to recoup?

[flyingdoc 727]

The losses to recoup are the guard salaries and the anti theft devices which, although may have been there in any case, would not be required if people did not try to steal stuff.

And the losses for all the stuff that gets stolen that they dont catch the thieves.

Otherwise the people who pay for thieves is the regular honest customer who has to pay a higher price.

Remember the OP girlfriend is NOT a victim here - she chose to go and try and steal (or in her case obtain goods by deception) and got caught.

As DX says she is lucky not to have a criminal record from this.

[Zamzara 263]

Surely the fact that she is lucky not to have received a criminal record, while true, is irrelevant to the question of whether to pay?

 

If I catch someone damaging my car, are they really liable for the damage other people have done in the past and not been caught? If I get a refund on a faulty item from Tesco, are they liable for the times Curry's and PC World refused to refund my money? I don't agree with this line of argument.

 

The civil liability is for the actual amount of damages caused in the particular incident. If a punitive measure is going to be applied, then this is the domain of criminal law and the criminal standard of proof applies.

[raydetinu 920]

Did she sign anything admitting the offence at the time; I pressume she gave them her name and address, and checkeked her identity?

Is she under 18, if so they cannot take any action!

[postggj 3,713]

ime withdx100 on this one

 

she was done bang to rights as her intentions were clear

she was lucky no police or court

 

just pay the costs and put it to bed

i do not agree with these micky mouse fines but i feel she has been let off lightly and treat it as a lesson learned

[ForestChav 238]

The losses to recoup are the guard salaries and the anti theft devices which, although may have been there in any case, would not be required if people did not try to steal stuff.

And the losses for all the stuff that gets stolen that they dont catch the thieves.

Otherwise the people who pay for thieves is the regular honest customer who has to pay a higher price.

Remember the OP girlfriend is NOT a victim here - she chose to go and try and steal (or in her case obtain goods by deception) and got caught.

As DX says she is lucky not to have a criminal record from this.

I would normally agree, but no losses have been incurred and no theft has taken place if the store has the item.

 

The guards would have to be paid anyway and the same with the anti theft devices even if the OP's gf hadn't been caught or hadn't even attempted to do it.

 

Whilst I agree theft is wrong, if they wish to bring a conviction against them for theft they should not use RLP but contact the police and get them to press criminal charges and recoup their losses that way. With a police caution for theft it is a lot easier.

 

In this case no offence was committed since it was intercepted before it could be.

[flyingdoc 727]

If you extrapolate - if NOBODY tried to steal then there would be no need for the guards to be there.

so by extension this person has incurred these costs.

as I said before these costs are otherwise passed onto the honest customer who hasnt done anything wrong.

If she swapped the tags then the offence was committed, Just because they didnt present this to the checkout doesnt mean otherwise.

[MARTIN3030 5,286]

Retail loss Prevention are likely to send a demand within 10 days.

This is almost always for £250.00,they will offer a discount of £50 for immediate settlement.

There is divided opinions on the morals of them being able to charge this,since I am aware of more than one case whereby the person has accepted a caution after being told that if they dont they will be taken to Court.

 

RLP cite 2 precedants,in which courts have allowed costs to be claimed.

They will also cite agreements and co operation with ACPO.

I am not condoning those who are caught stealing or those who know they have done wrong,but I think there has to be transparacy and that we should not have firms making money from this.

RLP are clearly only giving the retailer or their client a proportion of the £250.00

If they are going to levy £250 in every case-then its clear that it has to be questionable.

They will refuse to give a costs breakdown and just tell you they will take it to Court.

I do not think it unreasonable that they should be able to supply a breakdown which shows they are not being unduly enriched by an unfair penalty.

 

If it was me I would certainly be telling them I would be asking for it if it went to Court.

[robin9342 241]

If you extrapolate - if NOBODY tried to steal then there would be no need for the guards to be there.

so by extension this person has incurred these costs.

as I said before these costs are otherwise passed onto the honest customer who hasnt done anything wrong.

If she swapped the tags then the offence was committed, Just because they didnt present this to the checkout doesnt mean otherwise.

Its not at all sensible to try and extrapolate here. Theft has been happening for thousands of years - you are not going to stop it now. That doesn't make it right, but I'm afraid we don't live in Utopia. We all pay for the nature of humankind.

 

Swapping the tags is NOT an offence in itself. For all we know, the OP's girlfriend may have had a change of heart before reaching the checkout and put the goods back.

[emsgeorge 33]

Swapping the tags is NOT an offence in itself.

 

What about fraud by false representation then - fraud act 2006.

 

(replaced theft by deception last year ....)

 

As flyingdoc says - offence is complete.

 

And if they are simply looking for an offence - then what about criminal damage to the price tickets. You know and I know a court will never run with something of such small value - but it gives a lawful power of arrest to the security officers.

[robin9342 241]

It only becomes an offence if the person approaches the till and attempts to gain a monetary advantage. (In much the same way that putting items in your bag only becomes theft once you leave the store, not just because you go near the exit) Until such time, it might be criminal damage if one is being pedantic.

[flyingdoc 727]

Sorry Robin - I hate to disallusion you but you are wrong.

 

Putting stuff in your bag with the intent to steal is immediately an offence. The only reason that store policies say wait until the thief leaves the store is that way they can prove intent (which is a difficult thing to do).

 

It is all to do with intent.

 

If she swapped the tags with the INTENT of gaining monetary advantage then it is an offence immediately it is done.

 

This is probably easier to prove than stealing - you could claim that you put an item in your bag for a number of reasons - didnt have enough hands, kid causing problems etc etc. but there is no legitimate reason why you should swap a price tag on an item.... so intent here would be probably a little easier to prove.

[robin9342 241]

Maybe so, but it remains for the store to prove intent to the satisfaction of a court, which can be very difficult.

[flyingdoc 727]

which is probably why they decided not to take her to court but to pursue a civil recovery option.

The intent would only have to be proved on the "balance of probabilities" under civil law rather then "Beyond reasonable doubt" for crmininal

 

much easier thing to do.

 

They may be daft - but they aint stupid :/

[kiptower 1,047]

quote "but it gives a lawful power of arrest to the security officers"

 

the only power they have is "a citizens arrest"

 

which is very limited

[dx100uk 9,351]

not so anymore after 9/11 7/7.

do some reading.

same powers as you and me.

 

personally i think it is disgusting that some members are 'defending' the actions of a thief!

 

unsubscribing

 

dx

[Zamzara 263]

I'm not defending the actions, just pointing out that they can't use the lower standard of proof in the civil law to issue what amounts to a criminal penalty. If the want to issue a penalty they should prosecute. A 'civil recovery order' or whatever they call it doesn't exist and is itself a deception.

 

Or perhaps next time a big company rips me of with a deceptive practice I should issue a £250 penalty as a punishment.

[Bookworm 4,202]

2 wrongs don't do a right, dx, and the law is the same for all. There are plenty of threads on here which show that RLP are a law onto themselves and that plenty of innocent people also get caught on their trap. It's not about defending the actions of an (alleged) thief, it's about preventing the (allegedly) dishonest actions of the other side.

 

Every thread I have read about RLP's actions has left me very uneasy, regardless of the cause which gave rise to their action. To me, it has all the marks of a fine in the same manner as private parking companies operate, or the Davenport-Lyons internet piracy case, and the word "racket" springs to mind. One that sticks in my mind was the pensioner who got his trolley and receipt scrutinised in a Sainsbury's, they found it all tallied and still tried to hit the guy with their "costs".

 

I frankly wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the next consumer issues to emerge, and probably already would have if it weren't for the guilt of the majority of those who get hit, which means they will then be reluctant to come forward.

[jack7777 1]

Thanks for your responses. my gf accept it was unfair and wrong on her part to switch the tags. We both understand switching the tags is morally and ethically wrong. She has assured me that she will not even think of doing it again. I think she mean it because as a lesson she has agreed to do some voluntary community service.

Abt your question raydetinu, she did sign the banning notice but nothing else. And yes she did hand in her real name, real address and all other details (passport no etc). So is it trouble? My gf is over 18. What is max time limit to file the police case? Will they file police case after RLP recovery?

Please help..

[flyingdoc 727]

I very much doubt that the police will file at all.

The store have gone the civil recovery route, and most likely because of the lack of evidence against your GF the cps would probably not pursue a case against her.

with regard to the rlp I would personally say pay the reduced amount for quick payment. If your GF was protesting her innocence I would suggest fighting this but she is not - best to get it closed asap.