Lets get together & mount a concerted campaign against RLP

[rousin red]

Great rousin but if you come forward NOW we can help YOU to fight your case

 

Thanks JonCris; by coming forward now, you mean going to the media? As I said before, it's not something I am comfortable with. Sorry I cant help your campaign in that way.

[JonCris]

Thanks JonCris; by coming forward now, you mean going to the media? As I said before, it's not something I am comfortable with. Sorry I cant help your campaign in that way.

 

I'm saying your name & compliant would be put before the ICO & the media ONLY if the media assured you of anonymity

 

You ID would only be known to this site the ICO, the retailer & of course RLP. The media would only be involved with your agreement & only if they guaranteed your anonymity

[juliusceasor]

I'll ask my friend if she wants to be party to all this in public. Unfortunately she is foreign and all this is beyond her really so I think it unlikely because of that.

[MARTIN3030]

Damning evidence of cooperation can be seen in this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/retail-loss-prevention/155482-boots-rlp-17-year.html

[Bookworm]

OMG yes, I had forgotten that one.

 

I wish people would come back and tell us what happened in the end, good or bad, it would help so many other people.

[JonCris]

agreed BW that's shocking case also what happened to the whistleblower??

[shanty]

B & Q security staff receive a store bonus depending on the stores losses.

 

T K Maxx and Boots have these web based loss prevention systems in place that also monitor security staff performance.

 

I wondered why the security guard in my daughter's case went a bit over the top, yes she did wrong in spraying a bit of hair mousse but she did spend £15 in the store just after. They probably had no shoplifters in the store that day!

 

Also the incident happened on the 25th Feb and I received the RLP letter on the 28th, they didn't waste much time!

 

I am confused by what you mean here. I believe both B & Q and Boots use contractors,the stores losses therefore are not directly relevant.They don't work for the company directly.Where are you getting this from.

[shanty]

RLP have you seen the picture of the menacing guy in uniform on the 'welcome' page of thier website... these guys are 21st century extortionists-

 

I will certainly help any campaign if i can....

 

Er..you mean this..

 

 

(edit)

 

It's a common or garden Copper,what's menacing?

You are offering help on the basis of a photo?

Edited April 1, 2009 by freakyleaky
link removed

[tank-fink]

Who are you trying to fool mr shanty.....is he smiling:erm no....is he glaring menacingly at the camera....oh yes indeed.

 

My comments about this image were an aside to my post....Only a fool would consider them to be a reason for helping with a campaign.

 

Before you come on here ****ing me off- i suggest you read into all of the RLP posts and find out what all the fuss is about (XXXXX)

[JonCris]

(edit) there are more important things to concern us

Edited April 1, 2009 by freakyleaky
removed insult

[shanty]

I have read the posts.I can see what the fuss is about.x

[MARTIN3030]

So lets get on with the business of moving forward.

That is after all what people who came here for in the first place wish to see happening.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Does anyone know whether there is a minimum amount of goods lost/stolen/used etc for civil proceedings/letter from RLP to be issued. I only ask as in my daughter's case she used a 99p mousse but has been billed for £5.67 for goods, also noticed the sweet/tx maxx thread that sounds similar. Just thought I'd note it!

[JonCris]

Can you go & buy another at 99P. If you can if push comes to shove then you will help discredit the whole of their 'claimed' costs.

 

We need to collect & collate evidence of their practices

[juliusceasor]

Can you go & buy another at 99P. If you can if push comes to shove then you will help discredit the whole of their 'claimed' costs.

 

We need to collect & collate evidence of their practices

 

Not sure if the retail price alone can be used to calculate replacement cost. Could they not use the cost to replace one item from the manufacturer which would be different to the cost of buying in bulk or for sending them a replacement item individually where a minimum order or freight might be applied. For example they might not be restocking that item and a like for like replacement for a one off might be higher. Just a thought and not saying the £5.67 is realistic, but if we are going to look at things we need to look at them in the round surely.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It seems to me that if an individual is caught stealing, it's entirely appropriate for the retailer to involve the police, and, when the individual has been convicted, to then go for civil recovery.

 

My concern is that retailers and RLP regularly bypass the legal system, accuse people of criminal activity and label them as dishonest or as offenders without the necessary legal process. In other words, they remove the protection afforded by a very basic tenet of law - that of presumed innocence.

 

It strikes me that RLP's business would not be viable if it was only able to try to claim damages from genuine offenders.

[eyeinthesky]

Does anyone know whether there is a minimum amount of goods lost/stolen/used etc for civil proceedings/letter from RLP to be issued. I only ask as in my daughter's case she used a 99p mousse but has been billed for £5.67 for goods, also noticed the sweet/tx maxx thread that sounds similar. Just thought I'd note it!

 

Loss in respect of goods in this case should be 99p. I suspect that the guard, or manager or whomever filled the paperwork out, thought the sum of 99p to appear paltry, and unlikely to result in civil recovery action. The item was on sale for 99p, therefore the loss was 99p and cannot be made to be any higher. This would be worth pursuing through Boots, as this is dishonesty on behalf the store. When paperwork is submitted to RLP, it includes details of goods stolen and not recovered in saleable condition, this would show the brand, the item, the pack size and the price. It is also worth mentioning that the store would retain a carbon copy of the paperwork submitted to RLP, so maybe a visit to the store manager asking to see what was submitted would be a good idea.

I have never heard of civil recovery action for such a low amount, although I have heard of one for £1.47. I agree with civil recovery for deliberate theft, but only when the theft has been admitted or police have established the offence, and taken appropriate action.

I believe it highly unlikely that police would take any action, other than a warning, for a 99p theft.

Edited April 2, 2009 by eyeinthesky
added comments

[Bookworm]

It seems to me that if an individual is caught stealing, it's entirely appropriate for the retailer to involve the police, and, when the individual has been convicted, to then go for civil recovery.

 

My concern is that retailers and RLP regularly bypass the legal system, accuse people of criminal activity and label them as dishonest or as offenders without the necessary legal process. In other words, they remove the protection afforded by a very basic tenet of law - that of presumed innocence.

 

It strikes me that RLP's business would not be viable if it was only able to try to claim damages from genuine offenders.

Spot on, SP.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP is not just about damages...

 

Prof J Bamfield (who%

[JonCris]

Julius Please let us not argue semantics the retail price IS the price displayed. If they wish to justify a much greater figure then sobeit in the meantime please take photo

[JonCris]

It seems to me that if an individual is caught stealing, it's entirely appropriate for the retailer to involve the police, and, when the individual has been convicted, to then go for civil recovery.

 

My concern is that retailers and RLP regularly bypass the legal system, accuse people of criminal activity and label them as dishonest or as offenders without the necessary legal process. In other words, they remove the protection afforded by a very basic tenet of law - that of presumed innocence.

 

It strikes me that RLP's business would not be viable if it was only able to try to claim damages from genuine offenders.

 

 

Spot on SP these bullies rely on the fact that unless their victim pays up they will cause them embarrassment by accusing them falsely of dishonesty............. this can only be described as demanding money with menaces

[JonCris]

RLP is not just about damages...

 

Prof J Bamfield (who%

 

SP where's your Bamfield quote?????????????????

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm not sure where the Bamfield quote is - I had lots of error messages when posting yesterday. I'll try to dig it out again later.

[Bookworm]

RLP confiscated it. (Expect a bill shortly)

[samjf]

I recieved a letter from them yesterday and would love to fight them. Tk maxx security did not once mention they would be passing my details onto someone else. They said the matter was closed. I even spent another hour in the shop and bought more stuff.....