civil recovery for shoplifting

[WelshMam2009]

I agree it's your decision but I do think you have made a mistake in that at the very least your daughter will now be on their website.

 

As for not being able to stop them don't kid yourself we are more influential than you seem to think. Recently & as a direct result of ordinary consumers one such site has already been closed down & there's a distinct possiblity of prosecutions by the ICO.

 

Also in the case of children the Childrens Commissioner is taking an active interest in their methods.

 

There are other surprising links to these firms which are yet to be disclosed

 

Excuse my ignorance JC, but how are these civil companies entitled to hold and process your data without your consent, especially in the case of minors who may be considered too young to give their consent in the first place? I though that's what the DPA was all about?

 

I'm not sure if it's the one you're referring to, but there was a company raided recently that was maintaining a database that contained details of construction workers...surely any such database maintained by RLP would be exactly the same??

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

We need to find out if Cireco Ltd have registered with the OFT as a data controller.

 

WelshMam, my letter to Boots is querying why my daughter was asked to sign a civil recovery form without having a parent/representative present. She's probably given her consent to be placed on RLP database without knowing the full facts. As she's said, it was a lovely security guard that didn't want to involve the police.

[patdavies]

We need to find out if Cireco Ltd have registered with the OFT as a data controller.

 

 

It would be the ICO, not OFT

[Yorky2008]

Tank-fink, thats probably a standard letter they send everyone who agrees to pay something to their company, if you'd offered £20 I bet they would have accepted.

 

Regardless of what you pay them your daughter's name will still be on their dishonesty database preventing her from gaining employment. See link below.

 

IntegrityScreening.co.uk

 

I would like to know how you qualify for an entry on the 'dishonesty databse' as well, is it purely by RLP accusing you or after the courts have made judgement? I know which I would put my money on that they are implemenyting.....

 

If that is the case then there is nothing to stop someone setting one up also and putting anyone they pleased on it just because they didnt like them! Hey maybe we should set one up and put RLP on it

 

Yorky.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

It would be the ICO, not OFT

 

That one as well Pat. Reason I mention the OFT is that if Cireco Ltd also advise clients on whether a person has a CCJ surely they are also acting as a credit reference agency and would need a Consumer Credit Licence. Maybe someone on here would know?

[ScarletPimpernel]

As I understand it, if a company is providing an opinion as to an individual's creditworthiness, then they need a consumer credit licence. Looking at the Cireco website (which is, incidentally, not compliant with the Companies Act 2006), I'd be inclined to think that they are effectively acting as a CRA. You could always ring the OFT to check.

 

I couldn't find Cireco on the ICO database; if, as their website states, they have been established since 2005, one would have expected them to have registered as data controllers by now.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Thanks Scarlet, I'm in for a week of letter writing once half term is over.

[JonCris]

I do get the impression that these linked companies are playing fast & loose with the law when it comes to registering their activities..............a little ironic when you think about their claims to ensure probity by others........... hypocrisy comes to mind

[JonCris]

SP can you PM as to why their site doesn't comply with the Companies Act?? thanks

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

I know it's been a tough two weeks but am I imagining things, have RLP changed their website?

[tank-fink]

they (RLP) are probably being 'affected' by this here little website?

 

these orwellian visions are scary....maybe i should hang in and 'fight the cause'? ha ha....

 

will you all put together and back my legal funds in the fight against them keeping my daughters history/hickup on file....? ('money talks' and very loudly to me at the mo.)

 

i could maybe put my own neck on the line , but my daughter ruth:) must stay annonimous

 

Does the CAG have a any 'fighting fund' to provide for legal costs/fees?

 

If not, and If you all care so much, are you willing to donate to such a fund...i'll start, and as the main beneficiary of the 'save ruths reputation' campaign, i will be willing to donate as much as ten pounds.....how does that sound..

[raydetinu]

TF, dont pay them anything! They can persue it as much as they like, but without a court ruling they cant collect it.

Also with regard to the database thing, there was a case about building site operatives being on a blacklist operated by several companies and this was found to be illegal, see below.

Builders' blacklist triggers data protection clampdown - Information World Review

 

similar sort of thing. Also if they are acting as referance agency then they will need a licience.

[JonCris]

Trouble is that when the victim's mother contacted the ICO whoever dealt with her claimed RLP COULD blacklist the kid. This is the stuff of nonsense as a I doubt any court in the land will allow some private agency to do this

 

I'm not a victim but if I were I would kick up an almighty stink with the so-called regulators, my MP AND the Ministry of Justice

[kiptower]

to contact the Justice Minister Bridget Prentice

 

this is her web site

 

and her Surgery in London SE12 ( Lee Green )

 

more the pity she has anounced she is standing down in 2010

 

 

How To Contact Me

[lazyman]

well, we offered them 150, and have just received a letter stating they wouldn't accept it. (i can scan the letter and post it on here if anybody interested as in this letter they say they dont need cc licence)

my gf wants to pay as she doesn't want to be involeved in this anymore. i guess i would feel the same. if you've done something wrong you just want to forget about it and move on, so we'll just pay..

i feel quite angry about RLP and about the govermental bodies who allow their existance.. it is very wrong that some people commit crimes such as theaft, but there is police in our society to deal with it, and the police should issue fines, not parasites like RLP

 

thank you for all you help and advice

[michaelmcc]

She has been arrested.She has admitted guilt.

 

I am a security officer who has worked for numerous companys and clients including Boots, House of Frasier, Tiso's, French Connection, River Island and Great Outdoor World. I have issued a variety of civil recovery fines to people who have shoplifted. The amount varies from store to store and depends on what has happened. Civil recovery can now be issued to 14 year olds and upwards from the last i heard. There parents are responsable for paying this.

 

The civil recovery is issued to cover the costs of security, i.e wages for the security officer, insurance for him/her, cctv costs, costs of the witness i.e manager or member of staff, security officers uniform, radio and other items used to help detain the person in question.

 

The best thing to do in a situation where you have been issued one is to pay it. If the police say you have done it and charge you then there isnt anyway of getting out of paying it, even if you are unemployed. They will take it off you in installments of as low as £5.00 per month.

 

If you need to no anymore just ask.

[Huff&Puff]

Please don't feed the troll

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

If you need to no anymore just ask.

 

Ok, here are some questions:

 

1. Bearing in mind that in general only courts and local authorities can issue fines, and that the our constitution is clear that there can be no penalty without trial, please explain under which legal authority you are empowered to issue fines.

 

2. Please provide a reference to the statute law that states that parents are responsible for paying for civil recovery in respect of their offspring.

 

3. Please let us know who trained you, so that we can report them to the relevant authorities for their failure to carry out their work effectively.

 

4. Do you need help with spelling and punctuation?

[Zamzara]

RLP popping up offering false advice: things are getting desparate then, just like for the PPCs a couple of years ago.

 

Cue the newly-registered poster claiming to have lost in court with £5k costs awarded to RLP, how could he have been so stupid, etc. etc.

[JonCris]

I am a security officer who has worked for numerous companys and clients including Boots, House of Frasier, Tiso's, French Connection, River Island and Great Outdoor World. I have issued a variety of civil recovery fines you can't 'fine'anyone to people who have shoplifted says you but does a court agree with you if not its ONLY an allegation. The amount varies from store to store and depends on what has happened. Civil recovery can now be issued to 14 year olds and upwards from the last i heard. Although it does happen it shouldn't happen to minors There parents are responsable for paying this. Oh dear who told you that nonsense, a civil recovery firm no doubt

The civil recovery is issued to cover the costs of security, i.e wages for the security officer, insurance for him/her, cctv costs, costs of the witness i.e manager or member of staff, security officers uniform, radio and other items used to help detain the person in question.

 

The best thing to do in a situation where you have been issued one is to pay it. If the police say you have done it and charge you then there isnt anyway of getting out of paying it, even if you are unemployed. They will take it off you in installments of as low as £5.00 per month. Contrary to popular belief the police accusing a person of shoplifting is NOT based on 1st hand evidence its based on what the 'security' guard claims & no even if accused by the police you DON'T have to pay

 

If you need to no anymore just ask.

 

I don't think so somehow

[JonCris]

Ok, here are some questions:

 

1. Bearing in mind that in general only courts and local authorities can issue fines, and that the our constitution is clear that there can be no penalty without trial, please explain under which legal authority you are empowered to issue fines.

 

2. Please provide a reference to the statute law that states that parents are responsible for paying for civil recovery in respect of their offspring.

 

3. Please let us know who trained you, so that we can report them to the relevant authorities for their failure to carry out their work effectively.

 

4. Do you need help with spelling and punctuation?

 

SP Its probably you know who:lol:

[JonCris]

RLP popping up offering false advice: things are getting desparate then, just like for the PPCs a couple of years ago.

 

Cue the newly-registered poster claiming to have lost in court with £5k costs awarded to RLP, how could he have been so stupid, etc. etc.

 

It was only a matter of time init!

[JonCris]

ADVICE FOR 'SECURITY' GUARDS ( those who employed in civil recovery)

FPN's are NOT an admission of guilt & do NOT impugn on a persons character ..........period

 

Regina v Hamer

[2010] WLR (D) 235

 

CA:

Thomas LJ, Treacy, Saunders JJ:

17 August 2010

 

A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Divison) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant had assaulted the complainant taxi driver after an evening out. The defendant pleaded self defence. He had no previous convictions or cautions, but had received a fixed penalty notice under s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for a minor public disorder matter, two months after the instant offence. After discussion between counsel and the judge regarding whether a good character direction should be given, the judge ruled that the jury should be told about the defendant’s penalty notice, but directed the jury that they might think it fairer to disregard it and treat him as of good character, and he gave the defendant a full good character direction. The defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in admitting the fixed penalty notice, since it was not a criminal conviction and involved no admission of guilt.

THOMAS LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the fixed penalty notice scheme was a method of dealing with low level crime without the need to prove the offence and commission of it by the person to whom it was issued. It involved no admission of guilt, nor did it create a criminal record. The scheme went no further than that. If the notice was accepted, payment of the penalty provided that no further action could be taken. The notice was distinct from a caution, where commission of a crime was acknowledged. Its issue was not a form of justice, as justice normally included guilt. It was not a conviction, admission of guilt, any proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the persons character. It therefore followed that it was not admissible as an admission of an offence or of bad character in the sense of impugning the defendant’s character. It might be that in some cases the Crown might wish to adduce evidence regarding matters in respect of which the notice had been issued. Counsel for the Crown had not wished the issue of the notice to go before the jury, and it was only at the insistence of the judge that it had done. It was unfair to mention the notice without an attempt to call evidence regarding the circumstances of it. The notice was entirely irrelevant and ought to have been kept from the jury. However, since the defendant had no plausible explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant, in all the circumstances the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe.

Appearances: James McCrindell (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Simon Gladwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrow) for the Crown.

Reported by: Sharene Dewan-Leeson, Barrister

[ArtisanUK]

Tank-fink, thats probably a standard letter they send everyone who agrees to pay something to their company, if you'd offered £20 I bet they would have accepted.

 

Regardless of what you pay them your daughter's name will still be on their dishonesty database preventing her from gaining employment. See link below.

 

[integrityScreening.co.uk[/url]

 

It seems that such blacklisting can occur even when no payment has been made, no guilt has been proved or admitted and where the client company has apologised to the victim of RLP's unwarranted demands. Such was the case of the Norfolk student who was featured on the recent 'Inside Out East' programme on BBC 1 - Boots had wrongly accused her of having attempted to steal two tubes of lip gloss. Despite having dropped the case after the BBC became involved, despite having issued a rather contrite apology and despite Boots having sent a cheque for 200 pounds as compensation, that student was still listed on the Cireco "Integrity" database.

 

If one looks at some of the other sources and types of data held by Cireco - such as the American 'government' OFAC (SDN) list or some list(s) of what they are pleased to call 'Politically Exposed Persons' (source of data unknown) - one might begin to feel rather more uneasy about what they do.

[jojomel]

i have had the same thing,just found out today that my daughter had been caught shoplifting,god knows why as she has always been well provided for,from a good background and works hard at college,anyway she was caught with a £5 tester foundation at boots,they told her she could either accept a fine or be arrested and end up having a criminal record,she was scared of me and her father finding out so she opted for the fine,we found out when a letter arrived to say that she had to pay £137.50,as she has no income are we as parents liable to pay this,any info would be grateful,fair enough i agree with what companies are doing to re-coup money from shoplifters and do not condone what she did,and i know she is ashamed of herself too,but i do think that the amount of fine is severe(she is 17)