civil recovery for shoplifting

[lazyman]

thank you for your comments and advice.

although she's never done anything like that before (she hasn't had any cautions or fines etc.), and the theft was under £200, police officer did take her to the station and as a result a formal caution was given.

today we have received a letter from RLP Ltd. (Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us) stating that she has to pay 323.50!

they break it down as follows:

value of un-recovered (or unfit for resale goods: £135

staff management time investigating and/or dealing with the incident: 112.50

admin cost resulting from wrongful actions: 34

appointed security and surveillance costs: 42

i wouldn't argue with anything apart from "value of un-recovered/unfit for resale goods". they did recover everything! and the goods were not damaged! any ideas how to argue about it with RLP?

thank you

[lazyman]

hi there

my girlfriend shoplifted from Boots a few days ago:evil: she has just told me now that she was caught by the security there, she admitted and signed the paper stating that she stole the goods to the value of £135. (the police was called in, and she was given a caution at the station). she's just been made redundant aswell and i am worried how much can they recover from her? would be grateful if anybody answers..

 

today we have received a letter from RLP Ltd. (Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us) stating that she has to pay 323.50!

they break it down as follows:

value of un-recovered (or unfit for resale goods: £135

staff management time investigating and/or dealing with the incident: 112.50

admin cost resulting from wrongful actions: 34

appointed security and surveillance costs: 42

i wouldn't argue with anything apart from "value of un-recovered/unfit for resale goods". they did recover everything! and the goods were not damaged! any ideas how to argue about it with RLP?

thank you

[raydetinu]

Its up to you but I would challenge them to take you to court to justify the costs! however you can make them an offer to settle on reasonable costs if you feel so inclined to settle the matter.

They are trying to recover the cost of goods on behalf of the shop, have you receievd any request from the shop for the cost of goods or damage to them as now unsaleable ( unlikely as they have them back )?, so why are adding this to the costs. therefore they are acting as debt collectors on behalf of the store, for which they dont have a licence for - do the store no this is what they are doing and do they actually pass this on to them if you pay it.

Perhaps you should send a copy of this invoice to Boots and ask if they agree with them seeking the costs of the goods which they have back and to comment on the level of RLP costs.

I would suspect that they have no idea what RLP are up to!

RLP are probably ripping the offender and their client off all the time with these spurious amounts.

[lazyman]

Its up to you but I would challenge them to take you to court to justify the costs! however you can make them an offer to settle on reasonable costs if you feel so inclined to settle the matter.

They are trying to recover the cost of goods on behalf of the shop, have you receievd any request from the shop for the cost of goods or damage to them as now unsaleable ( unlikely as they have them back )?, so why are adding this to the costs. therefore they are acting as debt collectors on behalf of the store, for which they dont have a licence for - do the store no this is what they are doing and do they actually pass this on to them if you pay it.

Perhaps you should send a copy of this invoice to Boots and ask if they agree with them seeking the costs of the goods which they have back and to comment on the level of RLP costs.

I would suspect that they have no idea what RLP are up to!

RLP are probably ripping the offender and their client off all the time with these spurious amounts.

 

i am going to send them an email on behalf of my gf and make them an offer to pay not including the value of the goods.

do you think i should mention in my email that they don't have a licence to be acting as debt collectors ? (i went on their website and there is no info on whether they do or dont have the licence)

[noddyaccount]

hi there

my girlfriend shoplifted from Boots a few days ago:evil: she has just told me now that she was caught by the security there, she admitted and signed the paper stating that she stole the goods to the value of £135. (the police was called in, and she was given a caution at the station). she's just been made redundant aswell and i am worried how much can they recover from her? would be grateful if anybody answers..

 

today we have received a letter from RLP Ltd. (Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us) stating that she has to pay 323.50!

they break it down as follows:

value of un-recovered (or unfit for resale goods: £135

staff management time investigating and/or dealing with the incident: 112.50

admin cost resulting from wrongful actions: 34

appointed security and surveillance costs: 42

i wouldn't argue with anything apart from "value of un-recovered/unfit for resale goods". they did recover everything! and the goods were not damaged! any ideas how to argue about it with RLP?

thank you

 

Do you have rights to the goods , i.e are they yours if you pay for them ?

[ukaviator]

I have merged your threads as both are on the same subject ..

[Lula]

Are they not only allowed to claim liquidated damages? i.e. to put them in the position that they were in before the alleged attempt at theft? if the security was already there, then surely they cannot claim for it?

[andie_303]

If it were me I would also question the admin costs - a royal mail stamp to send you that letter isn't worth £34.

 

In fact if it was me I would take the risk and let them take me to court - a friend of mine was recently taken to court for a tv licence (i know it's a different thing) and they were also just made redundant the £1000 fine they asked of the judge + costs went to £25 fine and TVL that took it to court ended up paying half the costs total fine was only £45!

 

Now I know thats different but it goes to show not all judges will make people pay extrortiante charges even if you have done something wrong!

[lazyman]

Dear All,

 

Thank you for all your replies and advice.

We did write to RLP offering to pay a reasonable amount, but haven't had any reply back. Shall we pay the full amount or shall we phone them?

[raydetinu]

Deffo dont pay, wait for their response you never know that may be the last you hear from them! no rush is there?

[lazyman]

Deffo dont pay, wait for their response you never know that may be the last you hear from them! no rush is there?

well, the thing is that in their letter they say if my gf doesn't pay within 21 days, they will take legal actions..

[WelshMam2009]

RLP detain 14 year olds for painting their thumbnail and squirting hair mouse...this is the sort of **** you are dealing with.

 

I agree with Lula insofar as they should not get betterment out of this. The staff would have been on site providing security regardless. Ok, there may be some extra admin time but not as much as they are claiming.

 

I would be inclined to offer £135 for the unsaleable goods (wonder if they will send these to you????) and maybe £12 for admin, which is now the credit industry standard.

 

I wouldn't phone them.

 

If it goes to court then it will be the small claims so they won't get any legal costs back apart from the filing fee. I would also make it clear that you are challenging the costs as being unreasonable. It is now a civil matter and the fact that your girlfriend accepted a caution does not mean that she can be blackmailed into paying extortionate charges.

[andie_303]

I don't know what you offered them but perhaps consider sending the £135 for the goods, your g/friend agrees she took, in the form of a cheque with a letter saying that this cheque is sent in full settlement and them cashing the cheque will be taken as proof they have agreed to this and no further action can be taken.

 

Send registered post and keep a copy of the letter along with delivery receipt.

and saying legal action and actually taking legal action 2 different things!

[eyeinthesky]

well, the thing is that in their letter they say if my gf doesn't pay within 21 days, they will take legal actions..

 

Don't pay anything yet! If they are intending to take you to small claims court, then they have to try an out of court remedy first. This takes the form of them asking you to pay their and their agents costs and losses, due to your actions. The court would expect you to acknowledge their letter within 21 days, and giving them a date when you will respond to their claim. The full response gives you the opportunity to dispute the amount they are asking for, and make an offer you consider reasonable.

 

As you have already responded to their claim, and indeed made an offer to pay an amount, then the ball is in their court, so to speak. You need to have sent this offer by recorded delivery, and also keep a copy. If you have not done this, then you can just re-send your letter recorded now. You will then have fulfilled your legal obligation to respond. Hope you didn't offer too much, I would point out that the goods were fully recovered, undamaged, and offer about £70 as full and final settlement.

[WelshMam2009]

I would point out that the goods were fully recovered, undamaged, and offer about £70 as full and final settlement.

 

That's a good point actually! If the goods were recovered, why are they unsaleable?

[eyeinthesky]

RLP detain 14 year olds for painting their thumbnail and squirting hair mouse...this is the sort of **** you are dealing with. quote]

 

RLP don't detain anyone, that is the security guards of the individual businesses, most of whom are supplied under contract, but they do act on information provided to them by retailers or their security guards ( whoever is responsible for submitting reports to RLP). I am not defending them in any way, they do pursue children for money, but I feel I must point out that everything begins with the store guards. If they used a bit of common sense and common decency, then children would not be reported to RLP in the first place.

 

As for sampling products, this is wrong, end of. If any of us pay for 250ml of deodorant, mousse, whatever, then that is what we are entitled to get. If someone samples a product before we buy it, then the retailer commits an offence under weights and measures by selling a product that is less than the stated quantity. Having said all that, the security guard has other options available to him.

 

1. He can simply ask people not to test products where there are no testers provided.

2. He can ask the customer to buy the product, because it cannot be sold to anyone else.

3. He can ask the customer to leave the store, and verbally ban them if necessary.

 

None of these would involve RLP, and would not require the guard to fill in any paperwork, easy eh?

[WelshMam2009]

RLP detain 14 year olds for painting their thumbnail and squirting hair mouse...this is the sort of **** you are dealing with. quote]

 

RLP don't detain anyone, that is the security guards of the individual businesses, most of whom are supplied under contract, but they do act on information provided to them by retailers or their security guards ( whoever is responsible for submitting reports to RLP). I am not defending them in any way, they do pursue children for money, but I feel I must point out that everything begins with the store guards. If they used a bit of common sense and common decency, then children would not be reported to RLP in the first place.

 

As for sampling products, this is wrong, end of. If any of us pay for 250ml of deodorant, mousse, whatever, then that is what we are entitled to get. If someone samples a product before we buy it, then the retailer commits an offence under weights and measures by selling a product that is less than the stated quantity. Having said all that, the security guard has other options available to him.

 

1. He can simply ask people not to test products where there are no testers provided.

2. He can ask the customer to buy the product, because it cannot be sold to anyone else.

3. He can ask the customer to leave the store, and verbally ban them if necessary.

 

None of these would involve RLP, and would not require the guard to fill in any paperwork, easy eh?

 

That's interesting...I actually thought that RLP provided the security guards. I can't help wondering if the guards have targets or are on some sort of commission.

 

I don't disagree with the testing aspect, but the young girl in question offered to pay for the mouse and this was declined as it was "theft." It's actually on this site as a thread and I think that RLP have sent a bill for circa £93. The issue there, as I understand it, is that you may not be able to pursue under 18 year olds for civil debts. In the other case, the security guard actually called the police and Boots tried to claim afterwards that they detained the young girl until they could release her into her mother's care???!!

 

The fees they are trying to reclaim are exorbitant and, in my opinon, reflect betterment.

[shanty]

RLP detain 14 year olds for painting their thumbnail and squirting hair mouse...this is the sort of **** you are dealing with. quote]

 

RLP don't detain anyone, that is the security guards of the individual businesses, most of whom are supplied under contract, but they do act on information provided to them by retailers or their security guards ( whoever is responsible for submitting reports to RLP). I am not defending them in any way, they do pursue children for money, but I feel I must point out that everything begins with the store guards. If they used a bit of common sense and common decency, then children would not be reported to RLP in the first place.

 

As for sampling products, this is wrong, end of. If any of us pay for 250ml of deodorant, mousse, whatever, then that is what we are entitled to get. If someone samples a product before we buy it, then the retailer commits an offence under weights and measures by selling a product that is less than the stated quantity. Having said all that, the security guard has other options available to him.

 

1. He can simply ask people not to test products where there are no testers provided.

2. He can ask the customer to buy the product, because it cannot be sold to anyone else.

3. He can ask the customer to leave the store, and verbally ban them if necessary.

 

None of these would involve RLP, and would not require the guard to fill in any paperwork, easy eh?

 

 

Agree with what you have said.These are the actions any decent person would take.

[JonCris]

I DO NOT disagree with the testing aspect - There must be thousands of shoppers everyday each of whom test a toiletry at least for smell before buying yet don't expect to be accused of either shoplifting or criminal damage - Also the fact that it does happen is entirely the fault of the retailers because in their search for evermore profits most have stopped providing testers - let me ask would you buy a deodorant without knowing how it will smell on you - NO then the only way your going to find out, without benefit of a tester, is to spray a small amount into the lid a take sniff - now it would appear that thanks to this pernicious firm you could find yourself being accused of theft AND, which is much more important IMHO your name being added to their data base for & I quote 'dishonest' people

[JonCris]

If they really don't want their products tested in this fashion they should say so by displaying clear signs & not just signs that say they 'operate a civil recovery scheme, usually at the entrance, all of which is meaningless to the ordinary shopper

 

But such a sign which would have to read something along the lines of

 

'please don't sample the goods before buying otherwise you may be

 

a) accused of theft or

b) criminal damage or

c) both

 

& asked to pay in excess of £100 by way of compensation

Please note* this will include items that retail for as little as £1

But that would never do bad for the image I assume

[tank-fink]

Correct this if I am wrong.

 

They can pursue you for civil recovery. The amount they claim is all you can dispute. They cannot use a DCA until there is an amount agreed to be collected which is only after a judge has decided you owe the money. Let them take you to court and go to arbitration as offered by the court. settle then if you feel the need to. Follow the advice in other threads on how to dispute this. As far as I am aware the license for RLP is still expired but you should check this. Ask to see a copy of their license in your correspondence.

 

That is spot on. And this is I beleive where RLP needs thier arse kicking...

 

the idea of stopping RLP doing what they do is not viable. Curtailing the amount they charge is definately viable and IMO the best approach...

 

The 'sliding scale' of charges they work with are ludicrous-especially when aimed at minors. They tried to charge my daughter £137 for trying to mischeivously steal a can of spray ten worth £10, and knowing full well this charge would fall on the shoulders (via a civil court) of her parents.

 

I wrote back to RLP (see my own thread) and offered them £60 and they refused. In the meantime the same letter of offer was copied to Boots' customer care and the Boots' legal team. Then yesterday I received this letter.

 

By email and post

 

 

16 April 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx

 

 

Acceptance of Settlement Offer

 

 

I write in response to your letter dated 1 April 2009.

 

 

I have, today, met with our client (Boots the Chemist) to discuss your letter and offer of £60 in full and final settlement of our client’s claim against your daughter for damages as set out in our letter of 18 February 2009.

 

 

Our client is entitled to claim damages to recover the losses they have suffered as a result of your daughter’s actions. This is entirely separate from and not dependant on criminal proceedings.

 

 

Our client’s claim is compensatory as set out in the breakdown in our letter of 18 February 2009. We represent our client in accordance with our agreement with them.

 

 

Consumer Credit Licences are granted by the Office of Fair Trading to regulate the provision of credit given to consumers pursuant to consumer credit agreements. We are not providing credit to consumers. Our client’s claim is for compensation for losses suffered. We do not therefore by law require a Consumer Credit Licence for this activity.

 

 

Notwithstanding the above and as a gesture of good will our client has instructed us to accept your offer of £60 in settlement of our client’s claim provided this is paid within 21 days of the date of this letter.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

J Jolley

Company Solicitor

RLP Limited

 

But every case is different and will be treated differently. There is no point in pretending that RLP can be closed down, or in trying to argue that they should'nt exist. But they do need to be monitored more closely by an external authority to ensure they play fair.

As devils advocate I could argue to a judge that RLP are doing a great job of dettering petty criminals from shoplifting. But we all know the truth is that many people shoplift because they are poor-not because they are evil, and to cripple them with the double whammy of 'being poor and having to pay rediculously high private penalties'- that puts a bad light on the companies they (RLP) serve?

 

If thier charges could be capped to less than £50 for any item (returned undamaged ) with a value of £50 or less, £100 and under = £100 penalty.

And these charges should be halved for minors.....

 

Just an idea for Mr Boots and Mrs Argos to think about. Fair play.

Edited April 17, 2009 by tank-fink

[WelshMam2009]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each case, the civil charges claimed by RLP should reflect actual costs and not be a penalty.

 

If any penalties or compensation were to be imposed it would be done via the legal justice system and not RLP themselves.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

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

[midnightminky]

what are the repercussions for your daughter? rlp told me that if i applied for a job with any of their clients e.g. boots,iceland etc i may find it hard as they may check with rlp about me.that says to me that i would be blacklisted.for this and other reasons i will not pay them .it is only for a court of law to levy a fine.they are chancers who prey on the weak and vunrable. i am pleased that you have resolved your situation but it worries me that rlp have not told you of any consequences,if any

[JonCris]

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