15 year old daughter was caught shopliftng

[Mizzmazz]

My 15 year old daughter was caught shopliftng in Boots last week and after a telephone call from the security guard telling me they wold not involve the Police because of her age she was allowed to go. She was given a form to sign which she clams only said that she was banned from the store. I was not called to the store and she was not given a copy. Today a letter arrived from RLP addressed to her demanding payment of £180.00 or £35.00 if she pays within 21 days. She is deeply ashamed as are we.

 

Looking at the other threads and amounts involved seems she has got off lightly, but I am furious that this company can interfere in what I regard as my parental responsiblity to deal wth her. She has no money to pay as we have stopped her pocket money - can she argue on this point and say she does not want to appont us to act as her guardian?

 

Grateful for any advice.

[raydetinu]

If you read the other threads you will note that a anybody under the age of 18 cannot be sued or can they sign anything as legally responsible. So they can not persue this through the courts. Also RLP would be acting for boots as trying to collect a debt, which they have not got a licience as DCA.

If they try to sue the parents they would have to prove you were in someway negligent or knowledge of what she was doing.

So dont worry to much and it will be up to you if pay this punitive sum or not. IMHO you would not have to pay.

[shanty]

In this situation, it might have been better if you had collected her from the shop yourself,then you could have collected copies of any paperwork ,and asked more questions.

[flyingdoc]

I am really concerned about shops habits of detaining people and not involving the police.

 

My understanding of this is as follows

 

Unless someone is arrested under PACE (under which a citizens arrest is made) any complete restriction of movement is unlawful imprisonment

 

To be lawfully arrested under pace they MUST arrest you in the prescribed manner and hand you over to the police - there is no leeway in this.

 

Therefore to detain someone, for the purposes of forcing them to sign a document admitting an offence is nothing short of extortion.

 

Also this may be in violation of art6 HRA right to a fair trial as they are being penalised without recourse to representation or legal process. They are detained and then suffere a penalty in the form of a "fine" from the RLP

 

This sounds exceedingly dubious to me

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have said before that retailers and RLP are setting themselves up as a parallel justice system. Perhaps they are frustrated with the official system - but it doesn't matter. This is an immensely serious issue.

 

RLP will argue that they are not issuing penalties, but claiming damages. However, it seems to me that some of the action taken by retailers is designed to incur cost (or appear to do so), for the purposes of an RLP claim.

 

Much more serious, however, is the way in which retail security guards and shop staff detain people unlawfully. It is exceptionally worrying that they do this so often in cases where the people concerned are vulnerable through age or for some other reason (e.g. mental health). It would be perhaps understandable if an occasional error was made by an overzealous member of staff, but the regularity with which this seems to be happening suggests that staff are following policy which must come from high up the management chain. One can only wonder whether stores have targets to meet - either in terms of numbers of people stopped or potential revenue earned.

 

The concept of civil recovery is sound; indeed, I took action against a thief who broke into my car - after he was convicted by the courts. The problem is that retailers and RLP are bypassing the system in some (probably the majority) of cases, in detaining individuals, not involving police (or not following police advice that no offence was committed), not making them aware of their rights, making them sign documentation and then attempting to extort money.

 

I wonder if one way to deal with RLP's spurious claims is to counterclaim damages for wrongful arrest and detention?

[shanty]

Retailers have been stopping people,and letting them go for years.Nothing to do with RLP.

 

It is Police Policy in a number of areas to tell retailers NOT to call them if the amount is under £10.What is the store supposed to do,let them walk out with it for fear of stopping them because they can't be handed over to Police for £10?Edit-I am not saying this in relation to Civil recovery,but in relation to the above post.

 

As for vulnerable people,well you often wouldn't know they were vulnerable until stopped and spoken to. For example,people who are depressed.

Edited April 2, 2009 by shanty

[raydetinu]

Exactly, but again your damages must be reasonable and the treatment far in excess of what was necessary as a judge would be equally scathing of anybody trying use the court system for revenge.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Retailers have been stopping people,and letting them go for years.Nothing to do with RLP.

 

It is Police Policy in a number of areas to tell retailers NOT to call them if the amount is under £10.What is the store supposed to do,let them walk out with it for fear of stopping them because they can't be handed over to Police?

 

As for vulnerable people,well you often wouldn't know they were vulnerable until stopped and spoken to. For example,people who are depressed.

 

Firstly, I have no difficulty with retailers stopping people if they think they may have committed an offence. What I object to is unlawful detention, and the subsequent labelling of people as offenders when they are not. If it is the case that local police policy is that they will not attend in certain circumstances, that does not give a retailer the right to detain anyone unlawfully.

 

So what can the store do? They could, if they think that someone has taken an item valued at less than £10, stop them, ask to see the receipt and if none is forthcoming confiscate the item and expel the individual. Do you think that thefts of individual low-value items are more prevalent, and/or more damaging than organised shoplifters stealing huge amounts of goods? Both are wrong, certainly, but I suspect that retailers will take a view on how far each should be pursued, as do Police.

 

Retailers have as much right to engage with their local Police Authority as anyone else if they think the service is not meeting the needs of the community of which they are part. I suspect that retailers need to balance the way in which they display and protect goods against their expectation of police action, in the same way, for example, that I make a decision on where to park my car based upon the likelihood of damage or (in my case), dissident republican unpleasantness - one has to weigh the risk against the benefit.

 

In terms of vulnerable people, it may well be the case that their vulnerability may not be immediately obvious - that is one reason why a basic tenet of our law is that of presumed innocence. Investigation and due process bring together the facts.

 

So, to reiterate, I do not have a problem with companies pursuing criminals for damages, whether through the civil courts themselves, by asking a criminal court to award restitution, or through RLP or a similar company. It's the potential for mistakes that bothers me, and the way in which either you or I could be labelled as an offender and pursued for money if a shop assistant or security guard happened to choose us.

[raydetinu]

Well said and agree. its there heavy handed approach ( deisigned to deter no doubt ) but the shop owners have a duty to oversee the actions of these 'security' personel and make some ground rules for them as they dont seem to able to that are fair and reasonable with regard to the circumstances. Further legislation may be required.

[shanty]

I think a person who was stopped and publically asked to see their receipt (why would security staff wish do this when they had seen them steal it, is beyond me,you don't ask to see the receipt of someone who you have seen steal-you already know they don't have one),would have every right to complain that the conversation should have been carried out in private.

 

It is not most stores policy to have these conversations in public.How that is seen as "less " intrusive than taking them to an office is puzzling.

 

Agree it is wrong to fine someone/label someone a criminal when their guilt hasn't been established by a court.

Edited April 2, 2009 by shanty

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think a person who was stopped and publically asked to see their receipt (why would security staff wish do this when they had seen them steal it, is beyond me),would have every right to complain that the conversation should have been carried out in private. It is not most stores policy to have these conversations in public.How that is seen as "less " intrusive than taking them to an office is puzzling.

 

I don't agree.

 

Just before Christmas I bought a wallet in a major department store. As I left the shop, an alarm sounded. Knowing that I had paid for my goods I didn't give a second thought. I was pursued by a security guard who demanded that I accompany him back to the shop because he thought I had taken goods without paying. I happily showed him my receipt, and told him that as my car was parked on a timed ticket, if he wanted me to waste any more time on the matter he should call the police. I was calm and polite, though the guard was quite animated. I refused to go to a private office as he suggested, and the police arrived within a few minutes. The guard then accused me of scaring him by being aggressive and threatening. One of the policemen asked a nearby assistant, who said she thought I'd been very calm, and that the guard had been obnoxious. I showed the police my receipt, and they were happy that I had indeed paid for my goods.

 

It transpired that the shop assistant who dealt with my purchase had failed to remove a security tag that was stuck to a card in the wallet; this had set off the alarm. The security guard suggested that I should queue at a till to get it deactivated, but one of the police officers gave it to him, and told him to go and do it himself! A manager pitched up, and apologised profusely for the error and the guard's attitude. Subsequently the shop sent a written apology and a gift token.

 

I didn't feel in the least embarrassed, because I had done nothing wrong, but I do wonder what might have happened if I'd not insisted on staying in public - the security guard was clearly happy to lie in order to cover his behaviour.

[shanty]

That is to do with a security tag activation.AND you had done NOTHING irregular-thats where your case differs from some.

 

Not stealing. No-one had seen you steal .The law around security tags is a very grey area.

 

The guard clearly responded (wrongly) to your (correct ) suggestion not to go into an office (I would have done the same).He had no power to arrest you.

 

When a security tag goes off-all that proves is that there is a tag on something-nothing more.As this occurs on the shopfloor there is

 

This is an everyday occurance,with (in your case) an idiot guard (many are).

 

This is in no way similar to someone seeing you do something,then trying to claim civil recovery.Ok it occurred in a shop-there the similarity ends.

 

Luckily you knew your rights,many don't.

Edited April 2, 2009 by shanty

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

Luckily you knew your rights,many don't.

 

Which is precisely what RLP often rely upon when pursuing their claims.

 

Please don't think I have any sympathy for thieves; I don't, but I think there's a world of difference between a professional shoplifter and a child taking a low-value item for a dare or to impress mates. In the latter case, the shock of getting caught and parental disapprobation is usually enough to prevent repetition; the goods are recovered (or parent pays for them) and there's no real loss. I simply do not see that RLP's actions in these cases can be seen as appropriate.

 

Despite RLP's moral posturing, there's no moral component to what they do - they aren't guardians of the law - it's just a business. If they couldn't make a profit, they'd stop doing it.

[Mizzmazz]

My daughter was goaded into stealing by a friend who pointed out what she wanted and then left the shop. I am not condoning my daughters behaviour in any way, but I am concerned that RLP wrote to her direct. Yes it was her that committed the offence and you might say that the fact that she has been left traumatised by the whole event serves her right, but supposing she had not told me about the letter because she was too scared? This could cause some teenagers to do them selves some kind of harm. No doubt RLP & Boots would say that they cannot be held responsible, but will it take the association of a teenagers suicide to cause a change in this sharp tactic practice?

 

I will be writng to Nottingham trading standards, The Children's Comissioner and Boots Legal department and would urge anyone else in the same positon to do the same!

[shanty]

Agree entirely,these are the sort of issues parents have a right to know about,it is putting way too much responsibility onto the shoulders of a young person.

[leslie8570]

just letting you know,

if a minor is stopped for shoplifting (that is under the age 18) 18)the police are always called but they cannot be civil recoveried as they are too young. sometimes the police will caution them or give them a fixed penalty of approx £40.00 and a banning order from the shop they stole from and any other branches of that shop.

[shanty]

Not every shop calls the Police,some would call the parents.

[leslie8570]

the large retailer where i am a security colleague always call the police for a minor

[ScarletPimpernel]

the large retailer where i am a security colleague always call the police for a minor

 

Do the police invariably attend?

[JonCris]

According to the original civil recovery protocol RLP could only recover from the consumer if the police have attended AND at the very least issued a FPN. It's now alleged they seem to be ignoring this & instead go after anyone who has been stopped by store security irrespective of whether or not a crime has been committed

 

Where clearly there is no case to answer I suspect that although fanciful in the extreme they will claim that you must have done something to attract the attention of the stores security & should therefore pay the costs of them having to 'establish' your innocent:mad:

[leslie8570]

just to say if a person has been stopped and taken back into store even if the police do not attend you can still civil recovery that person unless that person is a minor under the age of 18yrs. i know i am a security officer in a large retail store this is my job and i do it everyday. provided you are 100% certain they committed the offence then again a good security officer will not stop anyone unless they are 100% sure they had committed the crime.

and in my experience the police always come for a minor

[kiptower]

quote "taken back"

 

if a security guard did take someone back then that is unlawfull they can only ask the person to go with them, NOT TAKE THEM BACK

 

oh dear

 

SIA gibberish rearing its head

[raydetinu]

Mr leslie, if you do detain anybody with a view to issueing a Civil recovery you will be breaking the law as you cannot detain anybody witout their express permission or in affect you will be making a citizens arrest and you therefore must call the police who must attend within a reasonable time, and if they dont attend you must release them and they also do not have to give any information. the premise here is that you must contact the police in all cases.

[JonCris]

So Mr Leslie what your saying is that you believe RLP can recover even if it's only based on your word - If so this is the reason why many security guards are acting outwith the law as to do so is not only unlawful but may even be, dependant of the precise circumstances, illegal, invloving kidnap & even assault all of which can attract imprisoment

 

Let me say this again civil recovery should ONLY be used & once was only used where the accused has been 'convicted' of an offence. Under the present situation conviction can mean the issuing of of FPN but even this is about to be challenged as meaningless because of the way FPN's are used

 

Civil recovery is based on 2 cases where the accused was 'convicted' in a 'criminal' court of law - please note NOT on the word of a poorly trained security guard who thinks they understand the law but doesn't

 

Let me say your not to blame it's the firm that employes you who are a fault for not giving adequate training but if they did you would be ONLY stopping people who you know will be prosecuted & that would never do - please pay heed should you be prosecuted by a victim for unlawful conduct your firm will almost certainly leave you swinging in the wind claiming you have not followed their guidelines so can't be held responsible

 

Suggest you watch how Martin's thead about Tesco unfolds & you may learn something of value in your job

Edited June 9, 2009 by JonCris

[leslie8570]

dont get on ya high horse i only stop people if i have cctv evidence that a crime has been commited only someone stupid and that is not me would stop someone with out evidence. oh yeah an am a girl. if for some reason i lose them in store via cctv and cannot account for there actions all the way round the store i dont stop them. and i do know what i am doing as i have been well trained. also the police do not have to attend. you can still civil recovery someone if you have evidence.