trying to compile fact sheet

[labrat]

as people may have seen from varied posts i am trying to get a list of questions to ask the companys using retail loss prevention.

 

ive tried emailing many of these companys with a list of questions with no replys o im currently in the process of trying to obtain a list of the written PR/media departments for these companys

 

if anyone can obtain these address or can think of questions tied in to this (not on specific cases please) then can they please add them

 

questions ive got so far (in brief ignore spellings)

 

the office of fair trading has confirmed that retail loss prevention would need a liscence for debt collection something they do not currently hold, how does your company view being tied to demands for possilby unlawful payment

 

the retail loss prevention website states that anyone who cannot understand the letters for any reason is at fault as it is not there responcibility to explain for reasons such as poor grasp of english how does this tie into your companys standards of non-discrimination

 

from cases seen or reported on the costs claimed can total into hundreds of pounds for items with little actual value, has retail loss prevention ever contacted yourselves for evidence on the cost of retrival and deterance, alternitavly how details are the lists of costs provided to retail loss prevention in the first place

 

-----------------------------------

 

companys emailed/phoned for pr department address

 

Retail loss prevention - PR adress provided

Argos - said do not reply to individial enquiares and refered me to an FAQ

Boots - not yet replied - no reply as of 09/04/09

debenhams - press address provided

tk maxx - address not provided email said forwarded to relevent department (they have an address providing department???)

game - provided head office address said to state relevent department at start of address

 

-----------------------------------------

 

i will edit as replies come in and then will try and formulate a letter to them all (may pm to joncris for proof reading as im a little dyslexic (and more than a little tipsy at the min)) and post them

Edited April 9, 2009 by labrat

[eyeinthesky]

from cases seen or reported on the costs claimed can total into hundreds of pounds for items with little actual value, has retail loss prevention ever contacted yourselves for evidence on the cost of retrival and deterance, alternitavly how details are the lists of costs provided to retail loss prevention in the first place

 

My company (employer) submits 3 lots of paperwork to RLP. The first is an offender report, giving details of the offender, including name, d.o.b., address and N.I. number if available, and if the details have been confirmed by police etc. The second details the goods stolen, giving brand, description, pack size, quantity, and cost of goods not recovered, or recovered but needing work to return the goods to saleable condition. The last is a statement, detailing exactly what happened, and what was observed. This is often accompanied by a photo of the offender, and sometimes by a video of the incident.

 

Something interesting happened on Friday, I spotted 2 young girls stealing goods in the store, and they were stopped by the security guard and asked to come back into the store. The guard had also seen them conceal 1 item, via cctv. Police were called and attended, and spoke to the girls parents by phone, and the girls had produced goods to the value of around £7.50, which they had taken from our store. Just as the officer was about to release the girls and send them home, he asked them to empty their bags. This resulted in around £50 worth of goods stolen from other stores around the town, so the girls parents were again contacted, and told that they would have to bring the girls to the police station during the next week, for further action. The girls were both within 3 months of becoming 16, and the guard decided to phone RLP. They said that they would take details of the incident, but would not pursue any action because they were under 16. This seems totally at odds with some of the posts on this forum, where a report of action on a 14 year old was posted. I also spoke with the police officer, telling him that I had read online of RLP taking action on behalf of Boots, on 14 year olds, and he said that our local Boots will only report 16 year olds and over. Strange...

[JonCris]

labrat could you coordinate your actions with the Mods Martin3030 & Bookworm & me who like you are trying to organise a strategy against this firm and their clients

 

Also have you considered that it's very doubtful that the ICO when originally granting their data licence knew the use to which it would be put

[JonCris]

Well eyeinthesky we know that what you say is incorrect in that very recently it was reported all over the media that a 14 year old shopping in Boots was accused of stealing a squirt of moose & threatened by RLP who demanded payment of over £100!

 

So if anything is odd it's your suggestion that they DON'T prosecute under 16's. If that is the case it's a very recent development & could be the result of the adverse publicity it generated

[eyeinthesky]

Well eyeinthesky we know that what you say is incorrect in that very recently it was reported all over the media that a 14 year old shopping in Boots was accused of stealing a squirt of moose & threatened by RLP who demanded payment of over £100!

 

So if anything is odd it's your suggestion that they DON'T prosecute under 16's. If that is the case it's a very recent development & could be the result of the adverse publicity it generated

 

Maybe so, but the call to RLP by the guard was made yesterday, (Monday), and it's possible that this was only because of the specific company he was calling on behalf of. They do have a policy of not arresting anyone under 16 or over 65.

[JonCris]

eyeinthesky your response beggars the question as to why was the guard phoning RLP is he employed by them & if not why would he

[eyeinthesky]

Sorry, I haven't been very clear, the guard is employed by the store, directly and not contracted from a security company. Part of the civil recovery reporting process, at least in the company I work for, is to phone RLP and give some details of the incident, they then will give a reference number which is added to the paperwork before sending.

The guard was phoning to report on 2 seperate incidents, and due to the girls having been on a "spree", and being very close to 16 years old, he decided to ask RLP about it. He has also been reading this forum.

This could, of course, be a recent change of heart on RLP's part, maybe due to the recent publicity.

[JonCris]

So what your saying is that RLP are the thinking mind behind everything:(

[JonCris]

Incidentally if your guard does read this forum & whilst I don't suppose he'll take what's said here as gospel, as most here have an axe to grind, he should be very careful about acting on the 'advice' he receives from RLP

[MARTIN3030]

Theres no doubt whatsoever that RLP know we are on their case,I would bet also that RLP have pointed those clients who have been contacted,to this forum.

Lets not be in any doubt,they have very close working relationships.

This is not a typical internet blog forum-there are real issues with serious implications-No one here has said that its ok to steal from their stores,thats what will make this (or should) grab their attentions.

Lets not forget about the 1000s who we dont see here.

If We can see some changes of attitudes and Policy happening already,its not because RLP have had a change of heart-but moreso because they are being forced to do it.

CAG was famous for its bank reclaims from the start-but in 2009 its probably more famous for other things-just ask any DCA or Bank Solicitor

There will be no hiding place for RLP as long as this campaign keeps up momentum and really begins to apply the heat.

[JonCris]

You better believe it Martin When the campaign gathers momentum they AND their clients will regret bullying people & making often unfounded accusations particularly when it comes to the blackening of children names

[labrat]

sorry been very busy lately will update the list soon only had a couple of replies truth be told

 

well the lists been updated, if i get time which is unlikely to be for another 3 weeks im afraid due to being extremely busy i will try and ring places that havent replied and get the address from that (thats how i got the RLP one)

 

edit googling got me media.relations@homeretailgroup.com. for argos

Edited April 9, 2009 by labrat

[JonCris]

Excellent Labrat. Have a good w/e

[labrat]

will try had to use the alternate method of opening a bottle of wine as lost corkscrew dont owrry its just the ussual end of work week glass or two long weekend this week with the bank hollidays

[MARTIN3030]

And nothing wrong with that-its prob what most will be doing.....of course with a corkscrew !!!

[eyeinthesky]

So what your saying is that RLP are the thinking mind behind everything:(

 

No, not at all, but they decide what they will do with cases presented to them.

 

"Incidentally if your guard does read this forum & whilst I don't suppose he'll take what's said here as gospel, as most here have an axe to grind, he should be very careful about acting on the 'advice' he receives from RLP" (Sorry, I don't know how to include more than 1 quote.)

 

He was only asking, after reading threads on this forum, if they would take this particular case, notwithstanding the company's own rules.

 

The company we both work for have recently sent emails detailing civil recovery actions, store by store, in the region. They also send numbers of "arrests" on a store by store basis, like a league table. I use the term "arrests" very loosely here, as most people are simply asked to return to the store, and they comply. I can assure you that there are no bonuses or financial incentives to either catch more shoplifters, or submit more cases to RLP.

[labrat]

well the screw and claw hammer idea worked, going to buy new corkscrew today remembered i threw it as it broke, i will be working on this if i do get spare time i just doubt i will

 

in the mean time i do have a loose collection of about 4 or 5 address and am working on getting more if anyone can think of questions to ask please post them

[JonCris]

eyeinthesky I'm afraid your comments do not exclude RLP from being the 'thinking mind' behind what goes on. Also your very revealing & most welcome admission that there is in affect a 'league table' does confirm there is an incentive (at the very least competition between stores) for security staff, in particular, to 'find' those shoppers they can accuse of theft.

 

This also explains why suddenly ordinary law abiding citizens are being branded as dishonest on the most spurious of grounds, the mousse testing being a prime example

 

I'm sorry but your insights, whilst most welcome as you seem a decent person, will never be able to justify any retailer/employers use of this pernicious firm & in particular it's appalling methods when demanding money with menaces

[havinastella]

Hi Eyeinthesky

 

Could you answer a quick question please?

 

What do RLP do when you report an incident? Do they just give you a ref number or do they make a 'FULL' investigation?

 

Thanks

 

Jogs

[labrat]

might be a little while longer, unfortunatly the pipe in the bathroom (only installed around 13 months ago) just blew out and soaked the upstairs bathroom, also ran into the downstairs bathroom through the ceiling, fortunatly its been caught before any damage has been done but its given me something to fill my bank holliday monday with

[eyeinthesky]

Hi Eyeinthesky

 

Could you answer a quick question please?

 

What do RLP do when you report an incident? Do they just give you a ref number or do they make a 'FULL' investigation?

 

Thanks

 

Jogs

 

Hi, RLP do not investigate anything, as far as I know, they just rely on information submitted by store security, so just a reference number. This is then inserted at the top of all paperwork sent to RLP.

[JonCris]

Eyeinthesky that being the case who claims there's been an act of dishonesty......the retailer...........RLP..........or both

[eyeinthesky]

Eyeinthesky that being the case who claims there's been an act of dishonesty......the retailer...........RLP..........or both

 

Definitely the retailer, RLP are following up on information provided to them by the retailer. The only real evidence of theft would be CCTV, and this is not routinely sent to RLP, but sometimes they will ask for it.

 

I have read elsewhere on this forum about requesting "a copy" of the CCTV evidence under DPA, but this is unlikely to be forthcoming. You are, of course, able to view the recording under the act, so this is what should be requested. This could pose a problem for the retailer and RLP, and may even make it all go away, after all, if they don't have the evidence, will they really take it to court?

Edited April 11, 2009 by eyeinthesky
remove paragraph

[MARTIN3030]

Aside from taking it to Court-if its the case that they DONT have the evidence-then they should not be making any allegations or demands in the first place.

[JonCris]

Precisely Martin. They should not & by doing so they are leaving themselves (& the retailer) wide open to litigation for defamation AND personal injury due to stress

 

I would point out that both parties, retailer & RLP would be liable as the retailer cannot extinguish it's legal liability simply by claiming "it's not us gov it's them" they are as equally liable because RLP are acting as their agents

 

I would also mention for those reading this thread that getting people to sign a 'confession' or shall we say 'admission' or even 'agreement' will carry little or no weight with a court unless said admission can be backed up by strong evidence. The obvious reason being that any such so called confession/admission/agreement would be considered as being signed under extreme duress.

 

Therefore I respectively suggest RLP should stop asking people to sign any documents in an attempt to justify their claims as no matter how couched they will be found to be worthless when push comes to shove

 

Oh! almost forgot by NOT supplying a copy of the document at the time of signing they negate any value it may have had anyway;)