trying to compile fact sheet

[labrat]

well may be back on track for writing to these places

 

fortunatly pipe thats burst is a cheap chinese made flexi pipe that came with a whirlpool bath from a place i would never suggest buying from....

 

B&Q stocked the same pipe so is likely to be sorted tomorrow

 

now the electrics have dried out they have come back on...

 

apart from a wet carpet theres little if any damage to downstairs

 

and the burst pipe has a stop end on it now so we have water and heating back :/

 

max it will probably delay me is about a day or two

[JonCris]

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?

 

Thanks eyeinthesky If they refuse to let the victim, or their representatives, see the CCTV either because they don't want to or, as is often the case, claim it's been disposed of then the retailer AND RLP will certainly be liable for defamation etc: Also the security guard could, which is much more worse, find themselves guilty of wrongful arrest or detention & such detention could amount to kidnap something against which their employer cannot indemnify them. So rather than the bosses ending in nick they may well themselves imprisoned which hardly seems fair when you consider they are only doing their jobs as demanded by their employer

 

Also I doubt that asking someone to go to the office would cut the mustard when it comes to claiming it was voluntary............unless they are told their cooperation would be voluntary.........and that they ARE free to leave at anytime

 

The more I understand about this the more I'm convinced that the retailers AND RLP are on very dodgy ground & it's only a matter of time before the wotsit hits the fan

Edited April 11, 2009 by JonCris

[eyeinthesky]

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.

 

I fully agree, but remember that CCTV systems are expensive. Some of the cameras will be pan/tilt/zoom type, but these are expensive, so a lot more of the cameras will be static. With any type of CCTV installation, there will be blind spots or places that are just off camera view. Inevitably, some incidents will not be recorded, but if a guard has seen these incidents occur on the shop floor, then he may act upon them.

 

In cases where a person feels that they have been falsely accused, then they should ask the store to prove wrongdoing, but perhaps more importantly, refuse to give personal details except to a police officer. Also, could it be against the DPA to pass personal information to RLP without concrete proof of theft or criminal damage?

[JonCris]

eyeinthesky as well others we are looking into the DPA angle which just now seems very promising

[JonCris]

Referring back to the accused's rights. Rather than just telling them their Rights (Right to leave etc) the shop security should give the accused a copy of their Rights in the form of a document asking them to read it & that way we would be nearer to a more civilized way of dealing with these 'misunderstandings'

 

Also I think that as more & more consumers exercised those Rights the less popular the use of this firms tactics would be to retailers

[tank-fink]

I think its obvious that 'eye in the sky' has a conscience...or he wouldn't be so helpful....

 

It seems this forumn is a good way of reaching anyone with anything that really matters....politicians to grass roots and everyone else in between.....great stuff...and simple proof that the interweb definately ain't all bad....I hope this RLP campaign can make a difference (at least in the context of blackening the names of the children or other innocents!)

 

In the meantime-can someone please confirm the legal implications for RLP in that they are trading without a CC licence-do they need one or not-and would the lack of this licence at any given time make any of its trading operations 'null & void' ...ermm.....in any way..

 

Anyone here know about this kind of stuff..?

[JonCris]

I agree regarding eyeinthesky his/her post have been most helpful in demonstrating the methods of RLP

 

As for their need of a CCL well although they now deny that need not only did they have one which expired in Nov 2008 they describe themselves as debt collectors which in fact they are as no matter how you dress it up they claim to be seeking recovery of their clients monetary losses which is the conduct AND function of a debt collector

 

I have to say that considering the relative ease with which the OFT issue licenses & no matter what they might have thought might be the case, I would have taken the belt AND braces approach & applied for one anyway........ Such behaviour makes one wonder as to the intellect of those in charge:confused:........... Then again in view of the way they operate perhaps it's of no surprise at all:mad:

[JonCris]

It's occurred to me why they may have made the conscience choice NOT to apply for a CCL .........Have one & there's the more chance that their practices would come under greater scrutiny from TS and subsequently the OFT.

 

It's clear their practices appear to have changed as up until a short while ago no one certainly of my acquaintance had even heard of them

Edited April 14, 2009 by JonCris

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Cireco Limited (an Integrity Screening Co) are listed as directors of RLP same c/o address. One director of Cireco Ltd.

[JonCris]

'Integrity' Well that's gotta be a joke init ...........Got a name? PM me

 

Keep the info coming SPF

[shanty]

Don't make the mistake of thinking you have to have CCTV to prove a case of shoplifting.Many cases go and the defendant is found guilty on eye witness evidence alone.

 

The RLP league tables identify the security person by name,whether the stores are included I can't remember.

 

It is the naming of individuals that causes the problem.If they only quoted figures eg 7 civil recoveries for Boots in Dover,the competitivness would be done away with.

 

As I recall it is RLP who are sending these out. In addition,it would not be unusual for stores themselves to circulate information about civil recovery figures.People are fighting to see their name in print as a "top performer," even if they have detained people for goods at £1,because this is about the best they can manage.I think I remember reading that RLP are not overly keen on these £1 amounts,but by creating the competitivness they have created a monster.

 

The retailers themselves are largely unaware of these Nationwide league tables, which name people,and they also need explaining to them the effect it is having on Staff, which is why,as I have stated before,they need to be asked if they are aware of them.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/retail-loss-prevention/190883-ceedoubleu-boots-rlp-14-a.html

 

post 18..

 

You have to decide whether you want to JUST "screw" RLP (Perfectly worthy) or try also to lesson the impact and trauma of bad procedures in the meantime,-I am seeing very little interest in the latter ,which is sad.

 

The one thing that will make retailers change their tactics is fear of it being said staff are being pressured to catch shoplifters,but many,unless they have worked in Retail will simply not understand this.Wake up!!

Edited April 15, 2009 by shanty

[shanty]

Some responses on this thread have been needlessly aggressive, and stunningly arrogant,simply because there is a "them-and-us mentality" from certain posters,thankfully slightly adjusted as the thread carried on.

 

It may be useful for some posters who clearly have not worked in retail to be aware that they do not know everything,and that creating an environment where everyone has a right to speak without virtually being called a liar,is beneficial,to your cause.It's how you can gather the CORRECT information,not just confirm what you already are sure you know.

Edited April 15, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

Thank you Shanty your posts are most welcome & informative - Yes many of us, myself included, are aggressive in our approach to RLP not because they try to fight shoplifting which most agree is a scourge on todays society & costs us all dearly but because of the methods they use & the threats they make not only toward adults but also children

 

Their threat that peoples names who have never had the benefit of trial will have their names placed on a register which claims to be the largest data base of 'dishonest' people in the country make my bleeding blood boil.

 

As for do I want to get them dam right I do. I consider them & those who support them to be a blot on this country. They have set themselves up as prosecutor, judge AND jury so deserve all we can throw at them

 

I earlier picked up on the possibility of there being some sort of incentive for staff to reach targets but as you may recall it was stated by one poster they didn't exist.......now your recent post throws an entirely different light on this aspect & you can be assured that retailers WILL learn of this league table mentality being fostered by the likes of RLP and it's inevitable consequences which appear to be coming to pass

[shanty]

I believe that anyone who has been lawfully detained for theft, and processed by the Police/legal system is a fair target for a Company operating civil recovery in a fair and lawful manner.It remains to be seen which of their practices will stand up to scrutiny (not many I think).Hopefully this campaign will revolutionise how people are treated. I think I read the British Retail Consortium would not back Civil Recovery,perhaps they were not happy with the legality.

[JonCris]

Shanty I apologize I don't understand how I missed you other post 18 on the other thread re the 14 year old of which I now take note & shall collate with all the other helpful posts............... incidentally apparently there are other more direct connections to CAB of which I very much doubt CAB are aware

[JonCris]

I believe that anyone who has been lawfully detained for theft, and processed by the Police/legal system is a fair target for a Company operating civil recovery in a fair and lawful manner.It remains to be seen which of their practices will stand up to scrutiny (not many I think).Hopefully this campaign will revolutionise how people are treated. I think I read the British Retail Consortium would not back Civil Recovery,perhaps they were not happy with the legality.

 

I think most would accept that retailers are fully entitled to recover their costs & losses from someone guilty of theft ...........Also I don't think a conviction would NOT always be necessary provide there was fully documented (including CCTV) evidence available as to the persons guilt. However in the latter I do NOT believe it's right to place someones name on a register implying dishonesty when there has been no trial & conviction

[JonCris]

Re British Retail Consortium. It's my understanding that when approached recently their spokesperson stated that their reference on RLP's website is out of date thereby implying your remarks to be correct - namely that allegedly they no longer support them

[shanty]

Interesting,I am more inclined to disagree with you about the conviction though.

 

I think a conviction should be necessary.

I could maybe see cases where it was only when the witnesses were being questioned in the witness box,that their unreliability,eg demeanor could truly be scrutinized.You can't do that on paper,and CCTV evidence is all well and good but is not as 100% as the human eye witness account most of the time due to problems with continuity .

[JonCris]

On a perfect world I would agree a conviction should be necessary Would we want to prosecute everyone accused of shoplifting when there might be mitigating circumstances such as illness, PMT mistake etc

 

re Mistake as in the case of the child who tested a mousse without realizing she could be accused of theft...........damage yes.... theft please However in each of the forgoing the retailer is entitled to reclaim their loss just not in the way that some presently do.

 

As for proof I agree some conviction are based on word of mouth but at least they have been tested in court whereas what I suggest is that if any claim without conviction is to be made against the individual the evidence must be irrefutable......... they certainly should not be placed on a data base implying dishonesty.......... only the truly dishonest should be put on it in other words only those convicted of theft

[shanty]

You are going totally off the point.

 

Are you doing this on purpose?

 

Only people who are fit to be prosecuted should be prosecuted,but you have just stated that a prosecution isn't necessarry,yet people on here regularly spout the "judge and jury " line.

 

Make your mind up.

 

Either you want a fit,non-mitigating person prosecuted if the cps sees fit ,how can you assert a person doesn't necessarily have to be prosecuted to be served with civil recovery?

You have just completelty contradicted your own arguaments.

 

The case of the "mousse" case-you are quoting a ridiculous case that would never get anywhere near a court,so why bother mentioning it?

 

These other mitigating circumstances would not get past the Doctors letter stage,IF THEY WERE GENUINE.That is how it is and should be.

Edited April 15, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

Of course it should & in the main I agree but I also think that rather than prosecute everyone as some supermarkets do the retailer should be allowed a certain discretion (which I'm sure you'll say they have) but that discretion is less likely to be exercised if they are unable to recover their losses without prosecuting............ It's for this reason & only this reason that I say the evidence needs to be irrefutable & any monetary claim justifiable

 

I think for any campaign to be successful we have to address the concerns of the retailers as well as the consumer. There has to be some common ground which I don't feel is possible whilst we have this outfit operating without fetter

[shanty]

It also occurs to me that now,with the Security Industry Association requiring Staff to have evidence of competancy,that whoever designs their exam questions should be asking multiple choice questions like:

 

A 14 year old girl comes into your store and does X (something trivial like trying a tester)

 

Should you

a)Take her into the office without a chaperone,and later release her without calling her parents.

b) Tell her she is guilty of theft and serve civil recovery on her for £1 product without her parents knowledge

c) Call your Manager and explain the circumstances,letting them decide what is the best action to take.

 

 

Because In 99% of cases Security Staff are required to call the department Manager and relate the facts to them,I have never known a store where this is not the policy(It may even be a requirement of their insurance).Now,whilst I assume this must still be happening,as most "reputable" stores demand this of their security staff,I would say there should be a tick box on the RLP form to say that the Manager has authorized the serving of Civil Recovery.I feel most strongly that the Store Managers are walking away unaware that these cases are being pursued,and if the Manager had to give authorization,it would put the onus back firmly onto the store eg Boots and Tk maxx and not allow them to pass the buck.

 

There needs to be a LOT more accountability from the retailers.

If they are employing numbskulls they need to Manage them properly.

[JonCris]

OK Shanty What's the incentive for security guards to by-pass the store manager............ payment?

[labrat]

sorry for no updates, to be honest i havent had any time at all to spare, im going to *try* note the stars and get letters written and sent this coming week, the try is because although ive got some free mornings its impossible to say whats going to come up.

[shanty]

OK Shanty What's the incentive for security guards to by-pass the store manager............ payment?

 

 

No,it's the glory I think. There is no money goes to the security staff,I assure you.

 

I can only guess that if the guard or store detective knows the Manager would not be impressed to be called for a trivial case (like the 14 year old and the mousse for example,ceedouble), the guard decides to bypass the Manager in order to get his percentages up on the RLP newsletter.He knows the Manager would reject it as ridiculous,which it is.

 

Men are very competative ,and will wind each other up "I got the highest percentage last month,I am a better security Officer than you" etc.

 

The thing is,it's being published,and guards who wouldn't normally have bothered issuing RLP notices, because they were too lazy,now feel obliged to "prove "themselves to their peers.It actually proves they are very poorly trained, ( I doubt many are trained at all),but that's another story.

 

You need to be trained to use civil recovery properly and staff are not being trained in this.An sia course wouldn't even mention it.

Edited April 23, 2009 by shanty