Primark & RLP

[hwilliams]

Its a little disappointing to read that,but its your decision.

Personally I think if you are going to pay anyhing,then you should perhaps send it to Nottingham Trading Standards Department-tell them to put it towards RLPs 2008/2009 CC licence fee.

 

Anyone know if RLP now have a licence?

 

My wife was accused yesterday in Primark Oxford Street for Criminal Damage for allegedly opening two £1.50 packs of ear-rings. The Police have fined her £80 for "criminal damage" which she will dispute and there is a standard un-addressed letter passing the case to Retail Loss Prevention Limited.

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

 

There was a discussion about RLP not complying with the company act on the website

Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us

 

I can't see a problem. It lists

 

© Retail Loss Prevention Limited 2009

Registered office: 16 Regent Street, Nottingham NG1 5BQ

Registered in England and Wales 4802733

VAT No. 817 565 311

 

Seems fine to me (now)

 

I am preparing a case against Primark / Retail Loss Prevention Limited and came across this site.

 

Are they still unregistered?

 

Henry Williams

[samjf]

RLP do not hold a CCL as they claim they do not need one, as they are only seeking compensation not a debt. I think they should have one as they are asking for money on behalf of another company. Surely this then becomes a debt, regardless of what it is.

[JonCris]

Anyone know if RLP now have a licence?

 

My wife was accused yesterday in Primark Oxford Street for Criminal Damage for allegedly opening two £1.50 packs of ear-rings. The Police have fined her £80 for "criminal damage" which she will dispute and there is a standard un-addressed letter passing the case to Retail Loss Prevention Limited.

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

 

There was a discussion about RLP not complying with the company act on the website

Retail Loss Prevention Limited - About Us

 

I can't see a problem. It lists

 

© Retail Loss Prevention Limited 2009

Registered office: 16 Regent Street, Nottingham NG1 5BQ

Registered in England and Wales 4802733

VAT No. 817 565 311

 

Seems fine to me (now)

 

I am preparing a case against Primark / Retail Loss Prevention Limited and came across this site.

 

Are they still unregistered?

 

Henry Williams

 

 

Why did she accept the penalty fine. Was she threatened with arrest & time in a cell if she didn't.

[hwilliams]

Why did she accept the penalty fine. Was she threatened with arrest & time in a cell if she didn't.

 

She got confused, frightened and felt harassed. She said she signed something for the police but not for Primark / RLP. Her English is not perfect - She is from Southern Europe and they tend to be wary of the Police.

 

Reading the Penalty Notice:

 

Offence Code DA11

 

"You (offence particulars) were seen causing damage to 2 set (sic) of earrings worth £3.00 in total" (EDITED from £300 to £3.00)

 

Contrary to (act containing offence)

S.1 of criminal damage

 

Her signature is pertaining to:

 

"I acknowledge receipt of this Penalty Notice"

Edited July 17, 2009 by hwilliams

[Bookworm]

£300? In Primark? They're having a laugh, aren't they?

[raydetinu]

Surely if RLP are collecting or trying to collect compensation ( debt ) on behalf of another company, they are acting as agents ( debt collectors ).

This will need to be tested in court I suppose.

HW What sort of case are you preparing to go where with it?

[JonCris]

She got confused, frightened and felt harassed. She said she signed something for the police but not for Primark / RLP. Her English is not perfect - She is from Southern Europe and they tend to be wary of the Police.

 

Reading the Penalty Notice:

 

Offence Code DA11

 

"You (offence particulars) were seen causing damage to 2 set (sic) of earrings worth £300 in total"

 

Contrary to (act containing offence)

S.1 of criminal damage

 

Her signature is pertaining to:

 

"I acknowledge receipt of this Penalty Notice2.

 

 

I strongly advise that she contact a good criminal lawyer & have the notice revoked - Frankly I'm disturbed that the police should be a party to this appalling behaviour & I think that as well as RLP we should also be contacting the various police authorities & the MoJ failing which I'm sure the media will happily assist in exposing these goings on

[JonCris]

£300? In Primark? They're having a laugh, aren't they?

 

That's exactly what I though BW until I realized the reason for the inflated value. It's because £300 looks much better than £3 when accusing someone of criminal damage & can anyone hope to justify otherwise

 

Gawd £300 spent in Primark would empty the whole bleeding store:rolleyes:

[Zamzara]

I think the police can issue a fixed penalty whether the person agrees to accept it or not. If the person disputes the offence after it is issued they must actively request prosecution as an alternative, which is probably incompatible with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

 

If the store falsely stated the value of the earrings deliberately, the employee (and possibly the company) will be guilty of fraud and/or perverting the course of justice.

[Bookworm]

I GUARANTEE that there is no way a pair of earrings in Primark will cost £300. £3.00 maybe. £300, no way. ;-)

[noomill060]

Overstating a loss for an insurance claim is a crinimal offence.

[shanty]

There are some things here that don't quite add up.

I don't believe the Police can issue a fixed penalty if the person does not plead guilty (but I may be thinking of a caution)( but in theory this offence is laughable)

 

I also believe if the Police doubted your partner didn't understand English they would have been obliged to arrest her to get an interpretor,or persuade the store to release her (practically)

 

I need to read the post again,but she can only be quoted the value of the earrings in a theft case,let alone a ridiculous claim of opening them.

 

I seriously am finding it hard to believe the Police would go along with this in the way that has been stated here,so if you have the correct story,I would sugges the Police have got something wrong. I suggest you find out the officer in the case and ask to speak to him,with your wifes permission, or preferably make an appointment for the two of you to see him. At the same time make an appointment to speak to his sargeant right after.I am sure this will clarify a lot of the issues,before you commit to seeing a solicitor.

 

Also,are you sure the £300 wasnt £3.00,and it has been miswritten/ misread.

 

I didn't think their earrings were in sealed packets?

it's not usually how cheap earrings are displayed,sealed, is it?

 

As oxford street is A very busy venue,getting the Police called for £3.00 would not be a popular move for the store.The Police would not be impressed.

 

What did she do with the earrings after she opened them?

Edited April 29, 2009 by shanty

[Bookworm]

I didn't think their earrings were in sealed packets?

it's not usually how cheap earrings are displayed,sealed, is it?

They can be sometimes, yes, in those transparent plastic bags with a sticky line at the back you can reseal.

[shanty]

If that bit is correct,earrings that can be resealed have not been damaged to the point where they can't be sold,unless at a loss.

As I said,something doesn't add up here,there is an error here.

[JonCris]

Shanty you've already responded to this question but would you mind confirming it again namely that there is NO financial incentive in accusing a consumer of causing damage even if only inspecting the goods & NOT stealing

[raydetinu]

Can only be c.damage if the packaging has actually been damaged! not just opened and resealed. I do this all the time in B&Q or Tesco to check goods as they are not actually on display and you want to look at them, then you put them back in the box.

In other shops say if pick something up and you drop it etc. you have to pay for it, they dont call the police and charge you criminal damage; The worlds gone mad!!!

[Lula]

can you scan and post for us to look at please, taking away andthing that will identify you or your wife

[shanty]

Shanty you've already responded to this question but would you mind confirming it again namely that there is NO financial incentive in accusing a consumer of causing damage even if only inspecting the goods & NOT stealing

 

 

As far as I know.Unless the security company (Lodge security for example) is giving staff a bonus for issuing civil recovery.I have never known this happen,but the question would need to be asked.

 

All I can say for a certainty is,that incompetant security guards who can't catch people (unfortunately they are in the majority), will only be clever enough(i use the word advisedly) to "spot" people doing sweet f.a.-then call it a crime.That is probably the ONLY way these idiots can get some kind of brownie points (and keep their jobs for all I know)

 

I have known of companies who said they will technically discipline and sack staff who don't catch enough shoplifters, (this is SO wrong for many reasons)however this doesn't usually apply to uniformed security guards,whos main job is to stand there to scare people from stealing,but it would apply to plain clothes store detectives.

 

On their weeky return (results) to their company ,On paper, this "offence " would be classed as 1 person arrested,one civil recovery issued.So they would look as good as someone who had caught a genuine thief (who are rather harder to catch at times).So do you understand that this is the incentive for doing this stuff,it's workplace pressure.

 

Primark is also a very strange company,with poor,or little management of their security staff.They use contractors,and don't have high standards (allegedly).

However as I said,this post doesn't seem quite right.

 

Security Guards have the name of their company on their uniforms somewhere,so it would be worthwhile,for all and any future cases,identifying if the same company names keep coming up.

Edited April 30, 2009 by shanty

[shanty]

Any update?

[hwilliams]

She got confused, frightened and felt harassed. She said she signed something for the police but not for Primark / RLP. Her English is not perfect - She is from Southern Europe and they tend to be wary of the Police.

 

Reading the Penalty Notice:

 

Offence Code DA11

 

"You (offence particulars) were seen causing damage to 2 set (sic) of earrings worth £300 in total"

 

Contrary to (act containing offence)

S.1 of criminal damage

 

Her signature is pertaining to:

 

"I acknowledge receipt of this Penalty Notice2.

 

oops sorry.

 

That should be £3.00 (three pounds not Three Hundred)

 

Letter from RLP just arrived

 

Value of unrecovered (or unfit for resale) goods/monies/services £0.00

Staff/management time investigating and/or dealing with incident £52.50

Adminsitration costs resulting from your wrongful actions £15.75

Apportioned security & surveillance costs £19.25

Total £87.50

 

.... prepared to accept £70.00 .. within 21 days

 

Her letter I drafted

 

J Moorhouse

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

PO Box 5413

Nottingham NG7 2BJ

 

CC Ms. Rosalyn Mendelsohn, Company Secretary

Primark Stores Limited

Primark House

41 West Street

Reading, Berkshire RG1 1TT

 

CC Paul Lister, Company Secretary

Associated British Foods plc

Weston Centre

10 Grosvenor Street

London W1K 4QY

 

The allegation is false and I contest it.

 

I was initially accused of theft of ear-rings. The allegation of damage by Retail Loss Prevention Limited (RLN) on behalf of Associated British Foods plc’s subsidiary, Primark Stores Limited was fabricated after it was clear that no theft had taken place.

 

The allegation is malicious, extortionate and dishonest, motivated by financial gain through the achievement of “performance targets” and the saving of face as a result of the theft allegation error.

 

I herewith provide a small sample of photographic evidence that I will show in court. I commissioned photographic evidence of 56 photographs taken on *** to demonstrate that dozens of opened items in Primark are to be seen scattered about on the floor and fittings just in one small 3 metre square section of the store. I opened a packet that had already been opened.

 

Please provide details of your photographic and video evidence to support your allegation in court and I will be happy to reciprocate.

 

Note that I reserve the right to claim considerable costs already far exceeding your claim in defending against your fraudulent misrepresentation to: investigating RLP, visiting and taking and formatting photographs in Primark to be used in evidence against RLP and Primark, communication with The Office of Fair Trading and Nottingham County Council Trading Standards and preparing this correspondence.

 

Yours faithfully

 

........

 

Letter to Primark from myself

 

Ms. Rosalyn Mendelsohn

Company Secretary

Primark Stores Limited

Primark House

41 West Street

Reading

Berkshire RG1 1TT

 

CC Paul Lister, Company Secretary

Associated British Foods plc

Weston Centre

10 Grosvenor Street

London W1K 4QY

 

With respect to attached correspondence between my wife, ***** and Retail Loss Prevention Limited.

 

I have been a delighted shareholder of ABF plc for some 7 years or so as a direct result of my wife showing me a packed Primark store in Wembley next to an almost empty Marks & Spencer store.

 

You have now accused my wife of “wrongful interference of goods” and have instructed Retail Loss Prevention Limited to pursue the claim of £87.50 in damages.

 

My wife was initially accused of the theft of 2 pairs of ear-rings worth £3.00 in total. The allegation of damage by Retail Loss Prevention Limited (RLN) on behalf of Associated British Foods plc’s subsidiary, Primark Stores Limited was subsequently fabricated after it was clear that no theft had taken place.

 

The allegation was malicious, extortionate and dishonest, motivated by financial gain through the achievement of “performance targets” and the saving of face as a result of the theft allegation error.

 

I personally took 56 photographs on *** , two days after your false allegations to demonstrate that dozens of items in Primark are to be seen scattered about on the floor and fittings just in one small 3 metre square section of the store. My wife had examined the contents of an already opened package.

 

This allegation was made by a criminally law-breaking organisation, Retail Loss Prevention Limited that has:

 

(1) Consistently broken The Companies Act 2006 – a criminal offence.

(2) Is under investigation by The Office of Fair Trading

(3) Is under investigation by Trading Standards Office, Nottingham County Council

 

I would be delighted to present my collected evidence of my wife’s innocence including on (1) with respect to RLN’s criminally illegal website. RLN has legalised its website but evidence of its illegality can be obtained through the use of the web archive website http://www.archive.org

 

I also note that I was limited to the collection of 56 photographs by the actions of Mr Kamran Ghafoor of Department 4 Primark Oxford Street London who prohibited me from taking photographs saying it was against company policy. I can only assume that policy was to prevent collection of evidence against Primark Limited:

 

(a) for fraudulent allegations of damage by Primark Limited such as in this case

or

(b) breaches by Primark Limited of other parties’ intellectual property rights

 

Please also provide an unlimited liability guarantee on behalf of Associated British Foods plc to cover any actions that my wife and/or other parties including but not excluding The Office of Fair trading and Nottingham County Council may take against RLN in this or other similar cases.

 

I have regularly asked my wife to visit Primark to see if it is still busy as a means of watching my shares. I now intend to disinvest.

 

I highly appreciate Primark’s efforts in contesting theft and enhancing the value of my shares.

 

But please be assured that your fabricated, defamatory and malicious allegations will be vigorously contested in court.

 

Note that I reserve the right to claim considerable costs already far exceeding your claim in defending against your fraudulent misrepresentation to: investigating RLP, visiting and taking photographs in Primark to be used in evidence against RLP and Primark, communication with The Office of Fair Trading and Nottingham County Council Trading Standards and preparing this correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

.......

 

Letter to the police

 

The allegation is false ad I contest it. I was not “seen causing damage to 2 sets of ear-rings worth £3.00 in total”. I note that **** contains a spelling mistake and refers to “earings”.

 

I was initially accused of theft of ear-rings. The allegation of damage by Retail Loss Prevention Limited (RLN) on behalf of Associated British Foods plc’s subsidiary, Primark Stores Limited was fabricated after it was clear that no theft had taken place.

 

The allegation was malicious, extortionate and dishonest, motivated by financial gain through the achievement of “performance targets” and the saving of face as a result of the theft allegation error.

 

I herewith provide a small sample of photographic evidence that I will show in court. I commissioned photographic evidence of 56 photographs taken on **** to demonstrate that dozens of items in Primark are to be seen scattered about on the floor and fittings just in one small 3 metre square section of the store. I opened a packet that had already been opened.

 

The allegation was made by a criminally law-breaking organisation, Retail Loss Prevention Limited that has:

 

(1) Consistently broken The Companies Act 2006 – a criminal offence.

(2) Is under investigation by The Office of Fair Trading

(3) Trading Standards Office, Nottingham County Council

 

I would be delighted to present my collected evidence of innocence including on (1) with respect to RLN’s criminally illegal website. RLN has legalised its website but evidence of its illegality can be obtained through the use of the web archive website http://www.archive.org

 

Please provide details of your photographic and video evidence to support your allegation.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited May 13, 2009 by hwilliams

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Thought it could be a typo error, but what a trivial amount for civil recovery to be put in place. A deliberate money making [problem] to which it looks like a third retailer is taking part in.

[MARTIN3030]

Why is RLP abbreviated to read RLN ?

 

 

Anyway-looks ok and spells things out without any doubts at all.

Have the letters gone out ?

They should have been given a timescale to respond-I would have given them 14 days.

[hwilliams]

Why is RLP abbreviated to read RLN ?

 

 

Anyway-looks ok and spells things out without any doubts at all.

Have the letters gone out ?

They should have been given a timescale to respond-I would have given them 14 days.

 

Many thanks for the proof read. Will correct and send in a few days. I haven't given a timescale to respond.

[MARTIN3030]

Just one other little point-first letter should also end Sincerely since you know the names of the recipients.

[MARTIN3030]

Your company, have now accused my wife of “wrongful interference of goods” and have instructed Retail Loss Prevention Limited to pursue the claim of £87.50 in damages.