Primark & RLP

[raydetinu]

IMHO I dont think you will here anymore from anybody on this, even the police; it will all go very quiet. any meaningful response would cost money ( time ) and thats not the game they are in.

[shanty]

If the Police didn't respond,you would need to make an official complaint.

[hwilliams]

Letter from Primark of 26th May

 

"We refer to ....

 

As you will appreciate, your correspondence appears to relate to an event which you state involved your wife, xxx yyy, and as such, I am sure you will appreciate it is not appropriate for us to respond to your correspondence without the authority of xxx yyy.

 

What we can say, however, is that primark take all issues raised seriously and consider them carefully.

 

We would be delighted to respond further, once we have the appropriate authority from xxx yyy.

 

We look forward to hearing from you and would like to thank you for taking the time to correspond with us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Manager Legal Services

 

................

 

This has been appropriately replied to.

 

.............

 

Maybe a standard reply to RLP should be:

 

 

I refer to your letter of ...

 

As you will appreciate, your correspondence appears to relate to an event which you state involved Boots / Primark / ... , and as such, I am sure you will appreciate it is not appropriate for us to respond to your correspondence without the authority of Boots / Primark / ... .

 

What I can say, however, is that I take all issues raised seriously and consider them carefully.

 

I would be delighted to respond further, once I have the appropriate authority from Boots / Primark / ... , and an unlimited liability indemnity from Boots / Primark / ... , covering all actions by RLP in this and other cases with any party both in The UK and elsewhere.

 

I look forward to hearing from you and would like to thank you for taking the time to correspond with me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

........

 

 

Letter from Police of 28th May.

 

I acknowledge your request for a Court hearing in respect of the above-mentioned Penalty Notice, and would advise you that the necessary arrangements will now be made.

 

The Penalty Notice will be referred to the issuing borough for review. Any statement of mitigation that you submitted or wish to submit to them will receive due consideration.

 

Once a decision as to whether to prosecute or not has been made, you will be notified by letter or alternatively receive a summons from the Court.

 

yours sincerely

 

Penalty Notice fro Disorder Section.

 

..................

 

 

Nothing from RLP

Edited June 8, 2009 by hwilliams

[MARTIN3030]

Yes a nice standard reply letter to RLP .....can you clarify as to whether this would be letter Number 1 or 2 ?

Its just to assist RLPs filing systems for speedily locating queries.

I think it may demonstrate a measure of efficiency and user friendly management-and may in particular assist them to find real basis and lawful justification of their actions.

 

Hold fire for now tho-we need to check with ACPO that any letter re-drafts meet with their approval !!

[hwilliams]

Update:

 

Good news and bad news.

 

Primark have dropped all action

 

"Primark will forward instructions to RLP to request that they cease recovery action. Furthermore Primark are pleased to confrim that XXX is welcome to return to our stores and we trust will enjoy shopping in our stores on an ongoing basis. We must make it clear that Primark Stores Limited now consider that Primark's involvement in this matter to be enirely at an end."

 

Great stuff.

 

Ah but she has since received a summons to appear before the magistrates court.

 

On ... at ... without lawful excuse, attempted to damage earrings to the value of £2.94 belonging to Primark, Oxford Street, London intending to destroy or damage such property contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

 

Gosh!

 

She is now being accused by the Police / CPS of thought crime under catch-all legislation more frequently used in connection with anti-terrorism operations and anti-social behaviour.

 

Recall she was initially accused of theft.

 

Then given a penalty notice for £80 for "causing damage worth £3.00"

 

Now formally accused of "attempt to damage to the value of £2.94"

 

I am going to defend it myself. Bring it on.

 

Defence Points

 

1. Why has the amount changed? The value of the goods has changed from £3.00 to £2.94.

 

2. The Penalty Notice referred to 2 set (sic) of earings (sic). Is that one set or two sets.? What colour were the earrings? How many in each packet? Let's see them in court.

 

3. How is it possible to attempt to and fail to damage or destroy £3.00 earrings? She was not interrupted from checking and examining the earrings and was stopped 30 minutes later outside the store after paying for goods.

 

4. I have 56 photos showing open goods on the racks and floor of Primark. I will need a projector system to show the court the photos.

 

5. She will need an interpreter supplied by the court otherwise call for an adjournment.

 

6. I will need their evidence in advance otherwise call for an adjournment.

 

7. Primark have examined the evidence and have dropped the case and moreover have welcomed her back to shop on an ongoing basis.

 

All this hassle all round for possibly thinking about opening a packet worth £2.94 at Primark.

 

Beware that the same legislation could apply if you read a newspaper or magazine in a newsagent or try something on in any shop in the UK. Or sit on a sofa or bed in a furniture store. Or spill some food on a restaurant tablecloth.

 

Clearly the Police and Crown Prosecution Service and Courts have a lot of spare time.

 

Any suggestions re defence?

Edited July 29, 2009 by hwilliams

[MARTIN3030]

Looks like the defence is already well covered.

Its staggering that the CPS have given the go for this...but obv they are not aware of the defence you are able to put over...if they was I cant see how they would be wanting to push it.

[samjf]

At a guess, the difference maybe to do with the Vat change a while back..

[JonCris]

hwilliams PLEASE get in touch

[JonCris]

In the meantime make no admissions also contact the CPS & offer to send them a copy of Primarks letter dropping all civil action AND inviting her to shop there again

[JonCris]

I suspect it's a junior CPS counsel who needs some court experience & that's why they are going ahead with this nonsense

[MARTIN3030]

Is it wise to let them know about Primark at this point ?

I mean sending them a copy of the letter ?

It could open a can of worms-I would sit on it.

[JonCris]

If the letter is effectively exonerating the victim, making no accusations, it's important to tell the CPS now otherwise this comedy will continue

[Disheartened_Consumer]

Hi

Now I am a novice here but can you contact the CPS not just to inform them of Primark's current stance in the latest letter but also to prepare your defence under the Data Protection Act request access to the case file? I am sure that JonCris will know whether that is possible.

How on earth can CPS justify that this would be in the public's interest - what a waste of money and distress for you both!

[Disheartened_Consumer]

I am guessing that no matter how welcome Primark claim you would be back in their stores - you will never want to give them your custom again!

I feel so sorry that for the vast majority of the public who do not know what the little "civil recovery" signs mean on the shop windows - they don't realize the danger they are in when entering a store - honestly, after my own experience, I don't ever want to shop again! When I do go into a store I get the attention of a store assistant and insist that they go round with me and pick out whatever I need to buy - they think I am mad but it is how paranoid I have become.

[MARTIN3030]

I think you are meaning advance disclosure ?

[patdavies]

U

 

I am going to defend it myself. Bring it on.

 

 

Unless you are a solicitor or barrister, I can assure you that you will not be defending her in Court - you have no right of audience

[MARTIN3030]

Right of audience ?

Is this a legal term Pat ....?

[patdavies]

Right of audience ?

Is this a legal term Pat ....?

 

Yes. In Common Law.

 

See here for a good explanation

[MARTIN3030]

ok thanks

[JonCris]

He can represent the accused in court

 

A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a common law court.

This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants in person are entitled to have assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case McKenzie v. McKenzie[1] Although this role applies in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, it is regarded as having its origins in common law and hence has been adopted in practice in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. The role should be distinguished from that of an amicus curiae, a "friend of the court" who provides information for the benefit of the court.

[JonCris]

The Scottish Parliament is at this time being petitioned to allow McKenzie friends which is a bit ironic don't you think about the only place on the planet where the practice is presently disallowed is the place from which McKenzie probably came

[hwilliams]

hwilliams PLEASE get in touch

 

In the meantime make no admissions also contact the CPS & offer to send them a copy of Primarks letter dropping all civil action AND inviting her to shop there again

 

I suspect it's a junior CPS counsel who needs some court experience & that's why they are going ahead with this nonsense

 

How do you want me to get in touch, JonCris?

 

MPS & CPS & court personnel involved emailed with all paperwork in this matter copy to Attorney General & Solicitor General suggesting to them that the case is likely to bring the CPS into disrepute.

 

Thanks for the reference to McKenzie Friend.

 

I will use the services of the Duty Solicitor getting there early to brief him or her. I can't justify running up a legal bill of hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

 

But I fear that both the Duty Solicitor and the CPS Counsel will be fresh faced pimply graduates.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigant_in_person

 

This all seems like a device to generate fees and expenses for the legal profession.

 

However, the entry in wikipedia suggests courts are biased against litigants in person and the court procedure is used by lawyers (nods, winks, first names) against non lawyers.

 

Looks like a McKenzie Friend does not have a right of audience.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend#What_a_McKenzie_Friend_cannot_do

Edited July 17, 2009 by hwilliams

[hwilliams]

At a guess, the difference maybe to do with the Vat change a while back..

 

Looks like it doing the sums. But that was in Dec 2008. The incident took place in April 2009.

[hwilliams]

Is it wise to let them know about Primark at this point ?

I mean sending them a copy of the letter ?

It could open a can of worms-I would sit on it.

 

A bit late as I have sent it to the CPS.

 

But what is your reasoning?

 

I seek to demonstrate to the court they we have been very reasonable in good time.

Edited July 17, 2009 by hwilliams

[hwilliams]

Just ordered a couple of books on Advocacy from Amazon and also enrolled on a 1 day Advocacy course.

 

i would rather spend the money on self-training rather than pay fines or lawyers.