RLP Claim Debenhams **Case closed**

[JonCris]

Police have upheld several cases where the defendant has passed the last point of payment, when they have concealed the goods,I know of these personally-the person has been found guilty.

I have also known of cases where (where for example there was a gang of accomplies waiting outside,where the descision to stop them inside has been upheld) many other cases too.

 

My personal experience-not just from lawbooks.

 

Shanty again the police can uphold what they like but they don't make the law (& they frequently get it wrong) & unless the person has left the store there is no crime - I suspect that in the cases you refer to the person has admitted their intention to steal when confronted with the evidence - however I say it again for you to think that a crime has been committed BEFORE it's actually been committed is somewhat worrying as it demonstrates poor training

 

Had those that you say who have been found guilty had decent legal counsel it's very doubtful that they would have been found guilty at all

[shanty]

All those cases were taken on by the cps-and sentanced-I think I have already proved my point.

Yet again you are only speaking from your books.

 

If you think the Police are poorly trained in accepting those charges-and the cps for accepting them,you obviously far superior in knowledge to both.

 

When a person has used wire cutters to cut tags off items,then puts them in their coat and zips up the coat,passes a point of payment and is stopped past that payment point,plus is a known thief, is violent,and is stopped outside the first door,but inside the final set of doors for the safety of the security staff,and the person admits it-hey-off course they have committed the crime-It has been demonstrated time and time again.

Edited June 11, 2009 by shanty

[ScarletPimpernel]

The other point here is that the act was a consequence of an illness, not a premeditated act of theft, a fact clearly recognised by the CPS. I wonder if Debenhams would be as quick to sue for damages, say, an epileptic who involuntarily urinated on their carpet whilst having a seizure?

[JonCris]

All those cases were taken on by the cps-and sentanced-I think I have already proved my point.

Yet again you are only speaking from your books.

 

If you think the Police are poorly trained in accepting those charges-and the cps for accepting them,you obviously far superior in knowledge to both.

 

When a person has used wire cutters to cut tags off items,then puts them in their coat and zips up the coat,passes a point of payment and is stopped past that payment point,plus is a known thief, is violent,and is stopped outside the first door,but inside the final set of doors for the safety of the security staff,and the person admits it-hey-off course they have committed the crime-It has been demonstrated time and time again.

 

Like I said they have admitted the crime - However had they not done as you describe they would not have committed an offence until they left the store period & if you think I get my knowledge just from law books your wrong.- of course it does help to understand the law in the 1st place

[shanty]

Theres been lots of discussion on this in the past.

I remember specifically something about concealment-its a sketchy area.

Concealing something say-under your coat is not classed as shoplifting until the person goes through the checkout without attempting to pay for it.

But what if a security guard stopped a person on seeing the concealment ?

Since it cannot be proven that the person intended to avoid payment since they were not given opportunity to pay at the checkout ?

 

The person needs to have passed the last point of payment.If the security guard stopped the person before this,it would be kicked out by the CPS.Rightly so.People come up with very creative excuses why they do this.

[kiptower]

the theft occures by removing the item from the premises,

 

not the point of payment

[JonCris]

Quite Shanty - I recall some time ago selecting something for one of my kids which as they were with me I hid under my coat intending to lose them (the kids) before the check out. Now had anyone accused me of stealing BEFORE I left the store all hell would have broken loose & I would have sued their butts off

[intheding]

Well I certainly have plenty of medical reports and meeting notes from the Community Mental Health Team to Provide Debenhams so I'll get drafting a letter.

[shanty]

Quite Shanty - I recall some time ago selecting something for one of my kids which as they were with me I hid under my coat intending to lose them (the kids) before the check out. Now had anyone accused me of stealing BEFORE I left the store all hell would have broken loose & I would have sued their butts off

 

Agreed,that's where common sense needs to kick in in stores.Presumably if you had walked through the tills and been two feet from the final exit doors-the staff might have come to a different conclusion ..maybe.

Edited June 11, 2009 by shanty

[shanty]

the theft occures by removing the item from the premises,

 

not the point of payment

 

No,not quite.

 

The legal definition of theft has several criteria,not just one.

If someone accidentally left the premesis with goods (many people have done this at one time or another),this is not theft.

Passing the final point of payment shows the intent NOT to pay-as you had every opportunity to pay on the way out.,it has to be accompanied by criminal intent though,etc

[intheding]

Well just got off the phone from the police officer that arrested my wife in the original incident. She says all the goods that Debenhams identified as there's were returned to the store without them ever leaving so I am not sure exactly what goods RLP are asking us to play for.

[shanty]

I think RLP claims for so called associated losses like the cost of security, staff time dealing with the incident,etc rather than losses from the stock she allegedly "stole".

[intheding]

They are after £380 of which £130 is for the goods (Never left the shop and were undamaged according to the PC who arrested my wife)

£150 for there time, £45 for Administration and £55 for Security and surveillance.

 

Well seems they are very specific about itemising stuff like that and to my mind they have asked us for money that is not due the £130.

 

What seems to have happened is that My wife had other items on her but which the police believe to be stolen but cant prove anything and Debenhams cant be sure that any of the rest of the goods that Police have are there's so they have come up with a random figure. If they cant prove any of the other goods confiscated are there's cant see how they can tell RLP to get money back for them.

[intheding]

Anyway this was the letter I was going to send to Debenhams store Manager

 

On Wednesday May 27th, I was arrested in your store for shoplifting

Please find attached a letter from my GP regarding medical conditions that caused my irrational and impulsive behavior on that date, as I was under the influence of Alcohol and a manic episode.

Please also be aware that the Police and CPS have also released me without charge as they have taken into account my mental state at the time of the incident.

My GP and the community mental health team are endeavoring to place me in a residential rehab facility in the coming month to allow me a period of stability to focus on my addictive illness and get my bi polar under control.

I would also point out that according to the arresting officer involved that all goods were recovered by the staff and never removed from the shop.

In this light I would ask you to contact RLP who are currently pursuing me for the sum of £380 and have them stop proceedings. This includes a sum of money for goods not recovered which I find slightly confusing as mentioned above the police officer said all Debenhams goods were recovered. I have also written to RLP but as they are your agents I wondered if you could intercede on my behalf.

I would ask if you could please respond within 14 days as I would like to get this matter cleared up as soon as possible due to my upcoming hospitalisation.

[shanty]

Well seems they are very specific about itemising stuff like that and to my mind they have asked us for money that is not due the £130.

 

What seems to have happened is that My wife had other items on her but which the police believe to be stolen but cant prove anything and Debenhams cant be sure that any of the rest of the goods that Police have are there's so they have come up with a random figure. If they cant prove any of the other goods confiscated are there's cant see how they can tell RLP to get money back for them.

 

 

The issue you are mainly talking about then are-the goods she didn't give back-ie goods not recovered.

So does your wife have receipts for the other items that have a question mark over them(I assume these are the ones she was not actually witnessed concealing)?

Surely you would not want her to keep items that are not hers-whether debenhams can prove it or not? If those goods are stocked by Debenhams I would be inclined to give them back to Debenhams,don't you agree?

Edited June 12, 2009 by shanty

[intheding]

No she has no receipts, I think the police also believe she was shoplifting in other stores but have no evidence (No one has reported the other goods missing or anyone shown her stealing from another store) so the police will probably keep the rest of the goods they have in their custody.

 

And your right I don't want anything that we haven't paid for.

 

Oh and yes she is on Meds for the Bi Polar an Anti Depressant and a Mood stabiliser.

Edited June 12, 2009 by intheding

[shanty]

She has goods with no receipts? She has "stolen" other goods while in a manic episode? The Police would be right to suspect they were stolen.

If they were stocked by Debenhams but they hadn't seen her take them,they wouldn't be in a position to report them missing,or to have evidence proving the loss.

I find it difficult to believe,given the circumstances, that she couldn't put two and two together and suggest to the Police that if the goods are sold by Debenhams,she probably took them from Debenhams,and therefore give consent for them to be returned to Debenhams.

 

You can't expect the store to be particularly happy if they suspect she is hanging onto goods they still believe are most probably theirs,even though at the moment you say technically the police have them.You need to get that bit sorted out before you send the letter.

 

Did you say she was prescribed bi-polar medication?

Edited June 12, 2009 by shanty

[intheding]

Yes Sorry she is on Meds for her Bi Polar (Antidepressant and a Mood Stabiliser)

[intheding]

I agree they wouldn't be happy but when my wife was detained they couldn't be sure that they belonged to the store with that in Mind the police had to keep them. The Store haven't told me what they are still missing and from my phone call to the security office they didn't seem to be too sure either.

[shanty]

In a big store like that,it may be impossible to say what if any stock is missing,that's why I think what usually happens is they are shown the goods held by the Police ,and then they say "yes that is stock we sell" and the Police give it back to them as the most likely owner.Could you perhaps say that you give them authority to do that (if that subject was raised by them)?

[MARTIN3030]

"In this light I put it to you that you have a responsibility to contact RLP who are currently pursuing me for the sum of £380 and have them stop proceedings. This includes a sum of money for goods not recovered which I find slightly confusing as mentioned above the police officer said all Debenhams goods were recovered. I have also written to RLP but as they are your agents I feel it is your duty to intercede on my behalf."

[intheding]

After talking to my wife and she is sane and sober at the moment and explaining what everyone suggested, she wanted to write to RLP. As she is an adult and responsible for the problem I let her do this.

 

She attached the letter from her Doctor and we sent it off last week.

 

This morning we received a letter from RLP saying that on consideration they were not taking any further action. So YAY!

 

At least it shows they can be reasonable some of the time. My wife and I would like to thank you all for your comments and suggestions its really been appreciated during this quite stressful time.

[kiptower]

now you should tell RLP you want everything about your wife , ALL Details removed from their system, as per the DPA , they do not have her express permission to hold the data , or you will follow the path to the ICO

 

and well done to your wife for writing

[JonCris]

I would also demand the return of those good which the police took They cannot keep them

[slick132]

Hi Intheding,

 

Delighted to hear this.

 

Thread title changed accordingly.