Asda-drydens Solicitors-notice Of Intended Civil Recovery

[JonCris]

Is that not what the big multiples do, except it is through RLP/ Drydens etc??

 

I really don't see the difference.

 

 

The difference is that your thief was convicted by a court of law whilst most of those persecuted by RLP/Drydens haven't been ........... just what don't you understand

[JonCris]

I see the differnence the individual to whom you refer was found quilty by a court, so yes he should pay something but only if you or any company who you instruct issue a county court summons, and of course you will need to win.

 

 

Also if he's got now't what's the point

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Also if he's got now't what's the point

 

Hi JonCris you, I and many forum contributors know there is no point in issuing a summons, I expect BillyB understands the futility of doing so.

Unfortunately what we all know does not stop these loss recovery companies trying it on in similar cases.

Does anyone really feel the theft BillyB's refers to actually took place.

 

Andy

[shanty]

It is not RLP or the likes that need to be stopped, it is the security officer/retailer that need to think before issuing.

 

But these security officers are not thinking-how do you propose to change that? Introducing sia licensing has had very little effect.

 

Ultimately, RLP could accept that there is a chance some staff are getting it wrong,and build in safeguards,but they haven't done this (yet) and it appears, are making no attempts to do so.In most companies it's called quality control,I think.

 

They only need to say: we will only take cases where the defendant has been found guilty by a court,or admits guilt to the Police.It is very simple,it would stop most of these problems.It is not much to ask,is it?

[shanty]

Hi JonCris you, I and many forum contributors know there is no point in issuing a summons, I expect BillyB understands the futility of doing so.

Unfortunately what we all know does not stop these loss recovery companies trying it on in similar cases.

Does anyone really feel the theft BillyB's refers to actually took place.

 

Andy

 

The scenario is not uncommon.

 

Your Loss prevention staff should have requested you ask for a compensation order yourself,the complainant should have requested that in their statement to police at the time.

 

When you caught the boy,did you question him yourself as to what happened,billybumpkin?

 

Isn't this the reason most companies only let supervisors do refunds,or else have a dedicated Customer service desk staffed by experienced staff?

Edited October 22, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

But these security officers are not thinking-how do you propose to change that? Introducing sia licensing has had very little effect.

 

Ultimately, RLP could accept that there is a chance some staff are getting it wrong,and build in safeguards,but they haven't done this (yet) and it appears, are making no attempts to do so.In most companies it's called quality control,I think.

 

They only need to say: we will only take cases where the defendant has been found guilty by a court,or admits guilt to the Police.It is very simple,it would stop most of these problems.It is not much to ask,is it?

 

"or admits guilt to the police" after having been warned that if they refuse to accept a fine or caution they will be arrested, handcuffed & banged up for what could be many hours. Don't make me larf that isn't justice & more importantly it doesn't prove anything as even the blindingly innocent will often succumb to such threats

 

I wonder do the police realize they are only being asked to respond so that RLP AND their clients can justify their demands. I wonder how the local crime units will feel when they discover they are part of what is alleged to be an extortion racket ............. not favourably I hope

[shanty]

No,If that is happening it is wholly wrong.Has that happened then? To anyone here? If it has,it is a huge concern.Yes,I guess it is a threat that could be made.

[Billybumpkins]

The difference is that your thief was convicted by a court of law whilst most of those persecuted by RLP/Drydens haven't been ........... just what don't you understand

 

 

One thing I don't understand.

 

Why do you have to be convicted in a court of law....where does it say that?

[Billybumpkins]

The scenario is not uncommon.

 

Your Loss prevention staff should have requested you ask for a compensation order yourself,the complainant should have requested that in their statement to police at the time.

 

When you caught the boy,did you question him yourself as to what happened,billybumpkin?

 

Isn't this the reason most companies only let supervisors do refunds,or else have a dedicated Customer service desk staffed by experienced staff?

 

The lady that does my loss prevention stuff did the interview with the lad. It was her statement to the police. Although I am the employer, I let her deal with it as I have to do disciplinary stuff. My lady does not work for me directly and does stuff for me as and when I need her. She did ask for compensation in her statement. The judges ruling was that the employer has avenues open to seek recompense.

During the interview, the lad stated that he only intended to take £500, his solicitor also mentioned that in court in mitigation.

 

After 5 months with me, I gave him supervisor priveleges as he seemed a good hardworking and knowledgeable lad. I am not a multiple, I sell electronics and gifts. I employ 6 people full time and 4 part time.

[Billybumpkins]

"or admits guilt to the police" after having been warned that if they refuse to accept a fine or caution they will be arrested, handcuffed & banged up for what could be many hours. Don't make me larf that isn't justice & more importantly it doesn't prove anything as even the blindingly innocent will often succumb to such threats

 

I wonder do the police realize they are only being asked to respond so that RLP AND their clients can justify their demands. I wonder how the local crime units will feel when they discover they are part of what is alleged to be an extortion racket ............. not favourably I hope

 

These innocents that walk out with goods that are not paid for and are caught by security personnel.

If they are not caught, can you inform me what the likelihood of them returning the goods to the store is?

 

I am not looking for an exact figure....just a ball park one would do.

[Billybumpkins]

Also if he's got now't what's the point

 

 

I am led to believe, you can correct me if I am wrong here, that this stays with them. If they have "nowt" now, they might have "owt" later on in life!!!

[shanty]

You made a 16 year old,in effect,a supervisor within 5 months.In hindsight,was that wise?

[Billybumpkins]

Unfortunately, at the time, it seemed like the right thing.

 

I was a checkout manager at 17 after 4 months in the job.

[shanty]

I would have thought with such a small number of staff,it would have been wiser to only allow 1 or 2 staff the priviledge of processing refunds,as this is such a high risk area for fraud.That you chose to do other than that suggests your staff are being stretched to the limits,but you can't have it all ways.If you are giving all (and this sounds like what you have done)staff supervisor privilidges suggests you thought it would be more time efficient than having to call a supervisor,and hold up other customers.What he did was wrong,but do you know the profile for which staff commit theft.It is an unwise risk to a business to make the descision you did,now you are paying for it.

Edited October 22, 2009 by shanty

[shanty]

The lady that does my loss prevention stuff did the interview with the lad. It was her statement to the police. Although I am the employer, I let her deal with it as I have to do disciplinary stuff. My lady does not work for me directly and does stuff for me as and when I need her. She did ask for compensation in her statement. The judges ruling was that the employer has avenues open to seek recompense.

During the interview, the lad stated that he only intended to take £500, his solicitor also mentioned that in court in mitigation.

 

After 5 months with me, I gave him supervisor priveleges as he seemed a good hardworking and knowledgeable lad. I am not a multiple, I sell electronics and gifts. I employ 6 people full time and 4 part time.

 

 

I am intrigued that your loss prevention lady did an interview with the lad,bearing in mind what you said about experienced Loss prevention Pros.

 

You should an appropriate adult present in order to interview a person under 17.You are not the Police. No Loss Prevention "Pro" as you put it would dream of interviewing a juvenile, as they are considered to be vulnerable,its a job for the Police..I take it this supposed juvenile was cautioned and offered legal representation, (which he refused no doubt!!??) by your Loss Prevention Pro?

Edited October 22, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

One thing I don't understand.

 

Why do you have to be convicted in a court of law....where does it say that?

 

 

Oh please. Anyone accused of dishonesty has the right to a trial Although you would like to you can't say someone is dishonest without it being proved in law & if you do make a habit of it expect to end up being sued for slander. ........... In fact if you did you could be arrested & charged with criminal slander

[JonCris]

I am intrigued that your loss prevention lady did an interview with the lad,bearing in mind what you said about experienced Loss prevention Pros.

 

You should an appropriate adult present in order to interview a person under 17.You are not the Police. No Loss Prevention "Pro" as you put it would dream of interviewing a juvenile, as they are considered to be vulnerable,its a job for the Police..I take it this supposed juvenile was cautioned and offered legal representation, (which he refused no doubt!!??) by your Loss Prevention Pro?

 

Quite I'm also surprised that his solicitor allowed it & if he was interviewed without legal representation then anything he is claimed to have said could have been disputed or even struck out

[Billybumpkins]

Both his mother and father were present. It was part of a disciplinary process. Once he admitted he had stolen, which we figured anyway, the police were called.

 

Now, should we have all the legal eagles in the world present for a disciplinary interview?

[JonCris]

His mother & father are not lawyers. Therefore without proper legal representation anything he said could still have been disputed

[Button1]

...

Edited March 29, 2010 by Button1

[rebellfoxx]

wow every one has forgotten about my original post!!! drysden haven.t wrote back, only 2 letters and that was 2-3 month ago. i think ill forget about them.... THANK YOU every one for your advice

[shanty]

Both his mother and father were present. It was part of a disciplinary process. Once he admitted he had stolen, which we figured anyway, the police were called.

 

Now, should we have all the legal eagles in the world present for a disciplinary interview?

 

Don't you have to give someone advance warning of the date of a disciplinary?

 

You are telling us you notified him of the disciplinary,got his parents to be present then later called the Police?

 

I cant see the Police being very happy about that time gap.

[labrat]

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has produced a code of practice all employers should adhere to when it comes to disciplining staff and investigating misconduct.

This is in the process of being revised, with the revised code set to replace statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures from April 2009 - a draft version of the revised code was published for consultation in May 2008.

When a potential disciplinary matter arises, employers are advised to make necessary investigations to establish the facts promptly, keeping a written record for later reference.

Having established the facts, the employer should decide whether to drop the matter, deal with it informally or arrange for it to be handled formally.

Formal action

 

ACAS says employers should:

• let the employee know in writing what it is they are alleged to have done wrong
  
• invite the individual to a meeting at which the problem can be discussed, and inform them of their right to be accompanied at that meeting
  
• include copies of any documents that will be produced at the meeting.
  

so was all that adhered to or did you just drag him in iterogate him, then call his parents?

[pokerpoker]

Same thing here.

I was caught shoplifting by a meet n greet member of staff at ASDA.

Police were called and after admitting guilt, i received a Police Caution and no fixed penalty fine.

 

Drydens Solicitor letter arrived a few days afterwards demanding £150.

Costs incurred are stated in letter from drydens as:-

*Staff and management time to observe, apprehend and detain you.

*Time taken to produce witness statements and liase with the police.

*The use of security equipment.

*Preparing evidence including any CCTV tapes.

*Collating details, case review, data entry and processing.

*Writing reports, copying and postage.

 

 

Incidentally i rang them and agreed to make payments of £5 per month.

They got my name wrong on the letter they wrote to me, but i guess i just have to go ahead and pay my dues.

30 months @£5 a month out of my income support.

 

pokerpoker out.

[rebellfoxx]

yo poker i ignored them by advice from here and received two or 3 letters, even though i got caution i ignored them and they didnt get back in touch, also if they got ya name wrong im sure there will be a get out clause somewhere if you ask some of the helpful lads on here