Former TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager - available for questions !/ reviewed 09.2015

[maxxer]

I discovered this forum whilst working for TK Maxx, in fact, when I saw the CAB report about civil recovery.

 

I have left TK Maxx, having worked for them for the past 8 years, mainly in central london stores, as an LPI (loss Prevention Investigator), and as a LPM (Loss Prevention Manager).

 

There are a lot of issues I've read here, from people who feel they have been 'wronged' by TK. I'm not here to defend my former employer, but to provide some balance that the company dosen't seem to want to provide ...... and some insight into the processes around what I used to do, policies and procedures etc.

 

Some of the info I think you'd be interested in:

 

CCTV.

 

There are several different 'ages' of cctv systems in use in the stores currently. Where I was, we all had the latest cctv systems, called cathexis. All the footage, from every camera, is recorded 24hrs a day, to hard drive. Every store has a cctv room, and a holding room. There are several monitors in the cctv room, and usually 2 keypads, which the LPI's use to follow people around on camera. There is a camera on every till, recording all transactions.

The holding room is where we take shoplifters. It has a desk, 3 chairs (bolted down to floor), a camera, AND MICROPHONE. Every conversation that takes place in the room is recorded, visual and audio. I put this in bold, because I dont know of any other retailler that records audio.

When an incident happens, the store is supposed to burn it to dvd for the police, and also burn a copy for RLP if needed (or in case of complaints). The store keeps the dvd they made for themselves, in the evidence cabinet, in the office.

 

If someone wants footage, there are forms kept in a 'data protection' folder for this purpose. Most people get told to write to head office, as they deal with the requests.

 

Head office can log into the cctv, and download the footage they need from the stores systems. They can then burn it for evidence / give to data subjects etc, without the store ever knowing that footage has been requested / given. The broadband data link is 'in the background', and stores dont even know theres someone remotely logged in, and watching.

 

The district managers do log in, and check the footage (especially of the holding room) on a regular basis, to 'quality check' the staff.

 

STAFF:

 

Store staff aren't allowed to view or operate the cctv. Only the Loss Prevention team are allowed to. Unlike other retaillers (say, Boots, where all their stff are contracted in), TK Maxx employs all its own security staff. Thus, they dont need any sort of licenses (like an SIA).

 

All the staff are plain clothes. This adds the deterrent factor to customers who would steal - is the person next to you security, or are they another shopper ?. (except lpo, see below)

 

The structure in stores consists of : LPO (loss Prevention Officer) - the only uniformed role, only in London stores, and only meant as a deterrent. These guys are radio linked to the cctv room, and udually stop people as they leave, on the 'say so' of the LPI's in cctv. Dependant on size of store, there can be 3 or 4 of these per store)

 

LPI (Loss Prevention Investigator) - every single TK store has at least one, store based. Their role is to investigate losses to the business, be it shoplifters, fraudsters, or staff themselves. Plain clothes role.

These are the people who will watch cctv, and stop people stealing from the stores.

 

LPM (loss prevention manager) - larger london stores have these, we looked after the store, and the LPI's / LPO's under us. (rotas, overall leadership etc)

 

The Loss Prevention function is completely seperate to the stores. Its no good complaining to the store manager, or pleading with them if youve been caught doing something wrong. The decision to call the police is with the LP team, or head office if youve a complaint. Sending a complaint to a store will only delay getting an answer (which may mean cctv had dropped off the system by the time they look).

 

Then theres the field based roles:

 

DLPM (district loss prevention managers) - they look after approx 15 stores each, visiting stores on a weekly basis. They do the LPM role, but for a lot more stores (and are our boss !)

 

Investigations Team - These guys are regional, covering tousands of miles. They deal with the large organised crime, organised temas of shoplifters, and refund fraud.

 

Then theres head office.

 

 

CIVIL RECOVERY:

 

We were always told to CR everyone. We used to be fed the line 'everoyne who doesnt pay, gets taken to court over it'. A few of us have read the CAB report, and now know this to be bull !.

 

Everyone gets the CR 'factsheet' when stopped, and its something that when you phone up CR to report the case, you have to say yes to having given them. They will also want to see this done on CCTV, so we make sure its always done in the holding room.

 

BANNING:

 

We used to ban every shoplifter. Ther banning notice has an appeal address on it, and clearly states about the store being private property. The ban is for life. There is a section for the customer to sign. The signing (as it clearly states on the banning letter) is NOT an admission of guilt, its to say you have and understand the banning letter. Some people thought it was their god given right to come into the shop, and wouldnt sign it. No problems, its all on cctv. We used to print off a picture from the cctv, and attach it to our copy of the banning notice, so no mistaken identities.

 

We always used to ask for ID. If there was no ID from the shoplifter, then the police would be automatically called. This was company policy. As was - if the person denied the offence, the police would automatically be called. If there was any doubt about the persons guilt, then we would call the police, and let them decide, given the facts. After all, we were store security, not judge and jury.

[rebel11]

Hi maxx

 

Welcome to CAG

 

Good to see you here.

[maxxer]

Process for CR:

 

(A really basic timeline)

 

Store sees offence - detains shoplifter.

 

Shoplifter is dealt with by being banned, cr notice given to them, and then either escorted from store, or police'd.

 

We phone civil recovery up, give details of store, time, date, offender details, and then a series of questions 'did you see them select the item', 'was there anything they said whilst in your custody' etc. Store then gets an RLP number (case reference number)

 

Store burns off cctv, and keeps it. Store does a 'incident report', emails it to head office, and also to RLP.

 

That, is the end of the stores involvement. If RLP want anything more, they contact head office, and they contact the store.

[rebel11]

Hi Maxx

 

Besides the RLP issue, the 'one fit's all policy' that TD Maxx carry out on all suspected consumers is a big worry.

[andydd]

Some good info. but as most of us know, the problem is rarely the store itself, but RLP, what would be interesting is the breakdown of how much the money is split between RLp/Store.

 

Andy

[maxxer]

Its a numbers game now - I dont know of a tk maxx store that had under 150 shoplifters detained last year (although to be fair, I only knew london stores)

 

We tried to police as many jobs as we could - so we simply presented what we had, and the police / cps can make their decision on if there was a valid reason for them walking out with £500 of make up or not.

 

There's now so many people shoplifting, it makes it difficult to make decisions, regarding if you think its a genuine mistake or not.

 

 

Ive had middle aged ladies taking items, because they read it online that TK's didnt have security, and nobody cared. Their attitude was a 'dont care', and we called in the police. They went no comment, were charged, and found guilty.

 

There are 'tell tale' signs about innocence.

Genuine 'I forgot's' wont spend their time looking up at the CCTV camera domes.

They wont leave the box (with the price label and security tag) behind on the shelf, they wont hesitate to leave. They also dont peel off the security tags, or price labels ....

 

The worst one is buggys.

People use the top of their buggy to put things, then forget about them, and walk out.

 

We always watch then for another few mins after leaving the store.

If they look down, discovder the pair of shoes, and turn back towards the store

- we would approach them, and get the stuff off them, explaining that we understand theres been a mistake. If they, however, look down, see the shoes, and put them into a bag, or move them, then its a different story.

 

Andydd - the stores used to (about 2 years ago) get the breakdwn from RLP every month, in a newsletter.

 

 

There would be a table of 'top reporters', and which company (hmv, halfords, boots, etc) had the most reported cases each month. There also used to be a 'legal' section, in which they said about issues / wins in court. (seems like only staff cases they bothered to take to legal).

 

This all stopped, and the stores have no idea how much they have recovered at all, let alone how much tk has taken.

 

Stock take is in January, so i was out of there before this years results, but they lost £18 million the year before, so its no way enough to make a profit on RLP contributions.

 

When they were charging £75, I heard that TK's got £50 of it. God knows now though, it wasnt something that was given to stores.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Good to see the inside story.

 

You are right - the only cases that RLP litigated have been those involving staff theft, and a couple in their very early days which appear to have been default judgements.

 

The problem with RLP is that they set themselves up as a parallel system; if an offence has been committed, the correct way of dealing with it is via the police, CPS and courts - not a commercial company whose sole interest is income generation. In fact, if you research RLP's history, you will find that the initial premise was for civil recovery to be used only in cases where an individual had been properly tried and convicted by a court. Nowadays, RLP call people suspected (but not charged or convicted of any offence, and therefore innocent) 'offenders'.

 

There is no moral component to RLP's activities; they never pursue organised professional shoplifters, for example, who I suspect are responsible for a significant percentage of overall offences.

[LaughingGirl]

Totally agree with SP here - shops have every right to defend themselves from theft, but I don't like RLP as a method of doing that. If someone is suspected of a crime, then the Police should be called and a decision made on whether to prosecute.

 

I don't even think RLP is a deterrent - I can't imagine the average organised shoplifter giving two hoots about a letter from them, much less paying it.

[maxxer]

I read a lot about rlp, when the cab report came out. I had my guys read it as well. We were upset to discover that rlp wasnt taking people to court - after all, we still had in our filing cabinets (and still had when I left), the letters from the police, provided in our civil recovery pack, stating the the police supported our position, and that they supported civil recovery. (which nobody from head office bothered to tell us was no longer valid).

 

Just to clarify, nobody at a store level has ever been told to civil recover offenders, over police action.

Everyone gets CR'd, and the ones that meet the criteria, get the police called (over certain amount, violence, refusing details, no ID, arguing / refusing to return to store)

 

Edit to add:

 

SP - I remember the old days of RLP (when run by some professer blokie ?)

where their remit was to sue shoplifters who were professionals - the sort of person who, although they lived in aladdins cave, had no job, and could say to a court 'no job, I will pay £5 a week'. The point was to go after them, get civil judgement, and have some baliffs pop round for a 'chat and removal' party. Hurting them in the pocket. (although it was pointed out that 99% of the stuff in their house would likely be stolen too).

Edited March 5, 2012 by maxxer
add info

[rebel11]

If people are innocent, then the police can't and shouldn't support TD Maxx, as you say TD Maxx have one policy for dealing with suspected consumers.

[maxxer]

Rebel - I'm not sure what you mean in your last post.

 

The police supported the use of civil recovery, in principal, at first - there were a pack of guidelines produced, and one of the speicific rules was that it wasnt to be used instead of police action. They also were happy that the data protection act allowed details to be passed to us, and as we were the 'victim'. The cab report shows they withdrew their support for it, although I dont know when. My point, is that we at a store level have never been told that, and that the 'support letter', from acpo, is still shown to police who arent supportive of giving us details. Nobody has bothered to update or let the stores know.

 

If people are innocent, then the police can't and shouldn't support TD Maxx, as you say TD Maxx have one policy for dealing with suspected consumers.

 

Urrm, how do I know if they are innocent or not. I only gather evidence and fact. Its the courts job to find people guilty or innocent. And whats a 'suspected consumer' ?. Its the police's job to investigate allegations, and to present that info to the CPS, who make prosecution decisions.

[Sidewinder]

This is a very readable thread, with some useful insight given. Like others, I have no time for those who make it a hobby to steal from stores or anywhere else. Nor, in principle, do I have an issue with those responsible for deliberate theft for theft's sake, to be responsible for their actions, however such restitution should always be decided by a Court, properly judged and set at an appropriate level.

 

As with many other areas of modern life the problem is that where a third party business is involved, there is, by definition an element of needing to make a profit, and the current civil recovery model is simply not appropriate for most cases of customer wrongdoing. Security costs cannot be directly apportioned to an individual unless the store incurs additional costs over and above the norm, and in all too many cases the individual is not give the opportunity to be proven guilty in the first place. Yes, we do get those cases where clearly a theft has occurred, and obviously we only get one side of the story, but the fact remains that we also get many clear cases of absolute innocence or genuine mistakes, and where goods are recovered in saleable condition, with little or no trouble for the store concerned - civil recovery is completely inappropriate, but the problem is that in many instances it starts from a position of assumed guilt - invoicing the person concerned for an act of 'wrongdoing'.

 

Stores and security staff are in an impossible position - they have heard all of the excuses before and there is little to tell whether this is yet another, or a genuine oversight. As you said earlier, there are some tell tale signs that a person MAY be more likely to be shoplifting, but even there it HAS to be determined through proper legal process - that is where the current system is wrong.

 

I think it is telling that civil recovery cases are far more likely to proceed to court action in cases of employee theft. Investigation and detection tend to be far more thorough and likely to have significant evidence and it is easier to then apportion costs directly to that particular case, whereas a speculative invoice sent to somebody merely SUSPECTED of theft for a pre-determined amount is on far flimsier legal ground.

 

Thank you for stopping by.

[LaughingGirl]

Rebel - I'm not sure what you mean in your last post.

 

The police supported the use of civil recovery, in principal, at first - there were a pack of guidelines produced, and one of the speicific rules was that it wasnt to be used instead of police action. They also were happy that the data protection act allowed details to be passed to us, and as we were the 'victim'. The cab report shows they withdrew their support for it, although I dont know when. My point, is that we at a store level have never been told that, and that the 'support letter', from acpo, is still shown to police who arent supportive of giving us details. Nobody has bothered to update or let the stores know.

 

If people are innocent, then the police can't and shouldn't support TD Maxx, as you say TD Maxx have one policy for dealing with suspected consumers.

 

Urrm, how do I know if they are innocent or not. I only gather evidence and fact. Its the courts job to find people guilty or innocent. And whats a 'suspected consumer' ?. Its the police's job to investigate allegations, and to present that info to the CPS, who make prosecution decisions.

 

Problem is, that doesn't appear to be what's happening.

From what I can tell, not many RLP cases ever involve the Police - just the security guard/s and maybe store management.

 

I find it very hard to view RLP as anything other than an additional revenue stream, to be honest.

I'm all for retailers making a profit - in fact, I absolutely think that they should look for new ways to make money...times is tough and all that.

 

I'm in not favour of them circumnavigating our legal system to do it, though.

I've read too many cases here and elsewhere that (if they're even half true) make for very uncomfortable reading.

[maxxer]

I know what you are saying here - and I do agree - I know of some guards who totally ignore the instructions of their head office, and get 'as many jobs' as they can. Catch someone, cr them, then let them go. No matter what they stole, nomatter what the circs.

 

That wasn't in tk's though - that was boots.

 

Generally, there is a better level of security staff in a tk's - because they are in house employees, rather than some contract company. The vetting process is thorough, the training is more than 4 days (which is what boots guards get).

 

I've set out my beliefs (that cr doesn't work, its gone too far), and I changed my policy at a local level to reflect that (call the police all the time). There were a lot of my peers who read the report, and did the same.

 

The tk company policy has always been, if the person denies the offence, call in the police. (This is the national policy).

 

I think rlp needs to either - go bacl to the old system, where only the professional thieves are targetted.

Or take every single case to small claims, to assess the 'level of damages'.

Me thinks the time spent and the costs, will outweigh the profit quite quickly.......

[LaughingGirl]

Mmmm, I don't know, though - when I first started posting here, I was struck by just how many cases seem to involve TK Maxx. That's something that immediately jumped out at me, and there's one tale of woe on here regarding a young lad and his mother that can only be described as a horror story. Completely inappropriate treatment. To be honest, though, I don't want to turn this into a stick to beat TK with, because it's not just them as you rightly state.

 

I think, if they're going to use RLP at all, then it would be best to stick to those stealing to order or in quantity, mostly because that's where the real damage is. Invoicing someone's Gran because she had a senior moment isn't benefiting anyone, not even the company. All it's going to take is some poor so-and-so, who made a genuine mistake, to do something silly and irreversable because they get one of these invoices and the publicity will not be pretty.

 

I don't mean to take away from the fact that you made changes, I'm sure that there are a lot of managers (and security) who would be appalled at the system being misused. I just think it's far too open to abuse.

[2Grumpy]

If this was going after the profits of the full time thief after conviction in the courts then fine.

 

As it is it just seems as an additional revenue stream with the store security acting as investigator & judge & threatening with police if people don't co-operate.

[rebel11]

There is no doubt that there are overzealous security guards who contrary to a reasonable explanation given, just see everything as 'black and white', maybe they need to justify their existence, the company policy endorses their actions.

[maxxer]

Certainly there ARE guards who have no idea of any of their 'powers', responsibilities, or laws.

 

Perhaps what you see, rebel, as guards doing 'black and white', is, in fact, the guard saying 'you know what, I'm not judge or jury, I'm letting the police decide'.

 

One of the rules in tk's (as I've said before) is that if they don't admit their guilt, the police are called. - and that's a truthful admission, not a 'I want to get out of here, so I will say anything'. In fact, nobody knows what the 'referral criteria' is when they are stopped, so there's no reason to lie to us, is there. If people come on here and say 'I got let go, no police called', then, at the very least, they've admitted their guilt, on camera, and recorded on mic.

 

Something which nobody in their right mind would do if they are innocent.

[Anus Horribilis]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I had a moment of madness and committed shoptheft, I would be very grateful for the opportunity to settle it via RLP.

 

The critical point is whether people get a fair and informed chance to make a decision when they've been stopped. Children and vulnerable adults should be exempted as a category, because their capacity for informed consent is not reliable.

[rebel11]

Your missing the point big time, there are lots of examples where customers have goods on them and the customer has come up with a rational explanation, but the security guard or whoever have applied the one fits all policy, because there not paid to think, the policy does the thinking for them.

 

Certainly there ARE guards who have no idea of any of their 'powers', responsibilities, or laws.

 

Perhaps what you see, rebel, as guards doing 'black and white', is, in fact, the guard saying 'you know what, I'm not judge or jury, I'm letting the police decide'.

 

One of the rules in tk's (as I've said before) is that if they don't admit their guilt, the police are called. - and that's a truthful admission, not a 'I want to get out of here, so I will say anything'. In fact, nobody knows what the 'referral criteria' is when they are stopped, so there's no reason to lie to us, is there. If people come on here and say 'I got let go, no police called', then, at the very least, they've admitted their guilt, on camera, and recorded on mic.

 

Something which nobody in their right mind would do if they are innocent.

[maxxer]

Rebel, I do understand what you are saying.

 

However, things aren't always as 'policy led' as you would like to think. As I've said before, there's lots of 'signs' that people give out, that makes you think its not a genuine mistake. Its those cases, where the customer says 'I didn't mean to', we think differently. Some will try to 'pull the wool over our eyes'.

 

Besides, as I keep saying, we aren't judge and jury. Nor could you say we are totally impartial, by the nature of who employs us.

 

The police listen to both sides of the story, then make a decision. A lot of the time, they will view the footage. There and then, before deciding.

 

In one move, you say that security are overzealous, yet you don't seem to like the idea of calling the police, to let them make an impartial decision.

 

I've been in situations where people have protested their innocence, police called - only to admit it in interview.

 

There's a fair number of people who, even though its all on camera, deny any wrongdoing, even down to denying picking up the item that's now in their bag, removing the security tag and price ticket etc. We go on the evidence as it presents itself - if there's no dishonesty displayed, then they would be stopped outside, their mistake shown to them, and that's it (either item taken off them, or walked back to the store and item paid for)

 

 

How possibly would you like security to deal with people they suspect of theft then ?.

[Anus Horribilis]

Besides, as I keep saying, we aren't judge and jury. Nor could you say we are totally impartial, by the nature of who employs us.

 

The police listen to both sides of the story, then make a decision. A lot of the time, they will view the footage. There and then, before deciding.

 

In one move, you say that security are overzealous, yet you don't seem to like the idea of calling the police, to let them make an impartial decision.

 

Very welcome and reasonable words.

[bio]

Rebel, I do understand what you are saying.

 

How possibly would you like security to deal with people they suspect of theft then ?.

 

I am surprised a prolific poster like Rebel has not replied to this question?

[LaughingGirl]

I'm not prolific, but I know how I'd like them to deal with it.

 

Simply put, I'd like them to be legally required to call the Police every time, no exceptions. I accept there are some good security guards out there, but the bad ones are really bad. That type might be less inclined to get involved in some of the more disturbing allegations that we see cropping up. I can't help noticing that whenever disabled people are being forced to get out of their wheelchairs because a shop assistant forgot to remove a tag, or mentally unwell, elderly people are being detained in small rooms without access to their medication, nobody ever mentions the Police being present or even called.

[Holly117]

I'd like to ask the OP whether he has ever known of any cases, in his personal experience, going to court when an alleged shoplifter has refused to pay the civil recovery demands? What does the shop do when RLP or whoever they use, tell them that their letters have all been ignored?