Resumé and summation of the RLP case by Richard Dunstan of the CAB

[cups]

I think the proved authenticity of the information held is also in doubt ? If l was stopped (not that l would be) l would give false pars, how are they ever going to check it is correct? I could give spmeone's details that l know ??

At a police station your pars are checked via prints or other means, but how can this alleged database be authentic?

Moreover why would a company use them? Unless it is part of some package deal, such as you use us for RLP and you can use our 'criminal database' for a fixed sum!!

Would be v surprised, but stranger things have happened!!

Cups

[LaughingGirl]

I think the proved authenticity of the information held is also in doubt ? If l was stopped (not that l would be) l would give false pars, how are they ever going to check it is correct? I could give spmeone's details that l know ??

At a police station your pars are checked via prints or other means, but how can this alleged database be authentic?

Moreover why would a company use them? Unless it is part of some package deal, such as you use us for RLP and you can use our 'criminal database' for a fixed sum!!

Would be v surprised, but stranger things have happened!!

Cups

 

From what I have been able to gather, they ask you for ID before they'll agree to let you "get away" with RLP. If you can't or won't provide it, they usually threaten to call the Police (based upon what I've read).

 

I completely agree with you though, the potential for mistaken identity is massive. Then again, I just think that all round, it's a shoddy unacceptable system.

[caledfwlch]

From what I have been able to gather, they ask you for ID before they'll agree to let you "get away" with RLP. If you can't or won't provide it, they usually threaten to call the Police (based upon what I've read).

 

I completely agree with you though, the potential for mistaken identity is massive. Then again, I just think that all round, it's a shoddy unacceptable system.

 

If you are innocent then the police coming is no problem. I know I will never shoplift, so any Guard attempting to stop me will get short shrift. Any attempt to citizens arrest me as I know I will be innocent will be assault and attempted kidnap, and I would use my lawful right to defend myself by force from being attacked. Then sue them for a fortune Same for details, they wont have any from me, false or otherwise, to the point that I would also refuse to give the Police my details until taken down the station or well away from store staff.

 

Not everyone is as strong willed or able to stand up for themselves as I am, which is why RLP and all its systems and methods need to be challenged, fought and destroyed, to protect people.

[caledfwlch]

Perhaps a seperate thread discussing it is in order ?

 

Andy

 

I think this is a VERY good idea, and maybe use it to try and coordinate a little campaign to get the ICO to take notice/action?

[labrat]

hmm only reply

 

Dear Mr XXX

 

You may find the answers to your questions on our website. http://www.lossprevention.co.uk.

 

If you are an employee of a client, all clients have been fully briefed, and you may wish to refer your query to your management.

 

Yours sincerely

[Michael Browne]

RLP's version:

 

Court Oxford Date 09.05.12 Defendant 21 and 19 year old females Ref No. 0011

Brief case details

Two Defendants, together with another unidentified female entered a store and stole several items. They caused disturbance upon apprehension outside the store, requiring the assistance of 2 additional security staff from the shopping centre. The third female escaped and was not identified. The two apprehended females were abusive to the security staff. Due to their un-cooperation they were arrested by the Police and were found to have stolen goods from a number of other stores in their possession. They received a Police Caution and Reprimand respectively, upon admission of theft.

 

The CAB got involved and arranged pro bono defences for the two Defendants. They denied acting jointly for reasons not made known, which was called into question by the Judge. An application for anonymity was made by both Defendants and the Claimant agreed, on the basis that it applied to all parties.

 

Regrettably the case was not presented well. The Claimant’s witnesses (who are security guards and not experienced in legal proceedings) became confused under the considerable pressure of cross examination by the shoplifters’ counsel. This can happen in any litigation.

 

The Judge found against the Claimant, as he could not establish that the security staff were diverted from their duties. Whilst the Judge recognised that there were four different activities undertaken by the security personnel, being patrolling the shop floor deterring crime, monitoring the CCTV detecting crime, apprehending and detaining those who commit crime, and dealing with the aftermath, he did not however make the distinction between the former two, for which the security staff are engaged, and the latter two, which is their diversion from the former two activities. The claim was accordingly dismissed. Application for appeal was refused.

 

The Judge did however express sympathy for the retailer in question in having to deal with situations such as that which the Defendants caused. He found that other losses were recoverable, markedly, commenting that had the shop floor staff dealt with the incident, this may well cause significant disruption to the business.

 

If this were a binding decision of any kind, it would create a strange anomaly whereby a business which expects its shop floor staff to put themselves in danger dealing with situations such as this one, the cost of such diversion is recoverable, but where a retailer takes the extra step, at huge additional costs, thus protecting the shop floor staff and honest shoppers, the cost is not recoverable.

 

The Judge further held that goods not recovered could of course be sought, although the goods not recovered from the third woman who escaped, were not referred to in the Judgment.

 

The Judge finally made some suggestions for retailers to recover their losses such as a contractual car parking type of arrangement, which would not be feasible, or some kind of additional payment where security make an apprehension, which again, those in the business of retail crime are fully aware, is not feasible.

 

Original claim

£137.50 between both Defendants

 

Judgement amount £0.00

 

Next Action

The retailer will decide whether it wishes to apply higher for leave to appeal. Given the insignificance of the case, an appeal is unlikely.

 

http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/Court%20Cases.aspx

[ScarletPimpernel]

So, RLP are comparing a case involving two girls against whom the police decided there was action to be taken, with a case involving someone already convicted through the criminal courts (incidentally, the type of situation civil recovery was envisaged to be used in), so apples and oranges really. Rather irresponsible for a company that purports to be some sort of legal advisor to retailers, and something I suspect the in-house lawyer should no better about.

 

Still, it's perhaps no wonder that RLP are spinning like a windmill in a hurricane; they are, after all, fighting for their very existence.

[andydd]

RLP's version:

 

 

 

http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/Court%20Cases.aspx

 

Hilarious.

 

They are trying their best to make the best of a very bad job.

 

They dont go into so much detail about all the claims where they won do they !?

 

So the poor security satff got confused..boo hoo.. despite being briefed by pricey solicitors, most of the people RLP chase have had no such legal help (with the exception of the greay work done by CAB and pro bono solicitors).

 

So they think this is insignificant...the fools.

 

Andy

[42man]

This was a story from a while back that may possibly compare - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280096919/ICO-closes-down-illegal-blacklist-database

[cups]

Hi

My understanding is that if the police are called and criminal action is taken then there it ends, l would argue that any civil action is a second bite at the cherry and therefore unfair.

I would also say that any information supplied by the police to a RLP type organisation would need to go through a proper request made in writing but from my own experience l do not think the police would provide it.

I think the moral of the story is to fight back, insist the police are called!!

Just my opinion

Cups

[citizenB]

This was a story from a while back that may possibly compare - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280096919/ICO-closes-down-illegal-blacklist-database

 

 

Very interesting article, 42man

[andydd]

This was a story from a while back that may possibly compare - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280096919/ICO-closes-down-illegal-blacklist-database

 

Yes..that case was big news and has been mentioned a few times in various threads.

 

It appears from reading thje Cireco site that many of the db's it uses are quite legitmate, i.e electoral role, and even credit ref agencies IF you give persmission BUT the dubious bit is their claim to use "utilising derivative data captured for the detection and prevention of crime including verifying information on job application forms. These individuals have either attempted to, or taken goods or services without intending to pay for them, either as a customer or an employee.", this is clearly incorrect, in the cases there has been an ALLEGATION of theft but as we know rarely proven in a court of law, if this was the case then using the exisiting CRB process would be enough.

 

Has anyone queried this with the ICO ?

 

Andy

[LaughingGirl]

Hilarious.

 

They are trying their best to make the best of a very bad job.

 

They dont go into so much detail about all the claims where they won do they !?

 

So the poor security satff got confused..boo hoo.. despite being briefed by pricey solicitors, most of the people RLP chase have had no such legal help (with the exception of the greay work done by CAB and pro bono solicitors).

 

So they think this is insignificant...the fools.

 

Andy

 

I imagine that's because most of the cases that they won are default judgements. I wonder if they pick cases to take to court where there is no communication whatsoever from the outset, because they think they have a better chance of getting a default judgement?

 

Perhaps, if people send them the initial letter saying that they deny liability, they might ramp up the letter writing but avoid court because there's more chance that they've taken advice and will defend the claim?

 

Sorry, don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me, but I know what I mean...

[andydd]

LG. well, they have issued 750,000 demands, the majority of which have not been paid.

 

The cases they list nearly all are either persitant convicted shoplifters/employees and yes they have choosen cases where they recieve no reply and even when the court cases start there is no correspondence so they win by default, that is why the Oxford case was deemed so important (although RLP like to think it was insignificant, but a lot was clearly riding on it, which is why they had so many witness, solicitors, directors of RLP at the hearing).

 

Andy

[LaughingGirl]

Thank you, Andy. I wonder how many of the cases that went undefended could have been won? It's hard to tell who would have had a chance from their website, because there is a very obvious slant to it.

 

It's going to be interesting to watch this unfold.