Not nice to meet you, rlp!

[mavaisu]

I Situation

At the end of last month I finally have received my first letter by RLP.

I was caught shoplifting in Tesco in September.

a. No police was involved.

b. The total amount in goods was around £15, and I am pretty sure that it could be reselled.

c. Everything was done in 20 minutes. There were two security guards asking me questions, and I was asked to give them my name, address, telephone number, and passport number.

d. I did sign on two sheets--a banning notice and a notice of intended civil recovery respectively.

e. The 'fine' was £137.5.

f. I am now over 18.

 

II What have I learn from CAG:

a. I am now still innocent, and it is extremely unlikely that I will be sued.

b. RLP does not have any legal rights to 'fine' me, although its threat will be harsher and harsher.

c. The best choices are either ignoring them completely, or sending them a short note a single line reply "I deny any liability to you or your client".

d. I promise I will NEVER do such stupid things again. This is a very good lesson.

 

III What do I still have in doubt?

a. With regard to their 'database', is it very unlikely that it will really affect my future employment and credit?

b. Does it make any difference whether I send them that short note reply?

c. In usual cases, how long does it take to eventually stop from hearing from RLP? Will they call except from threatening letters?

d. I will be applying for a student Visa in a year or two, will it be influenced by this stupid mistake?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sincerely look forward to your replies.

THANK YOU!

[Hammy1962]

Interesting.

 

Other people will help you with the RLP stuff.

 

However, you are not 'Still Innocent'. Presumably you were caught and admitted the fact fact that you were shoplifting, a crime, albeit a minor one. Tesco are not prosecuting and you are now in the RLP stage of this.

 

Yes it's unlikely you will be sued but that does not make you 'Not Guilty'.

 

A good lesson learned but I'm afraid you have lost your innocence.

 

H

[2Grumpy]

Innocent as in not found guilty by a court

 

Hopefully you have learned your lesson

 

I have not heard of anyone using RLPs database, it definitely won't affect your credit rating or visa status

[old bill]

Also, retailers and their security staff have no right or power, legal or otherwise, to demand your personal details from you. Only the police have that power.

[2Grumpy]

Also, retailers and their security staff have no right or power, legal or otherwise, to demand your personal details from you. Only the police have that power.

 

Which would then give the retailer / security staff a conundrum - to let the alleged offender go without getting their details or to call the old bill

 

It still smacks of blackmail to me - agree to pay or we will call the police

 

I wonder if offering a payment to "security" would work better?

[old bill]

Which would then give the retailer / security staff a conundrum - to let the alleged offender go without getting their details or to call the old bill

 

It still smacks of blackmail to me - agree to pay or we will call the police

 

I wonder if offering a payment to "security" would work better?

 

There is a provision within Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968 which means a retailer does not have to accept any offer of payment from an alleged shoplifter. In order for Blackmail to be proven, it has to be established that an unwarranted demand has been made, that the person making the demand has no right in law to make the demand, that menaces (threats) have been used and that the use of menaces is not a proper means of enforcing the demand being made. However, there is a requirement, in cases of Blackmail, that the defendant proves they had grounds or a right in law to make the demands and that the use of menaces was a proper means of enforcing the demands.

 

With private security staff now coming within the jurisdiction of Section 24A, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, retailers will need to ensure that the sort of behaviour highlighted does not happen if they are to be taken seriously as regards any alleged offender. The retail industry has been flouting the law for years where alleged shoplifters is concerned. I speak as someone who has worked in the retail industry and been a warranted police officer.The practice by some retailers to set arrest targets for their security staff - TK Maxx is one such retailer - is ill-conceived, misguided and dangerous as it encourages security staff to make irrational decisions and behave in a wholly unacceptable manner, as this case illustrates.

[mavaisu]

sorry for late reply x

thanks very much guys! i know better what to do and I will definitely learn from this lesson!