What to do about Retail Loss Prevention letters?

[dulcieclarke]

A friend and I were caught shoplifting on the 6th of July in a local drug store (Boots) and we live in Southern England. We are both 16 years old. At the time when we shoplifted, we stupidly took a couple of items of make-up out of their boxes and left them on the shelves. However, we never left the store holding anything. We didn't even go to the door, a security guy approached us and took us to his office. He accused us of shoplifting because we 'Had no intention of buying any of these things because we took them out of their little boxes' and he made us sign a piece of paper saying we'd shoplifted in Boots and we can't come in for the next 12 months. All items had been put back, except from two cheap items were slightly ripped and deemed unsellable. We offered to pay for these items at the scene but he said no.

 

He called the police which was very unnecessary as she didn't do anything but shout at us. We were set free and told we would receive a Retail Loss Prevention letter. And then, three days later, we received a letter demanding £219.75. We are both obviously scared and worried about this. We first received a letter stating if we do not reply within 21 days then they will send another letter, and we didn't. So I have just received my second, and it states I have 14 days to respond. And it also states, 'We think you do not understand the full potential consequences of this letter, so given your age, you may fall under vulnerable, meaning a parent or adult will take your responsibility.' I do not want this. Me and my friend are not in a perfect financial state to just pay the money. However we do not want to be taken to court. We have had to RLP letters now and it's frightening. I wouldn't like to tell my mother about this, I'd rather deal with it myself. But - we are trying to form an argument, because we never left the store.

 

We are just scared something will happen to us if we don't pay. What could happen?

[renegadeimp]

Ignore it. Nothing will happen. Have a look at the other threads for more info

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

While no-one on this site condones shoplifting, this 'alleged' punishment in no way fits the crime. They got the goods back so no loss. The staff were employed to deter and detect shoplifting and the cost was factored into the shop prices so no loss there either.

 

As mentioned above, I would also ignore. The letters will get more and more demanding with letters from Debt Collection Agencies to 'solicitor' letters. Eventually they do give up however they may encourage the retailer to begin court action as RLP cannot sue in their own right. This rarely happens, especially after the retailer and RLP got a spanking in the courts last year.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The usual RLP scare tactics. Ignore them.

 

RLP know they can't do anything, especially as you are under age; that they continue to pursue children shows their lack of integrity.

 

You were dealt with by the police - and you were lucky that they didn't inform your parents - and as they are the appropriate authority for dealing with theft the matter ended when they decided to take no further action.

[dulcieclarke]

I'm worried about ignoring them because apparently they can sue you and take you to court, right?

[silverfox1961]

RLP cannot sue you! Only the store that you shoplifted from can and they seem to be reluctant to do so. Nothing is definite in life but have a look at the retail loss forum and see just how many cases have actually gone to court versus how many have just been dropped.

 

RLP rely on your lack of knowledge and the letters are designed to be intimidatory.

 

If you were to look at the RLP website, they show how many cases 'they' have taken to court. In actual fact, 'they' have taken no-one. They just post up the cases that were undertaken by a retailer but pretend they are the claimant.

 

Leaarn from this and move on. The only time you need to be (slightly) concerned is if the retailer actually does start action but as I have said, this is very-very rare.

[ScarletPimpernel]

We've seen RLP's antics with under 18s before; they know that a retailer can't bring a claim against them, so they try to get the parents involved and threaten them. It's all nonsense.

 

Almost all of the cases on RLP's website involved employee theft; the few that involved shoplifters were undefended default judgments, or poorly-defended claims. RLP were not the claimant in any of them.

 

In this case, nothing was actually stolen from the store and there is more chance of Spain getting Gibraltar than Boots taking RLP's dubious advice and embarking upon the reputation-wrecking expedition that a court case would become.

 

There is nothing to be worried about.

[renegadeimp]

What i want to know is who told you they can sue you?

[rebel11]

Hi Dulcie

 

They claim you damaged product, you offered to pay for it, they declined payment, now they send you invoices which no way reflect the cost of any alleged damage to the product, you didn't attempt to leave the store with the product, if it ever went to court, which is highly unlikely, the Judge wouldn't be too impressed as you offered to pay for any damage you might have caused whilst inspecting the product for potential purchase.

[2Grumpy]

Perhaps the claim should be the other way round - harassment by the store because they suspected they weren't going to buy anything

[Sparks_]

How can anyone be accused of shop lifting if they had not removed anything from the shop?

[ScarletPimpernel]

How can anyone be accused of shop lifting if they had not removed anything from the shop?

 

In the world of RLP anything is possible if it might lead to some money...

[goodatresearch]

They called the police and no action was taken because you could not legally be charged with theft/shoplifting as you had not left the shop with the goods. If the police had arrested you, as you are under 16 you would have the right to an adult being present. A security guard as no more powers then that of a person in the street. Personally I would write to them and put the fear of god into them stating 1). You had not left the shop with any goods so the guard was wrong to stop you for shoplifting. The police did not arrest you or take any action because they know that you could not be charged with shop lifting 2). There were no signs in the shop stating that you could not take items out of their boxes, so you were not breaking any shop rules. 3). You offered to pay for the goods allegedly damaged but this was declined 4). The fact that you signed a form saying you were shoplifting is irrelevant as this was signed under duress and in any case couldnt have been shoplifting as you had not left the shop with the goods. 5), You were unlawfully detained by a member of the general public for no probable cause. Point out that even if you had been arrested by the police you would not have been made to sign anything without being told your rights without the presence of an adult (in one case an adult put his hand on the shoulder of a minor who was destroying his property and this adult was charged with assault). Make it clear that you believe the guard acted unlawfully and if they persist in chasing you, you will have no choice but to take the matter further.

 

Also read what others have written above. there is no loss here at all and a judge with all the facts would throw this out.

[dulcieclarke]

I've just recieved my third letter about ten days ago, giving me a further 21 days to reply. But this time they have said they will refer to the client (boots) if i don't reply. They also addressed this letter to my parent. I'm getting so scared. I am only sixteen and I don't know what to do. My parents dont know and I intend to keep it that way. Does anyone know what happens after the third letter?

[renegadeimp]

Ignore it. SInce you are 16, they cannot do ANYTHING to you at all. Only the retailer can, and they wont.

 

Also, addressing it to your parents? I'll see if i can get someone to advise.

[AndyOrch]

I personally would confide to your parent and explain what has happened...that is the only threat they have over you...once you remove that..then follow renegades advice above ...ignore.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[2Grumpy]

Some parents might decide to pay RLP without understanding the position. Some parents might even be more likely to cave in to bullying of their children! You might have to get your parents to read up on RLP when you tell them about it.

 

Clearly Boots have a problem if they detain people who go into their stores and don't buy anything while they are there. Perhaps Boots are trying to tell people not to set foot in their stores unless they are certain that they are going to buy something and that on no account should they examine anything unless they are going to buy it (in which case the examination is pointless). Obviously examining something and thinking about returning another time to purchase it is outlawed in Boots.

 

RLP Cannot take any action against you. Boots won't because there is no case.

 

Depending on the circumstances of what happened when the security guard stopped you and while you were waiting for the police, you might have a case against Boots.

 

Hopefully that knowledge will give you strength

Edited September 2, 2013 by 2Grumpy

[iain2212]

As a security officer working in a boots store I cant believe you were actually stopped and detained without even exiting the building, especially when no offence was committed as by offerring to pay for items later means you had means of payment on you at the time (why I always wait until people leave the building). In short if you were detained without committing an offence then in reality you were held against your will having not committed an offence meaning the officer having detained you has actually committed at least some form of abduction which I would bear in mind if I were you although one of the regular posters can advise to what extent that may exist.Boots and the security company it uses nationwide uses the simple saying ASCONE - Approach item, Select item, Conceal item, Observation 100%, Non Payment & Exit. if one element is missing the officer is not to take any action. Personally I think Goodatresearch last post is bang on and I would consider action against the store, especially in being detained illegally.

[mr_mastiff]

Iain2212 nice to hear what the security should be doing. Your input will be very gratefully received. Welcome to CAG.

[BankFodder]

We have received an email from you.

 

Do not panic. The advice you are receiving above is sound.

 

Please send a scan of the letter to our admin email address. It sounds very unpleasant and we would like to see it.

 

You should write RLP a letter denying that you owe them anything. Tell them that you are happy to meet them in court if they want. However, in the meantime please would they send you a proper breakdown of costs incurred by any alleged action of yours.

 

This breakdown of costs must either be on Boots headed paper or must be confirmed by them officially. Tell RLP that if they will not supply you with a detailed breakdown as requested, then if they decide to take you to court, firstly you will explain to the judge that they have no authority to bring an action in their own name and that secondly, you have tried to engage with them to discover what if any, losses Boots have incurred and that they have refused to supply you with the information. I would say that they are required to answer these questions as part of the pre-action protocol prior to commencing any action.

If you are not sure what this means, it means that Boots - if the action is to be brought in their name, are required to engage in a meaningful dialogue with you in order to attempt to avoid waasting the court's time with unnecessary court action.

 

This means that if you ask them reasonable questions such as "What is it that you say that I owe? Why? How do you arrive at this figure? Then they (Boots) are required to answer fully. If they fail to do this then to begin an action would be a breach of the protocol and would effectively be a waste of the court's time.

 

I would dearly like to see the letter which you have referred to in your email because if it says what you have told me it says then this itself needs some serious questions answered.

[BankFodder]

By the way - so far as RLP monitoring this thread - don't worry about it.

[renegadeimp]

it's not the infamous multi-page letter is it? That they send when they are getting desperate?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Could it be the 'we'll wait until you're 18' letter that RLP have used before?