RLP can really they harm you?

[GarethHendon]

Some questions:

 

RLP do make reference to the infamous database of apprehended shoplifters (or attempted shoplifters) which they claim to pass on to employers.

 

This is presumably a scare tactic to frighten those into paying the speculative invoice and thus removing their name from this database.

 

Whilst I know due to the DPA the individual must grant authority for a third party to gain access

I wanted to query whether this does in fact happen.

 

I know that in certain professions when applying for a job or even to register with recruitment consultants

they will ask/mention they will check your details against certain databases

for any criminal/cival convictions, ongoing disputes, bankruptcy and a myriad of other situations.

 

Often the prospective employee will have little choice but to grant access (otherwise arouse greater suspicion)

or in some cases its implied in terms and conditions and condition is granted by way of exception.

 

So - how possible is it that the RLP database could be accessed and would in fact harm the individuals prospects.

 

My belief is that RLP are an immoral organisation and I am truly glad these forums exist to arm those

caught up in their web with as much defence as possible.

 

However it does need to be clear to the individuals any risks involved

- great or small and for now or in their futures

- to the "ignore or one-line-denial" approach.

 

Second question

- is an apprehended individual obliged to give their name and/or show ID to store security.

 

What would happen if they refused - police called I'm sure - but would that increase risk of criminal proceedings from the store themselves (I doubt).

 

But would the police be required to pass on ID to the store

- or has the individual the right to ask the police not to tell the store

- unless they formally request to press charges.

 

Thank you all.

[renegadeimp]

Rlp cant do anything. Read this forum and understand the mentality of the woman who owns the company.

[ericsbrother]

Now,

RLP's database is not something anyone can legally search so employment agencies wouldnt be poking around there in the first place.

 

Look back at the infamous construction industry blacklist and the fines EVENTUALLY handed out for that.

I doubt if any agency or employer wants to hauled up before the beak

so whatevr they say it isnt a useful tool for anyone and they certainly cant give it to a prospective employer.

 

Second point,

no, you are not obliged to show ID to anyone in this country, not even the police.

 

You are obliged to give them your name and address but dont have to give any evidence of it at the time,

there are sanctions for telling untruths when that is requested.

 

As for the police passing on the information

- well, if they arent goig to prosecute then the DPA means that the store doesnt have the right to be given it but can request it ,

same as you can request details of the person who bashes into your parked car and drives off.

 

Normally the police will get into a bit of confusion over this so a store security person asking plod for the details

should be given the brush-off and a company will have to make a formal request.

 

What happens at a individual level is always to predict as when judisprudence crosses over with civil law is always a minefield.

[renegadeimp]

RLP can only allow other companies or people to access it if the person they hold info on gives them explicit permission. if they dont give permission and RLP share the info anyway, then RLP would be breaking the law.

[GarethHendon]

Yep I've read a lot on this forum and I know more than most about JL.

 

But is there not a risk (however minimal) that when employees are faced with an application form

that asks for permission to various checks and databases they will tick the box and allow this

- after all by not allowing you make yourself look more guilty.

 

I wanted to see if there was any risk an individual could have provided authority for RLP to release the information

by signing anything in the store or by entering into correspondence.

And do recruitment consultants not use a varity of agencies and research companies to do detailed background checks on prospective candidates.

 

Could these checks not include the dreaded Lamberts List?

 

Finally

- as to whether RLP always act in accordance of the law; who knows!

We know civil law can be a minefield and there is ambiguity.

How clear-cut is the current DPA/minor issue thats being discussed on another forum on this site.

 

Thanks to all for the advice.

[renegadeimp]

No reputable company would ask you to fill in an acceptance form to check RLP's silly database. Thats where people get confused. jackies list is for her companies use only, but she tries to get people to give her permission to do what she likes with it. The database has no legal standing or really any basis in reality. All it essentially is is a company database which lists the people she's tried to get money from and if they have allowed her to give their info out or not.

[dx100uk]

there no evidence that even if the database 'did' exist

that anyone, let alone employers ever sees it.

 

never seen any proof of anything untoward being reported

to do with this 'secret' list of undesirables.

 

I would hedge a bet that if this had happen even once

it would have broken by now.

 

dx

[GarethHendon]

This is reassuring and I guess we hope that RLP doesn't continue to grow, gaining power and respect from the business community to such an extent that employers would actively (ask permission from candidates) and request access to the list.

 

As you say, I'd also hedge a bet this doesn't happen.

 

Continue to fight the good fight against RLP and their, frankly, silly demands.

[renegadeimp]

If anything, RLP are dwindling out, and jackie is trying to save it any way she can. A lot of stores have stopped dealing with her, and she doesnt even go near a court room anymore. She also only enlists the help of scotcall. A DCA who only ever deals in bogus or non existent debts. She's basically desperate in the extreme.

[GarethHendon]

But I would hazard a guess still earning more than me a year through her enterprise.

 

Until there's one of those BBC investigative documentaries on this practice or greater publicity on the fragility of their 'speculative invoices' I can't see it disappearing sadly.

[SabreSheep]

I wonder if adding to the one line "No debt is acknowledged or owed to your company" could be extended to include

"All permission implied or otherwise to process my data is hereby withdrawn, revoked and/or denied. please comply within 14 days stating that you have removed all data referring to myself and address from your records" Or something akin to section 10 notice DPA IF you can legally do this and they pass it onto their pet DCA then you might have a breach to throw at them.

 

Anyhow just a thought experiment. Comments?

[renegadeimp]

No need sabre. She cant use it without you actually giving her express permission.

[ericsbrother]

Handing info to DCA's is permitted by the DPA and doesnt count as a breach. If you tell the DCA that there is no debt and they keep on trying to contact you by differing means there are snactions available. Unfortunately, you dont see companies hauled up before the authorities often enough and no director has been gaoled for their wrongdoing other than by use of the companies act rather than for fraud, theft, harassment etc.

[think about it]

I've employed three people in the last 12 months, hardly earth shattering I know but the ONLY sources of information that I'm aware of that a prospective employer is likely to be interested in are:

 

DBS / PVG Criminal Record Checks

Previous employer references

Credit ratings (in financial services)

Background / Vetting (in terms of MOD / Restricted types of work)

 

I certainly wouldn't be interested in anything that wasn't regulatory as a third party 'opinion' particularly as the holder is likely to charge for the privilege of checking their virtual 'naughty step'.

[ScarletPimpernel]

If you look at the rather amateurish Cireco website, you will see that what is offered is essentially a check of other databases, some of them rather bizarre. As far as the 'database of offenders' is concerned, it strikes me that this, if it really exists, is similar to the construction trades blacklist that was a scandal a few years ago. Quite how Cireco could justify putting someone on a database of offenders when they have not been convicted of any offence is beyond me - and if they had been convicted, it would show on a DBS check.

 

I note that whilst La Lambert purports to be involved in deterring crime, her Cireco website is in breach of the Companies Act 2006 as it does not disclose the company registration number or registered office address. Nor is Cireco listed in the ICO database as registered to process data, and Cireco is not listed as a trading name on RLP's registration.

[Sidewinder]

RLP seem to attempt to rely on the small print in their notices given to 'offenders' regarding the sharing of personal data. I very much doubt that it would stand up to scrutiny and the part highlighted in bold seems to be making claims that are downright menacing

 

"You are notified that the personal information held about you may be passed to the police for criminal proceedings and to Retail Loss Prevention Limited for civil recovery proceedings. Your personal data may be stored and used to make employment decisions, decisions regarding the provision of credit and for the purpose of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies. the use of this data will at all times be in compliance with the data Protection Act 1998"

 

nb - this may not be the most recent version as it was given to me some time ago, but it illustrates the thinking behind their practices

[SabreSheep]

Really. I dont think so either. There is nothing there implying or outright agreeing to give permission to process data

[citizenB]

RLP seem to attempt to rely on the small print in their notices given to 'offenders' regarding the sharing of personal data. I very much doubt that it would stand up to scrutiny and the part highlighted in bold seems to be making claims that are downright menacing

 

"You are notified that the personal information held about you may be passed to the police for criminal proceedings and to Retail Loss Prevention Limited for civil recovery proceedings. Your personal data may be stored and used to make employment decisions, decisions regarding the provision of credit and for the purpose of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies. the use of this data will at all times be in compliance with the data Protection Act 1998"

 

nb - this may not be the most recent version as it was given to me some time ago, but it illustrates the thinking behind their practices

 

Sidewinder, has anyone presented that notice to the Information Commissioner for their opinion ?

[GarethHendon]

It all depends who would have access to this and how respectable and trustworthy the source is deemed to be. In a lot of cases small print gets missed, some employee who may be a few fries short of a happy meal will ignore anyway and an individual left open to have this information shared (perhaps even in public domain). However, what is the betting that even if you shell out to Judge Jackie your details would be removed from this database.

[Sidewinder]

Sidewinder, has anyone presented that notice to the Information Commissioner for their opinion ?

 

Not as far as I am aware. I would be reluctant as it may well have changed in the interim - I would need to see an up to date notice to be sure

[citizenB]

Thanks Sidewinder, I will have a check and see if anyone has posted a recent notice

[2Grumpy]

It all depends who would have access to this and how respectable and trustworthy the source is deemed to be. In a lot of cases small print gets missed, some employee who may be a few fries short of a happy meal will ignore anyway and an individual left open to have this information shared (perhaps even in public domain). However, what is the betting that even if you shell out to Judge Jackie your details would be removed from this database.

Surely paying the "fine" is agreement that it is ok to store your details in their nasty little database?

 

I would have thought that the way to stay out of it would be to deny any liability ... (and maybe any wrong-doing and leave it up to the judge herself to decide how wrong you were)

[renegadeimp]

Deny liability, do not sign or pay anything, and jackie is out of luck.

[Alfie29]

renegadeimp is right. I have shoplifted and I'm NOT proud of myself and she has given me 2 letters now and I'm doing nowt in replying! Let her waste her time and money...

 

Jackie jog on love... jog on....! lol