Primark/RLP

[CKN8]

Does anyone know how media might affect an ongoing case with RLP?

 

I shoplifted in Primark.

 

I'm not proud by any stretch.

 

I'm not justifying my actions but I was with my sister who has mental health issues

and I wanted to give her things that at that very moment I couldn't afford.

 

It was weak and I am ashamed.

 

They stopped me at the door asking me to come with them.

 

I demanded to know what for and protested, I was with my sister and I didn't want her to see these things.

I turned to walk away when they grabbed me from behind pulling me to the floor.

 

Two men grabbed me ( a woman) and marched me to the back room.

One of them said 'cause a fuss and I will put you in hospital'.

 

In the back room I came clean immediately.

They were aggressive and physically threatening.

One woman went thru my bag which had my gym kit in it

and said I was disgusting as she picked up my gym joggers.

All I wanted was to get out and I did eventually.

 

I am going to receive a letter from RLP soon which I probably will fight.

 

I am however a journalist from a national newspaper.

Caring for my family has left me a bit strapped for cash

but I shouldn't have done what I did.

 

Nevertheless I felt their treatment was disgraceful over a matter of £7 accessories.

Heavy handed security people are rife at the moment,

destroying london's nightlife and stores, prejudicial and aggressive.

 

I want to expose this but I'm not sure of the legality of physically touching people.

 

I'm also not sure if it could affect the size of my fine with RLP and my credit rating.

 

Could anyone offer some advice?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've started a new thread for you.

 

RLP cannot issue fines; what they might send you is just a speculative invoice. You won't need to fight it, just ignore them, after sending our one-line letter. Neither can they affect your credit rating. RLP's claims have no basis in law, especially if the goods were recovered. We don't condone shoplifting, but neither do we judge, and we believe that the only people who should be dealing with it is statutory agencies such as the police, CPS and courts. There's no place for parasites like RLP who pretend to have a crime deterrence role but are actually only interested in money.

 

I read an article in the Telegraph recently about a female journalist being humiliated by security in London. It would be great to see Primark's contracted heavies and RLP's activities exposed in the national media.

 

However, all this may be premature, as you haven't yet heard from RLP. Have a good read around this forum - there are lots of Primark cases - and ask any questions you want.

[renegadeimp]

If you get any letters from Mrs Lambert, simply send her one back that says , " All liability to you is denied. No further correspondance will be entered into.". Dont send anything more, and ignore the increasingly laughable letters she will send out.

[dx100uk]

RLP Cannot fine you anything.

 

totally ignore them

 

Can I suggest you demand a copy of the CCTV

 

and then publish stills?

 

then you'd have something to go with.

 

be aware mind

 

there are some underhand buddies in the national press

that are 'in' with these large companies

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Few questions.

 

Was your sister forced to accompany you

 

Were here details taken as well

 

How old is your sister if the answer to the above is yes.

[Mr.P]

I turned to walk away when they grabbed me from behind pulling me to the floor.

 

That would be assault.

 

Two men grabbed me ( a woman) and marched me to the back room.

 

A second count of assault.

 

One of them said 'cause a fuss and I will put you in hospital'.

 

Verbal threats of violence - Certainly an offence there...

 

They were aggressive and physically threatening.

One woman went thru my bag which had my gym kit in it

 

Unlawful search....

 

I'm also not sure if it could affect the size of my fine with RLP and my credit rating.

 

As others have already stated, RLP's demands are not fines. There is nothing they can do that would affect your credit rating or employment.

 

To grab someone by the arm/shoulder or any other part of the body without consent is, at a minimum, common assault. You could make a formal complaint to the police and see if they would charge the individuals involved.

[renegadeimp]

Also remember, we are only hearing one side of the story here from the party that took the items and got caught. Im not saying the guards didnt do what they are accused of, but lets not go claiming assault etc until we know the full facts.

 

To grab someone by the arm/shoulder or any other part of the body without consent is, at a minimum, common assault.

 

Nope. They are allowed to hold/restrain you under certain conditions. Otherwise shop lifters could simply walk off without being chased or apprehended.

[ericsbrother]

On private property you may use "necessary" force to detain a person or prevent a crime from being committed. This can be different to "reasonable" force as it is based on what the individual believes is going to happen rather than one what an average sane person may believe.

[CKN8]

I read an article in the Telegraph recently about a female journalist being humiliated by security in London. It would be great to see Primark's contracted heavies and RLP's activities exposed in the national media.

 

Would you be able to send me the link? I've been looking for it far and wide and not had any luck...

[CKN8]

RLP Cannot fine you anything.

 

totally ignore them

 

Can I suggest you demand a copy of the CCTV

 

and then publish stills?

 

then you'd have something to go with.

 

be aware mind

 

there are some underhand buddies in the national press

that are 'in' with these large companies

 

Oh tell me about it! Far more journalists in bed with big business than I like to think about. Apologies on behalf of my profession! Is there a risk of them retrospectively charging me with a crime if I ask for the footage do you know?

[CKN8]

Hi all - thank you very much for all your assistance! It sounds like proving necessary force will be a slippery slope and a battle I won't win. I must say, I covered the riots and the protests over the cuts and I haven't come across such relish for violence as I have seen with shop security and nightclub doormen! Thugs with a license I guess...

 

Can I ask if anyone has any information on this: lossprevention dot co dot uk Court%20Cases dot aspx

 

I'm looking at particular at the second case listed:

 

Theft/conversion of fragrance £63.

Escaped from store,

discarding item,

that was subsequently recovered and fit for resale.

 

One security officer dealt with the matter and reported to management.

Defendant denied the claim, and sent in pro-forma correspondence taken from a consumer forum.

 

At the trial it was argued that there was no loss to the Claimant as the goods were recovered.

It was also argued that the security officer did nothing other than what he was paid for

and that the security officer would have been paid, irrespective of whether the Defendant stole the store’s goods or not.

 

It was alleged that he had been dealt with in the Criminal Justice system

and it was not fair to have a civil claim against him

and that he could not afford to pay the damages sought.

 

It was argued that the security equipment and overheads were already installed for other purposes

such as health and safety and it could not therefore be attributable to his theft.

 

The Judge, applying Aerospace (case law), accepted the extent of the diversion of the security officer’s time dealing with the incident,

and the work required thereafter, including the civil recovery notice.

 

He held that this amounted to significant disruption to the Claimant’s business.

 

He accepted the Claimant’s evidence as to the value of that diversion.

 

The Judge, applying Salvadori (case law), also accepted that the Defendant should be accountable to the Claimant for a proportion

of the security and administration costs sought.

 

He accepted that the actual losses exceeded the nominal fixed sum sought and that it was therefore recoverable.

 

The Judge found that whilst the security equipment and staff may well be used in connection with issues such as health and safety,

a substantial part of that is because of theft, at a cost to the Claimant, which it would otherwise not have.

[CKN8]

She was not no- but that's only from my begging not to get her involved.

 

I did tell them she had mental health issues and they tried their best to drag her into it, but I refused.

 

No doubt I will probably be extortionately charged for it!

 

P.S. Thank you for the welcome!

[ScarletPimpernel]

We've seen RLP's website and the court cases described - in none of which RLP was the claimant, of course. Perhaps unsurprisingly, RLP never provide a proper transcript or enough information to allow the details to be checked. It's not even clear whether the defendant was represented. In any case in small claims, there is always an element of the 'judge lottery'.

 

Have a look at the Oxford case, where there is a transcript of the judgment, and compare and contrast to the stuff on RLP's site. For extra amusement, Google RLP Schillings and see how RLP demonstrated the Streisand Effect by trying to stifle criticism of their unsavoury business.

[silverfox1961]

Hi again. I have responded to your PM to me.

 

Let us be clear about RLPs power over anyone. Exactly none! Only a retailer can take action and at my last check, I could find no case where Primark has taken action against anyone. Rlp can do nothing except send begging letters or pass it on to their tame debt collector.

 

You have obviously looked at RLPs website. Did you notice the last date of a case listed there. No? July 2012. After the oxford case, there were two cases already in the system which were won but of course (apart from the Oxford case) RLP don't tend to put the losses online.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It's also worth noting that RLP have a habit of embroidering the facts to suit themselves. For example, they implied that their activities were approved by ACPO, and that there was an agreement between them and ACPO. They published on their website documents that purported to support this. However, after Insp. Knacker's attention was drawn to it, ACPO said that whilst there may have been some discussion, there was no formal relationship, and they required RLP to remove the documents from their website.

 

RLP also claimed to be working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. When the PSNI were asked about it (it's good to have contacts!), they confirmed that whilst RLP had contacted them, the PSNI were not interested in pursuing the issue and there was no further contact.

 

Then there were the letters they sent to some of their targets, saying that this website was under 'criminal investigation' by the police. Since the police made no contact whatsoever, the only conclusion is that this was no more than a lie.

 

In summary, treat everything RLP say with a generous shovelful of salt.