Rlp

[gtingo18]

Sabresheep, maybe there is one point admittedly I have not made clear, so shall attempt to do so.

 

For an offender to be dealt with at 'store level' with cr served and no police involvement. With more and more companies following the standard set by t.k.maxx and getting audio in offices, my company now included, we are more covered than ever in our actions. If an offender is denying intent, police are called to view cctv. Over 99% of the time intent is always admitted once police have viewed cctv. If an offender is fully accepting of the offence they have committed then it's dealt with in house via civil recovery. The incident itself, plus the dialogue while detained is burnt to disk as evidence and can be provided to rlp/head office/any other body entitled by data protection.

 

So can I clarify you feel people who have fully admitted theft, people who have clearly clocked cameras, defeated security tags, made a run for it, are the sort of people who warrant your staunch defence?

 

Do not forget there are people a lot higher up than me, and also the guys in my team that make decisions to use rlp. We are simply following company policy. So as I say, a lack of any on the job experience and trolling through internet pages looking for links to copy and paste, will not convince me you know what you are talking about.

 

Even if companies were found to be liable, it would be the business itself that were found guilty, not the employees.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Interesting. So anyone who has not been a security guard isn't qualified to comment? What rot. If it were true, what qualifies you to comment upon mental health issues, as you have done?

 

You talk about selective posting, but still haven't responded to my question about the Law Commission.

 

From what you say the police are abrogating their responsibilities in respect of shoplifting. That is very disappointing to hear. However, that still doesn't excuse you, retailers or civil recovery companies taking the law into your own hands - for profit.

 

I believe that theft is wrong, and should be dealt with - by the proper authorities.

 

 

We are simply following company policy.

 

"Befehl ist Befehl" - the Nuremberg defence, and a common excuse used by those lacking moral courage.

[silverfox1961]

Hmm interesting how you say 'witness' Is this witness a 'responsible adult' who has no link with either the store or RLP or the police?

 

You of all people should know that an under 18 cannot be detained and interviewed without an appropriate adult present or are you relying on a shoplifters lack of knowledge?

 

It is also a known that any detention without an appropriate adult being present is automatically unlawful. This would mean that any claim that followed would also be unlawful.

 

As for that leaflet you hand out. Let us examine in detail what is true and what is myth.

 

s1, losses. This section is true. there is nothing more I can add to this.

 

s2, Investigation costs. These costs are already factored into the stores running costs. Part of a security guards job is to observe, apprehend, deter, investigate and write reports. None of these costs can be recoverable as they are part and parcel of the job.

 

s3, Security costs. again part and parcel off the job that guards are already paid for with the exception of the maintenance costs as these will be borne by the store as part of their maintenance schedule.

 

s4, Admin costs. It is possible in the minority of cases that some admin costs can be reclaimed but these must be the actual costs, not some fictitious amount. As are some copy costs.

 

Mileage?? Nope!

 

Court costs. These would be claimed by the store, not RLP as RLP cannot sue anyone.

 

So, in effect, you were deliberately misleading people and this made you as liable as the store and RLP for misleading practices.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse by the way.

[gtingo18]

A witness ranges from in store staff or management, to other security in town, council security, pcsos, police etc. But the best witness us audio cctv, people banging themselves to rights. This is important as while there are genuine cases, there are so many disgusting liars out there who will fabricate stories of serious family illnesses, I'll children, post natal depression, and other instances. Does it not seem strange that in so many instances there is an excuse that something is going wrong in their personal life or with their health.

 

I ask you all this, we've all suffered from bad experiences in our lives, losing loved ones, stress, concerns, it happens. Do we all go out shoplifting as a result? No! It's no excuse.

 

There are genuine cases out there and people I really have felt for. A number of years ago I befriended a man I detained that had been made homeless due to a gambling addiction. He was one of the nicest guys I'd ever met and was desperate and hungry. He was in his fifties, a religious man who cared for his older brother and then slept out in the open air so not to be a burden. Do you think I served cr on him? Of course not. I bought him some lunch, a cheap mobile phone, and arranged for a member of the council to see him and provide help. He is now in his own house, and we meet up once a week and I take him for breakfast and a chat.

 

Should I have removed my personal 'judgement' from that instance, and just called police and left him to it?

 

I have had so many letters sent to head offices from people I have detained thanking me for the way I have treated them, and for listening to them. There are people who are vulnerable, mentally unwell, have genuine problems in life and I sympathise wholeheartedly. Is it an excuse to shoplift? No, but sometimes there are factors where I will accept a mistake has been made. This comes from time and experience. Dealing with thousands of different people, not scouring the internet looking for quotes trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

 

People have problems, and for that there should be common sense and understanding.

 

People who come on forums like this, and lie like in other threads about personal trauma to exact sympathy and advice to make themselves feel better, should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, I'm sure you all believe every single sob story you here.

 

Silverfox, unfortunately I am genuinely unaware of how rlp breaks down the individual charge brackets. I know as you put above how it breaks down, but the costs incurred by an individual are between themselves and rlp. I will not start looking it up on the internet and then pretending I know, as there are people who clearly do that better than me.

 

As for detaining minors, part correct, part wrong. They cannot be interviewed without an appropriate adult present, that is fact. The fact they cannot be detained however is complete rubbish. However once detained they are in your care, and if you release them and they are injured on the way home you are responsible. They can be barred, but only in the witness of a police officer or parent, (for under 16, not 18). They are then only to be released to a parent, a d if they won't attend then police collect and take them home, or to the station.

 

It is always best to have a witness, however audio footage is always suitable.

 

I did read on another thread yesterday a comment from a woman stating, 'I'm a 60+ year old female, if I refused to return to a store would you forcibly drag me in.'

 

For the record a 65 year old would be exempt from civil recovery in most companies, but from detention? No. Should the above female be forcibly detained if she refuses to return following shoplifting? Absolutely, you don't get to a certain age where you can expect to get away with what you want. You are no better than a 19 year old doing the same thing.

[silverfox1961]

Silverfox, unfortunately I am genuinely unaware of how RLP breaks down the individual charge brackets. I know as you put above how it breaks down, but the costs incurred by an individual are between themselves and RLP. I will not start looking it up on the internet and then pretending I know, as there are people who clearly do that better than me.

 

that may be true but you are saying that you are ignorant of the facts involved with any CR claim. This I'm afraid is no excuse. As has been proved in the Oxford case (I will dig out the full judgement for you to read at your leisure) these costs cannot be claimed. This (while not binding) can be quoted as a persuasive argument should a store begin legal action.

 

I agree, my error on the detention part however, if you interview any under 18 without the appropriate adult present, any action that follows is automatically unlawful. That adult MUST be independent, without agenda and is in a position to ensure the juveniles rights are not abused.

[silverfox1961]

[ATTACH]54363[/ATTACH]

 

found it.

[ScarletPimpernel]

A witness ranges from in store staff or management, to other security in town, council security, pcsos, police etc. But the best witness us audio cctv, people banging themselves to rights. This is important as while there are genuine cases, there are so many disgusting liars out there who will fabricate stories of serious family illnesses, I'll children, post natal depression, and other instances. Does it not seem strange that in so many instances there is an excuse that something is going wrong in their personal life or with their health.

 

I don't doubt that many thieves lie. That doesn't mean that retailers, security guards or CR companies can take the law into their own hands - only the criminal justice system can ultimately make the decision whether someone is lying or not.

 

 

I ask you all this, we've all suffered from bad experiences in our lives, losing loved ones, stress, concerns, it happens. Do we all go out shoplifting as a result? No! It's no excuse.

 

Having told us that we aren't qualified to talk about retail security, you then pontificate about mental health. What are your qualifications to determine if someone is suffering from poor mental health, and if so, whether it had any part in them shoplifting?

 

There is research that shows a definite link between shoplifting and depression; then there's impulse disorder; bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses. Not an excuse, but it may be a reason for inappropriate behaviour.

 

 

I have had so many letters sent to head offices from people I have detained thanking me for the way I have treated them, and for listening to them. There are people who are vulnerable, mentally unwell, have genuine problems in life and I sympathise wholeheartedly. Is it an excuse to shoplift? No, but sometimes there are factors where I will accept a mistake has been made. This comes from time and experience. Dealing with thousands of different people, not scouring the internet looking for quotes trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

 

People have problems, and for that there should be common sense and understanding.

 

So, in one breath you say people's problems are't an excuse, the next you say common sense and understanding should be applied.

 

It's clear that you really don't understand the first thing about poor mental health, or how to behave around those suffering from it. Perhaps you should stop trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about.

 

 

People who come on forums like this, and lie like in other threads about personal trauma to exact sympathy and advice to make themselves feel better, should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, I'm sure you all believe every single sob story you here.

 

Maybe they do lie; but that doesn't change the fact that they should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, not corporate vigilantes. I don't know how we can make it any clearer for you; we don't condone shoplifting, or any theft, but we believe that shop security, retailers, CR companies or anyone else whose only motive is profit should not be trying to make money on the basis of shaky legal claims, nor should they be engaged in aggressive and misleading practices.

 

Don't you understand that this is only about money? It's not about principles or morals; it's about a morally repugnant, grubby industry that seeks to profit from allegations of wrongdoing, whether they be true or not, regardless of the circumstances.

 

 

Silverfox, unfortunately I am genuinely unaware of how rlp breaks down the individual charge brackets. I know as you put above how it breaks down, but the costs incurred by an individual are between themselves and rlp. I will not start looking it up on the internet and then pretending I know, as there are people who clearly do that better than me.

 

We know how RLP's cost matrices works because they were exposed in the Oxford case (and we had observers in the court), not because we looked it up on the internet. Silverfox has posted a link to the judgment, so you can read it. Once again, if CR is above board, why did the learned Judge in that case, and the Law Commission, decided that these claims are legally on shaky ground?

[gtingo18]

http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/court%20cases.aspx

 

I have read the Oxford case. Interesting to see how on many occasions the judge feels that the morally correct side is with the retailer, and it is the shaky legal side that is the problem.

 

I googled the Oxford case and got the above link. Worth a look if it hasn't been seen already, I'm in no doubt there will be more up to date information than that now however

[ScarletPimpernel]

Morally, we don't disagree - as we've kept saying. People shouldn't steal. In the Oxford case, the two girls admitted that they'd stolen, and still A Retailer couldn't justify their claim, as set out by RLP.

[gtingo18]

Have there been many other instances where rlp have lost the case through a retailer other than the Oxford?

 

Just wondered as to refer to them as illegal mercenaries and all the other slurs, if it's isn't true that over 99% of juddges have ruled in their favour?

 

There may not be well publicised cases in recent times, but in the company I worked for at the start of 2013, in March, a member of staff was successful taken to court by CRS, following dismissal due to refund fraud.

[gtingo18]

Forgive the grammatical error, predictive text taking over

[think about it]

What I'd really like to see is some genuine basis for claims.

 

What appears to be happening is charging those people who were prevented from causing a loss, for causing a loss.

 

"You haven't done it but we're going to charge you as if you had." a little like evangelising the congregation...

 

The whole business model seems, to the casual observer to be a little flawed. RLP proudly state that losses in 2012 amounted to a cost of £1.4billion to the retailer. In order for them to even begin to attempt that they'd need to successfully recover 93.3 million 'charges' at an average of £150 a time. To put that into perspective it's 358,974 invoices a day for a five day working week over the course of a single year.

 

So, if the industry, as a whole is incapable of doing that then they're recovering buttons...

 

Secondly, if it were such a marvellous deterrent then there'd be a huge piece on how the industry had successfully reduced the impact of such losses on retailers. Unfortunately that's not the case, is it?

 

The British Retail Consortium wrote in their 2012/13 report that shoplifting was at it's highest level for nine years and that the average value per incident had risen 62% in one year. Hardly a fitting result for an industry that cites their effectiveness... http://www.brc.org.uk/brc_show_document.asp?id=4428&moid=8064

[ScarletPimpernel]

Have there been many other instances where rlp have lost the case through a retailer other than the Oxford?

 

Just wondered as to refer to them as illegal mercenaries and all the other slurs, if it's isn't true that over 99% of juddges have ruled in their favour?

 

There may not be well publicised cases in recent times, but in the company I worked for at the start of 2013, in March, a member of staff was successful taken to court by CRS, following dismissal due to refund fraud.

 

 

RLP cannot take anyone to court, as they have no legal standing to do so; it is always the retailer that must bring a claim. Consequently, unless they have brought cases unrelated to their CR activities, I cannot see how even one judge has ruled in their favour.

 

As to how many cases retailers have won at court - and, by extension, RLP have had some involvement - then there are a couple of points worthy of consideration. Firstly, RLP list a number of cases on their website that they say their clients have won. That may be, but they cannot be verified because RLP do not provide sufficient details. Secondly, the number of cases brought in court represent a tiny proportion of the number of speculative invoices sent out by RLP - less than 50 court cases out of hundreds of thousands of claims. Thirdly, of the cases we do know of, most were cases of staff theft rather than shoplifting, and involved considerably larger sums than most of RLP's cases, and stock that was not recovered. They were also almost all default judgments; in other words, no defence was offered, or the defendant wasn't represented. Lastly, it is not known whether, in those cases, whether any money was actually recovered.

 

In summary, retailers are extremely reluctant to go to court in RLP cases. We can only speculate as to why. Perhaps they think their reputation may be damaged if they are seen to pursue an individual who has taken something of little value that was recovered anyway. Perhaps it's because, as in Oxford, their security staff cannot be relied upon to give accurate evidence. Perhaps, as you have said, they don't consider it a good use of their time. Most likely, though, it's because they know that they are likely to lose because RLP's matrix doesn't represent anything like a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

If CRS took someone to court, I'd be interested to know how they brought a claim in their own name when they have no locus standi.

[ScarletPimpernel]

if it were such a marvellous deterrent then there'd be a huge piece on how the industry had successfully reduced the impact of such losses on retailers. Unfortunately that's not the case, is it?

 

 

Indeed.

 

For all of RLP's high-falutin talk of prevention and deterrence, if they were effective there'd be no need for civil recovery companies. Consequently, it's actually in RLP's interest for security to continue to be ineffective at preventing shoplifting, and for there to be no deterrent.

[silverfox1961]

There is another option. The store bills the shoplifter for the actual loss which could be less than £10 and add an admin fee that is accurate. If they did that, this particular forum would cease to be as the store would be acting lawfully. Instead, they pass the responsibility on to civil recovery companies who charge a fixed rate thereby removing themselves from the process. A bit like sticking ones fingers in your ears and going lah lah lah.

 

What the store doesn't know about is good to them as they could deny that their agent is following their rules.

 

let us be clear, the store has ultimate responsibility for its agents whether that is RLP, CRS or even the security guards as they are not employees of the store but agents of the store

[renegadeimp]

Have there been many other instances where rlp have lost the case through a retailer other than the Oxford?

 

Just wondered as to refer to them as illegal mercenaries and all the other slurs, if it's isn't true that over 99% of juddges have ruled in their favour?

 

There may not be well publicised cases in recent times, but in the company I worked for at the start of 2013, in March, a member of staff was successful taken to court by CRS, following dismissal due to refund fraud.

 

RLP only shows the cases on their site that they won, either due to a default judgement or the accused having absolutely no idea how to defend themselves.

 

As pointed out, the two girls employed a solicitor who knew their job. The solicitor showed the very shaky basis of the claim and the judge found in favour of the accused. Thats why since then, RLP have not been involved in any court cases, and jackie hasnt put anymore up. She hopes people fall for her little tricks with the false info on the site, just like you did.

[think about it]

I've thought more about the claiming of 'costs to the Retailer' and something has come to mind. On my way home from my night school earlier this week I call into a supermarket. I went in looking for just one thing, which they didn't have. However, in trying to find it I spok to two members of staff, the security guard chipped in and undoubtedly I was captured and perhaps monitored on their cctv system as I wondered around. I left without buying anything but having spent perhaps 20 minutes of the staffs time did I not represent just as much of a cost to that retailer as an apprehended 'wrongdoer'?

 

Well, of course I did except the retailer didn't have a third party send me an invoice for their time. Of course, the staff time is factored into the operating costs of the retailer and assisting customers is an integral term of their job description but, aren't the security costs also factored in? By RLP definition I should look forward to a bill for the Security guards' time in offering advice on where else to try and exchanging pleasantries. But no, their time and cost is factored in also and that assisting customers features just as prominently as preventing loss on their job descriptions. Otherwise, as I'd diverted them from their role I should expect an invoice.

[silverfox1961]

Where a member of staff has been diverted from their usual job (cashier, customer services assistant) for say, 1 hour then that time could be claimed in court. If there was only one cashier who then had to close the till to assist security then they may possibly claim for other losses as other customers would likely go elsewhere.

 

As it stands, all civil recovery companies use the flawed argument that the 'costs' incurred with dealing with crime can be recoverable. We all know this is not true. The bigger problem is, who monitors these companies to ensure they follow the law. Trading Standards?- Chocolate Fireguard comes to mind.

 

All the time we are discussing this issue (and I must say, on the whole it has been reasonably mannered) we need someone with the ability to use the courts to show what these companies are up to. Once (if) a judgement is obtained spelling out that the misleading and aggressive practices used by RLP and their ilk, nothing will change.

 

At this moment in time, we have had only one letter from RLP to an alleged shoplifter since the 1st of October. Before I can raise this with the relevant store, I will need more letters and maybe even a statement from the detained person on what happened whilst in the 'back room' and whether they were allowed a copy of the CCTV.