Rlp

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime? Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases? I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make

 

Firstly, it is a basic tenet of English law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is why a conviction is necessary, following a trial, and why there is no place for an alternative 'justice' system. Your views also show why security guards are no substitute for properly trained police officers.

 

Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point. Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery? I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life.

 

You appear to be condoning blackmail.

 

Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it? I have gone to court personally with no cctv evidence, relying entirely on what I saw against the word of the offender. Her solicitor tried to make the case that her client had come in the store with the stolen items and that they were her property. I had no evidence to counter this other than my witness statement and recollection, yet despite this I won the case purely as my expertise in this one area of the law was sufficient to see my case defeat the lies concocted by the defence.

 

A good example of how, and why, the criminal justice system operates.

 

So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice?

 

Better a guilty person is acquitted in court than an innocent person harassed and bullied by the likes of RLP.

 

 

The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.

 

That is a matter for the retail industry to take up with government. If the setting up of pseudo justice systems was applied to other areas, it would be called vigilantism, and just as inappropriate as it is in retail.

 

I do not agree that civil recovery is a deterrent; in most cases, getting caught is the deterrent. Civil recovery does not address organised gangs of shoplifters or career criminals who are responsible for the vast majority of retail thefts.

 

In many of the cases we hear about the accused person is vulnerable by way of age or mental health, but that is not taken into account by either shop security or the civil recovery operator. It is, though, by the criminal justice system - another reason why civil recovery is inappropriate.

 

Let me ask you a question: If what you say correct, why did the Law Commission say that civil recovery claims have no real basis in law, and that the civil recovery industry uses 'aggressive and misleading tactics'?

 

Your posts show why the civil recovery system is flawed and why the criminal justice system is the proper, and only, authority for dealing with theft. You do not understand fundamental aspects of the law, you are convinced that you never make mistakes, and you think that civil recovery operators can issue fines. Perhaps more worryingly, you come across as a big-timing security guard who revels in the faux authority that you imagine the ability to 'fine' people gives you.

 

I do not condone theft, and I think thieves should be dealt with - but by the appropriate authorities, not bullies who appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It would be for the retailer to pursue the individual in the county court should they wish to recover damages. Now then, if no damages have occurred, then why should a moronic firm such as RLP be entitled to any money? The offender has already been dealt with through the courts.

 

 

 

A good point. Interestingly, Prof Josh Bamfield, the man who originally introduced civil recovery to the UK, saw it as something to be applied after a thief had been properly convicted in a court of law.

[ScarletPimpernel]

How many people have you [the OP] falsely detained and accused of theft ?

 

Before anyone says "it doesn't happen", I draw your attention to this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?427290-Police-gave-our-deatils-to-tkmaxx-when-we-hadnt-stolen-anything

 

 

He's already said he never makes mistakes. RLP also always assume everyone is guilty.

 

Bullies invariably believe in the invincibility of their actions.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I will try and reply to all, but will start with this one.

 

No I never falsely detained anyone in all my years. I started at 18 as a security officer, I then became a store detective, a profit protection manager, then changed companies and jobs, which I cannot mention on internet forums due to company policy. I am certainly not a security guard that gets excited by a bit of authority, to reply to one previous post.

 

Unless, in every single case where you detained someone, there was a criminal trial, it's impossible to know whether or not the detention was correct or not. I do not doubt that you believe that you never made an error, but you cannot prove it.

 

You may have progressed in your career, but your arrogance still shines through. Perhaps the years have made you better informed, but none the wiser.

 

As for false arrests, I think they are irresponsible, completely unacceptable and that companies should be liable to pay compensation that greatly exceeds a civil recovery charge in every instance. A thorough investigation should also be launched into the person responsible, with dismissal not ruled out.

 

So, what independent external oversight was there into all of your 'arrests'? The fact is that the only way to determine whether an arrest was appropriate or not is when the case is processed through the criminal justice system, something we all say is a good thing, but you say is unnecessary because you and RLP can decide if someone is guilty and punish them without bothering with the law.

 

 

I also don't think using rlp is always appropriate, there are many instances for many different reason I have chosen not to down the years. I also speak to all shoplifters with decency and respect, and can't stand when I see people doing otherwise.

 

There you go again, judge and jury. It should be really simple; if you suspect someone of stealing, call the police and let them deal with it, whether or not you like the outcome. What qualifies you to decide, for example, whether someone is suffering from a mental health problem?

 

 

I will never accept in the case of shoplifting that deterring beats detaining. People have jobs to do, they don't have the time to spend their whole say deterring unless a uniformed officer.

 

The scenario is simple. Offender gets caught in one store, police take to the cells, no more offending at least on that day.

 

Offender gets deterred, then in the next shop, then gets away with 500 pounds worth of stock from the next place. Some offenders can be deterred, most can't. There are some that even don't get deterred when arrested. But companies spend millions on deterrent equipment such as cctv, tags, eas barriers, clam shells, loop alarms, security signage etc. If someone still decides to steal, they deserve to be caught.

 

So are you now agreeing with us that the best people to deal with shoplifters are the police?

 

As for deterrent, it is one of RLP's selling points; thanks for confirming what we already know, that it doesn't work.

 

Retailers pass on the costs of their preventive measures to their customers. It's an overhead like any other.

[ScarletPimpernel]

As for mental health problems, rlp will not pursue anybody with a mental illness, it is part of their job to establish that. They ask us at store level if they had any issues we know of, and we would only know if they'd disclosed that.

 

I'm afraid that's simply incorrect as to fact. RLP is a company whose sole purpose is to generate profit - nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of cases on here where RLP have pursued people vulnerable by way of mental health issues.

 

Whilst the criminal justice system takes into account mental health or other issues, it's not in RLP's interest to. Furthermore, RLP has no right to the information, any more than shop security do.

 

You say the police like civil recovery. There may be some officers whose personal opinion is that, but ACPO made RLP remove from their website anything that may have (mis)led readers into thinking there was any official endorsement of their activities. Suggestions that the PSNI approved were also removed.

 

Once again, I ask you why, if this is all above board, did the Law Commission say that civil recovery claims are on shaky legal ground and that companies like RLP use aggressive and misleading practices?

[ScarletPimpernel]

It's also very strange that a brand new poster comes to this forum, and to the RLP section, and tries to defend the companies actions and make it seem as if it is 100% legit.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Frogboy, the RLP stooge, and sidekick? Around the same time there was another user who claimed to be a retail worker who sung RLP's praises; a little work revealed the individual to work in quite another, non-retail industry, but who was located close to RLP's lair, which was no doubt a coincidence.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Could you please clarify what you are referring to as unlawful? Is it the practices of rlp in general, or one particular aspect of their operations.

 

I can assure anyone that I have no ties to rlp whatsoever. I actually have spent a lot more time using crs, similar but give more money to the retailer.

 

They're all equally morally repugnant.

 

I do agree that it would be great in an ideal world for retailers to claim through the civil process themselves. However we all know that would be far too time consuming.

 

In much the same way, some people in parts of Northern Ireland think that the criminal justice system doesn't deal with car thieves quickly or robustly enough, so they allow paramilitaries to dispense 'justice'. Just as unsavoury as the way civil recovery is practiced.

 

 

As an earlier post quite rightly said, the police fixed penalty system is a fantastic idea. The 100% police referral a lot of you are pining for though is NOT what police forces want from us. Top police officers sit down with senior executives of businesses and agree price points to which it is acceptable to refer to the police. In my old company, my boss, having been dragged to a meeting with the inspector due to a police gripe about attending shoplifting jobs, arrived at a figure with him to which we would deal in house.

 

Disgusting behaviour, on both sides. I hope you had the moral courage to report it, but somehow I suspect that you didn't.

 

 

Penalty fines are a deterrent, they work.

 

Since penalties and fines can only be imposed by statutory authorities, at last we agree on one thing.

 

 

My issue is with rj. If all I wanted was an apology I wouldn't need a police officer for that. I've had staff theft for 400 pound and when police were called he made him say sorry and that was it. In that instance if it wasn't for civil recovery it would have gone completely unpunished.

 

I spoke too soon - you still don't understand the basics legal situation. Civil recovery isn't about punishment, or at least that's what the companies in the business say. They say they recover damages, but they know that's questionable too, which is perhaps why there are so few court cases. Perhaps they say that because it would be unlawful for them to be involved in punishment; perhaps it's also why we know that the whole business is legally dodgy.

 

When will you understand that it's not for you or any security guard, retailer or civil recovery company to punish anyone, no matter how much you may want to. That is a matter only for the criminal justice system.

 

Ultimately, despite all your bluster, all you and civil recovery can do is is willy-wave, bully and mislead people about civil recovery.

 

The way shoplifting is dealt with by the police is not entirely satisfactory, but civil recovery isn't the answer.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.