Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   With a SAR all you have to do is ask for 'ALL DATA' (this way it does not matter what format they hold that data whether it be digital, email, telephone calls (recorded), written etc).   They then have 30 Days to comply once they have acknowledged your SAR Request (that is unless they require ID Verification) which the 30 Days time limit does not start until they have verified your ID if requested)   Also can I add in DHL response in post#36 I hate it when any Company/Business etc. has the nerve to use the get out clause of 'Human Error'.    This is not the case as it was 'Maladministration' by DHL' not 'Human Error' as stated to you, irrespective of who/which employee of DHL made the 'Human Error' the buck stops with DHL as who/which employee made that error was Employed by DHL.
    • pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following:     1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx          
    • I passed on the article and link to friend. Between us we will now try get the required info to the correct location so that they (whoever in the Govt) can sort out what he is owed. I will keep you updated.  This thread may help others in similar situations. Ethel Street - very helpful research.  Thank you.  Seems like you came up trumps!
    • numerous erudio/drydens claimform threads here already - use our search top right.   your appears to be statute barred as you've never heard of erudio so would not have deferred since your last direct deferment to SLC in 2013    if you wish to bother to even send CCA/CPR that's upto you but the bottom line is to erudio you've ignored everything to date yoy might also ignore a claimform.   but ofcourse you are not!!   if the above is true   pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following: 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx      
    • Well I would want my £50 back also but hey ho if your satisfied its been resolved.....there was no way you could ever be liable anyway as your contract was with TC not RC.   Thread title updated.   Andy
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 637 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I was caught shoplifting a couple of cheap basics from primark.

Technically I hadn’t left the store when they called me in to their little room,

 

I was still in the premises but instead of arguing I was going to pay I just said I was sorry.

I saw that the guy wasn’t going to believe anything I say!

So I just begged him not to call the police and he didn’t.

 

They took a copy of my ID and gave me the notice of intended civil recovery letter which I keep reading about on the forum to ignore once I get it.

But I am afraid to ignore it and willing to pay the fine.

 

I have 3 main questions:

 

1. If I do pay the fine, is it considered an admittance of guilt?

 

2. From the store they told me if I don’t receive the letter to follow up and phone that company - should I? Or just leave it and wait?

 

3. About criminal record and dbs.

I work as a teacher so I always need an enhanced DBS certificate.

Would it show on it? If so, I would lose my teaching job so it’s very important To prevent this.

 

How? And since the police was never called it means I was notCharged so why would it snow on the enhanced DBS? Please help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the RLP forum.....

 

it is not a fine and no it doesn't get recorded anywhere

 

ignore all the letters

 

and STOP SHOPLIFTING!!


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per the above - ignore all correspondence and nothing will happen except getting more scary letters but they will eventually stop. Paying them will achieve nothing except enhancing the pay packets of RLP staff

 

And for God's sake stop stealing - it only takes one report to the Police and even if not charged, it could quite easily show on the enhanced disclosure that you need for your job!


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice but I think I will pay it because I’m too scared! But you mentioned that there is a chance for it to be recorded in the enhanced disclosure? Or do you mean if the police was involved only? So scared! I really can’t have it show on the enhanced! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why pay this so called charge? All you are doing is financing someones lifestyle on the backs of those who are usually poor or have some sort of mental illness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the advice but I think I will pay it because I’m too scared!

 

If you've looked at other threads, you'll see the consistent advice (for customers, not staff) is not to pay. If you were going to pay anyhow, there seems little point in posting about it.

 

 

But you mentioned that there is a chance for it to be recorded in the enhanced disclosure? Or do you mean if the police was involved only? So scared! I really can’t have it show on the enhanced! :(

 

That seems to me a very good reason not to shoplift (if you have a job where you know it'd be a disaster if it showed on an eDBS). If there are medical probems which have led you to do so, I'd suggest getting them addressed with your GP ASAP (if you were tempted to shoplift again, you might not be so lucky next time, and the police might then become involved ....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a teacher but not smart enough to do your homework.

Read all of the threads about RLP, aspecially the older ones.

you will be tested on this tomorrow when you come back with your next question.

 

It can never show on the enhanced DBS for a number of reasons,

Jackie at RLP likes to think that she is the oracle on criminality bit she would have been involved in dozens of libel cases if she did try and report.

They are in it for the money and that is all.

they rely on guilt and lies to get you to pay them

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you pay RLP they'll be back for more.

 

dont get sc@mmed


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

Other members have been a little critical of you (as they should) but knowledge is a more powerful tool. Please bear with me.

 

The fact you were stopped whilst still in the store is irrelevent. You stole, security did their job.

 

You WILL get letters from RLP demanding some fictitious amount from you. This is usually around £150 but could be less depending on the total value of the items. Items not recovered or in poor saleable condition CAN be claimed for with a small administration fee but not the inflated amount demanded by RLP. Any sucker that pays RLP will see that payment shared between RLP and Primark with RLP getting the lions share so this will disprove any suggestion that each event causes £300-500 of expense. The costs of security are borne by the store and are a core part of their business. They want people to handle the goods and therefore must bear the costs of preventing theft. These costs are recovered from paying members of the public at the tills.

Can you imagine a scenario when security are paid ONLY if they catch a shoplifter. No security company would accept that. Security staff are paid to monitor (via CCTV), walk the shop floor, detect and prevent crime and to deal with the administration caused by shoplifting. This is their contract (or very similar).

 

RLP state that they are there as a prevention and deterrent to shoplifting. Not true. They are there purely to make money from people who do not know what is right. While we on CAG do not condone shoplifting, we also believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right' and RLP are certainly a wrong. It is my belief that all shoplifting events should be dealt with by the police, even if, in your case, it meant something on an enhanced disclosure. That is what the law is for.

 

Now, RLP have no legal power over you-ever! You are not required to pay them one single penny. I like to call these speculative invoices. It is an invitation to line the pockets of RLP.

 

As pokice action was not taken, there will be nothing on a CRB check, standard or enhanced however, RLP have a database of 'Alleged Shoplifters' That can only be disclosed with your permission. Next month, the new Data protection rules come into play so I hope this data base will go. RLP state that future emplyers can access the database (with your consent) to check if a potential employee is of good character. I have not heard of anyone using this system.

 

So, after all that, my advice is ignore RLP and any potential debt collector (who have even less power than RLP) and don't steal again.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have never seen any actual proof anywhere that the RLP database even exists.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi and welcome to CAG.

Other members have been a little critical of you (as they should) but knowledge is a more powerful tool. Please bear with me.

 

The fact you were stopped whilst still in the store is irrelevent. You stole, security did their job.

 

You WILL get letters from RLP demanding some fictitious amount from you. This is usually around £150 but could be less depending on the total value of the items. Items not recovered or in poor saleable condition CAN be claimed for with a small administration fee but not the inflated amount demanded by RLP. Any sucker that pays RLP will see that payment shared between RLP and Primark with RLP getting the lions share so this will disprove any suggestion that each event causes £300-500 of expense. The costs of security are borne by the store and are a core part of their business. They want people to handle the goods and therefore must bear the costs of preventing theft. These costs are recovered from paying members of the public at the tills.

Can you imagine a scenario when security are paid ONLY if they catch a shoplifter. No security company would accept that. Security staff are paid to monitor (via CCTV), walk the shop floor, detect and prevent crime and to deal with the administration caused by shoplifting. This is their contract (or very similar).

 

RLP state that they are there as a prevention and deterrent to shoplifting. Not true. They are there purely to make money from people who do not know what is right. While we on CAG do not condone shoplifting, we also believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right' and RLP are certainly a wrong. It is my belief that all shoplifting events should be dealt with by the police, even if, in your case, it meant something on an enhanced disclosure. That is what the law is for.

 

Now, RLP have no legal power over you-ever! You are not required to pay them one single penny. I like to call these speculative invoices. It is an invitation to line the pockets of RLP.

 

As pokice action was not taken, there will be nothing on a CRB check, standard or enhanced however, RLP have a database of 'Alleged Shoplifters' That can only be disclosed with your permission. Next month, the new Data protection rules come into play so I hope this data base will go. RLP state that future emplyers can access the database (with your consent) to check if a potential employee is of good character. I have not heard of anyone using this system.

 

So, after all that, my advice is ignore RLP and any potential debt collector (who have even less power than RLP) and don't steal again.

 

Thank you very much for this helpful reply.

If there is such database is still very bad because if I refuse my employer to access it makes me guilty of hiding something!

 

I just feel horrible and I was thinking to reapply for a new enhanced dbs check to check if there will be something.

 

How long can I wait to do it?

And if it does show something, can I contact a lawyer or someone to make it go away?

Is that even an option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have never ever seen any proof such an RLP database exists..

 

let alone it being available to the DBS system.

 

forget about it

go enjoy your life


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much for this helpful reply.

If there is such database is still very bad because if I refuse my employer to access it makes me guilty of hiding something!

 

I just feel horrible and I was thinking to reapply for a new enhanced dbs check to check if there will be something.

 

How long can I wait to do it?

And if it does show something, can I contact a lawyer or someone to make it go away?

Is that even an option?

 

You can’t apply for your own eDBS.

Only an employer can apply for it (or its update).

 

If there is a factual entry (or, for “other information at chief officer’s discretion” a ‘reasonably held belief’), then you cannot insist on it being amended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a look at RLP's website to see if it says anything about the supposed database. It says this:

 

What Personal Data do you hold?

 

If you are 16 years or over you are advised that basic personal information regarding your wrongful act may be held on a national database of individuals involved in civil recovery incidents. This information is available to prospective employers within client companies with a legitimate interest to screen an individual’s integrity in relation to employment decisions. No screening can take place without your knowledge or consent, which would be requested during the recruitment process. This information is held within a closed user group in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for a period not exceeding 3 years if 16 or 17 years old at the time of the incident or 6 years if 18 years or over. This information may also be available for the purposes of crime prevention and detection and available to the Courts, legal advisors, crime partnerships and the police where there is a legitimate reason for doing so in accordance with the Act.

 

Note: The only employers it's available to are companies that are clients of RLP so there is no possibility of a school using it. No school would be a client of RLP because they aren't retail businesses.

 

And in any case paying RLP wouldn't remove you from the database!

 

Their website has gone very quiet about court cases since they lost big time at Oxford in 2012. No cases at all have been listed on the website since then. I wonder why that could be? And of those listed prior to then most were either thefts by staff or default judgements where alleged shoplifter (foolishly) ignored the court papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

This database has nothing to do with dbs checks?

 

And when I fill out forms about any crimes and records etc or even civil issues I still say None?

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. this database has nothing to do with dbs checks? And when I fill out forms about any crimes and records etc or even civil issues I still say None?

 

Nothing WHATSOEVER to do with DBS checks. Neither DBS checks nor employers own application forms ask about civil actions you have been involved in. They ask only about criminal offences for which you have received a conviction or official penalty or sanction.

 

I work professionally with schools recruitment and I'm very familiar with Enhanced DBS applications.

 

The relevant question on the application form is Question e55 and reads

“Do you have any convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings, which would not be filtered in line with guidance?”. You don't.

 

The corresponding guidance says

"section e, question 55 is asked for Police National Computer (PNC) matching purposes."

 

Only those can be listed on the Police National Computer [PNC]

(which is what the DBS Disclosure does, confirms if anything is listed about you on the PNC) and you don't have any of them.

 

The DBS procedure does not check databases held by any private company such as RLP, nor could it legally do so, and nor can RLP or any other private database enter information onto the PNC.

 

Although on an Enhanced DBS the police can also add "other relevant [non-conviction] information" this is very rare and in practice would only be information relevant to the risk to children that someone applying to work in a school presented.

 

My LA told me that since DBS started they have never received a DBS for school emplyees showing any "other relevant [non-conviction] information".

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the police will have what happened In their database even tho they’ were not called in?

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO!!

 

 

I’m sorry, I must sound so annoying. I am just too scared. I know it’s a good sign that the police was not called in but still scared what if they pass on the incident details to the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primark? Or that recovery agency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

primark did no involve the police....

 

recovery agency..if you mean RLP they cant report anything to the police....

 

next ??????????

 

you seem intent on wanting to believe what can never happen...

 

I refer you to post 7....


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn’t call the police at the time but what if they send them a list with details of alleged shoplifters like monthly or something

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no evidence they do that at all

that's why they sign up to the spoofing RLP

 

seriously

you are a teacher, you should know better

both on the front of even attempting to shoplift

and

getting spoofed by sc@mmers like RLP..

 

as someone in education for +30yrs

forget all about this happening now

 

go get on with your future life

and those you teach.....

 

end of...

 

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...