Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In terms of your letter of claim, you've asked us to remove some information – but you have put it up and it's not that critical it's simply bad practice and so we will be leaving in place. It's highly unlikely that the company will stumble across this thread – and anyway no great harm done – but there is no point in spelling out in a letter of claim every detail of the evidence you are going to be relying on if it goes to court. In terms of referring to mediation, it's not up to you. It's up to them. Once again you want to play your hand before it is necessary. Do not do it. Let them make the decisions. They probably will opt for mediation as part of the court process – and then you can simply accede to that. A letter of claim is not the time to start stating this kind of stuff. You come here for advice and I suggest that by and large you follow our advice. In terms of just keeping part of the contract – the frames – as long as you are sure that another supplier would be prepared to supply the glass which is absolutely appropriate for those frames. However, I should warn you that mixing your suppliers like this can eventually lead to problems because you are giving both parties a means by which they can pass the buck onto the other party. This really can get complicated – if the frames fail and the company with which you've already fallen out, then decides to get their own back and they say it is the glass supplier. The glass supplier may well turn round and say no it's the frame supplier – and you are left in the middle and you will have a difficult problem including maybe having to pay for an independent assessment to ascertain whether liability lies. In my view its most ill-advised. You have an opportunity here to predicate your rejection on the fact that you had a single contract and the glass and the frames are supplied as a job lot and the defective glass means that the entire contract is subject to rejection. However, it's up to you. Furthermore, if the frames fail within a particular time, apart from the problem of passing the buck to the glass suppliers, you may find that the frame suppliers are quite reluctant to do any further business with you because they will have long memories. If you really think that after this litigation the frame suppliers will be prepared to continue with you and to supply the glass that you need, then you need to be very certain. Of course they may be very pragmatic and business minded and mature about their dealings and be prepared to supply you with the glass you need with perfectly goodwill and professionalism. However, you shouldn't bank on it. All it needs is one individual within the organisation start feeling that the whole thing is some kind of personal rebuke against them are you are you are you are you you are a you are you you are you are you are a you you are a you.   Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. I think you should follow our advice in terms of legal process and the letter of claim. The rest of it is to how you deal with your windows is simply a bonus for you.
    • Perfect thanks for the reply and apologies for the marker Pen, I thought I had covered it off.    So to clarify, I just ignore this letter and no response is necessary?   
    • First of all, we please deal urgently with the identity of this company. In the title to this thread they are identified as being in Letchworth. This is not correct? We do not want to start firing off accusations against some company elsewhere may be is doing its job perfectly well. Please can you respond to this urgently Post up a link to their website
    • If you scan up letters here by the way, please make sure that they are included in a single file multipage PDF. Please make sure they are all in the correct order, the right way round, and not simply minuscule photographs. You can't imagine the kind of stuff that people put up here when they realise that they're not paying for the advice!
    • Think you've got the wrong Crystal there Slick132...it's Crystal Clear Group Ltd. There's a lot of companies with Crystal in the name!   I agree could take out the struck through part about evidence, although they already have it all already, but I think I need to leave the part about mediation/ADR in, it's important to show I'm open to these, that and the next line came from a template letter before action.  Have asked for that post to be removed via the report button, just in case, the rest of the thread can stay!         The frames are fine, no reason not to keep them, though I could reorder frames from somewhere else it'd be easier to keep these ones as I then already have the measurements for the glass (which I've double checked). I will be asking that question tomorrow though. I have found another supplier I'd be happy to use at around the same price. Glass at the mo is stored mostly upstairs, it's a bit inconvenient as it takes up a lot of space, but no losses as such.  
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3879 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

Thanks for your advice everyone.

Today I received a reply from Debenhams re my request to see the CCTV footage I quote

 

"CCTV systems are fitted within Debenhams stores as part of a Loss Prevention programme. They help to safeguard property and stock from theft and vandalism and provide both customers and staff with a safe environment.

The CCTV system is only used for these authorised purposes and no other purpose that would breach an individuals rights as stated in th DPA 1998.

Debenhams retains the CCTV recorded tapes for a period no longer than 28 days unless they are required for evidential purposes. Information is only available to authorised company personnel or externally for the prevention,detection and prosecution of criminal offences.

Having looked at the footage you are requesting to view it has been decided that disclosuere of the tapes could prejudice the prosecution of offenders and as such your request has been denied.

I am more than willing to reconsider the exclusion notice issued to your daughter after a period of no less than 3 months. I will respond to a request in writing after 20.09.07.

Should you wish to pusue the matter I will have no option but to refer the incident to the police, which is our company policy for all shoplifting cases, however we did make an exception on this occasion due to the value of the goods."

 

I know the exclusion order isn't worth the paper its written on but am furious that my daughter isn't getting the chance to clear her name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest weegirl

Sound to me like they trying to scare you.

 

I think is is bull**** about not referring this matter because of the value of the goods. They know as well as I do that the police couldn't care less about a minor nicking a cheap necklace, especially if it is a first offence. The amount of paperwork it would cause them when nothing would come of it just isn't worth it. There's another post on here about someone getting their property damaged, and the police couldn't care less. I suffered intimidation, and the police couldn't be bothered either.

 

I work with an ex-cop, he said that because of the law changes, every time someone is lifted, they are interviewed, taped and then the tapes have to be typed up. If no typists are on at night, they have to type it themselves, a 2-finger job which takes hours. One arrest could end up taking up the rest of their shift, that's why you see the police walking past people drinking in the streets etc.

 

Lets face it, I know it isn't right, but most people have done stupid things when young. Most of us grow out of it, chances are this young girl who committed the crime will too. The store detectives have got carried away with themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason that it is an issue, is from the original poster.

1) If the three were 'forced' to return to the store to be searched then both the detention and the search were unlawful;

2) If they were restrained physically to be returned to the store then this could be an assault and unlawful imprisonment;

3) A private citizen may only arrest and hand over to a constable. There is no lawful arrest to carry through the store's detention, search and exclusion policies;

4) If they were 'arrested' publicly in another store, then the question of defamation arises.

 

 

I dont think the OP stated that her daughter was forced and it sounds like the girls were asked to provide receipts for goods from their shop.

 

In your position I would let sleeping dogs lie. I dont think you going to gain a great deal and if you believe your daughter thats all that matters.

 

I talk from experience here. I have four adult kids who have all been through various things like this. Shouting and screaming about my childs innocence has on almost every occasion ended up me looking stupid.

 

Your daughter has no record, lesson clearly learnt Id leave it at that.

7 actions in progress

 

amount refunded so far £6500

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest weegirl

You could always get a solicitor on this to ask for the footage if you feel that strongly about it, you may be eligible for legal aid also. That may get their attention!

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's true that an exclusion 'order' is a meaningless term and a signature on it under duress is worthless, they do of course have the right to ban anyone they want from their premises without a signature anyway.

 

I was also going to advise letting it go, but their response has got right up my nose. I'm fairly sure they should hand over the CCTV on receipt of an SAR, and the last line is tantamount to blackmail.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Right, I'm a Loss Prevention Assistant who works for Debenhams. The way we are trained means we DO have powers of arrest and detention of any individual or individuals who commit a criminal offence within our stores. If your 13 year old daughter and her friends had been detained by a member of Loss Prevention they would have to have seen the following: The suspect(s) approach and select the stock, conceal/wear the item, observe and account for the suspect(s) movements to make sure the item has not been dumped, watch the suspect(s) make no attempt to pay for the item(s) in thier possession and exit the store. If your with someone who is shoplifting its the Security staffs desicion whether to detain you aswell as the offender. Being as your daughter is only 13, the Loss Prevention staff should NOT have let her out of their custody once they had detained her as that person is resposible for her well-being. The police and/or yourself should have been contacted and only when they are collected by a police officer or a legal guardian. As for you wanting to view the CCTV, you are entitled to do that FREE of charge. The easiest way to go about gaining access to view the CCTV is to go into the store and ask to speak with the SSM (Selling Support Manager). As much as you may be annoyed at the thought that someone has accused your daughter of shoplifting, the SSM is the 1 person that can help you at a store level and this is the quickest way to get what you want. He/She should tell you to fill out some paperwork and provide a picture of your daughter to compare to the CCTV and I.D. from yourself. Once this is done, that information will have to be checked and authorised by a regional Manager. After the regional Manager has given the all clear, you will then be invited into the store to view the requested footage and that only.

 

Debenhams policy is to prosecute all individuals commiting a criminal offence in our stores.

 

Hope that's answered some questions for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Debenhams reserves the right to exclude anyone from any of their stores as Debehams is private property. No-one other than a police officer can conduct any kind of search on anyone. The only thing that should be asked to be removed from any bag or pocket by any security staff should be anything sharp or that could cause injury the themselves or to anyone else. If the security staff have done their jobs correctly they shouldn't have to ask a suspect to produce anything they have stolen as it should still be where the suspect was seen consealing it on their person where the police will either ask them to produce or remove it themselves when conducting a search. If the incident hasn't been reported to the police and your daughter hasn't been spoken to by an officer, I'd leave it at that. Your daughter hasn't got a mark on her record so there's nothing to worry about there. If your daughter was frightened and a little upset after the ordeal then the plus side to this is that she's probably learnt her lesson and won't want to go through that gain. Also, if the necklace was stolen then maybe you should also re-consider the company your daughter keeps. Her knocking about with people who are out stealing at such a young age is not good for her if she's easily lead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

best they get it right in the first place "when dealing with MINORS"

 

THE most important point is what is actual LAW and NOT company policies , they DO NOT OVERIDE THE LAW regardless

 

as for the words "CRIMINAL OFFENCE" thats for the Police to decide not a load of trumped up security guards with their stupid so called SIA Licences / RLP plastic staff

Edited by kiptower

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way we are trained means we DO have powers of arrest and detention of any individual or individuals who commit a criminal offence within our stores.

 

Pray tell, how does this training bestow upon you any powers that aren't available to any member of the public? Well trained as you are, can you direct us to which section of which act you are arresting and detaining people under?

The adverts that this forum puts around my username and message are not endorsed by me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and since when was "PACE" modified to let you load of wanta'be policemen have these magical powers

 

write out a 1000 line's

 

"i must not belive all what my employer or the SIA tells me"

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, I'm a Loss Prevention Assistant who works for Debenhams. The way we are trained means we DO have powers of arrest and detention of any individual or individuals who commit a criminal offence within our stores. If your 13 year old daughter and her friends had been detained by a member of Loss Prevention they would have to have seen the following: The suspect(s) approach and select the stock, conceal/wear the item, observe and account for the suspect(s) movements to make sure the item has not been dumped, watch the suspect(s) make no attempt to pay for the item(s) in thier possession and exit the store.
That appears to be fairly good practice, and the any person power of arrest does exist where actual theft is observed.

 

 

If your with someone who is shoplifting its the Security staffs desicion whether to detain you aswell as the offender.
This, however, is entirely wrong. Sure, the security staff is able to detain someone. But doing so would be illegal, and could be construed as anything from assault to kidnap.

 

 

Being as your daughter is only 13, the Loss Prevention staff should NOT have let her out of their custody once they had detained her as that person is resposible for her well-being.
Rubbish. Can you back that up at all?

 

The police and/or yourself should have been contacted and only when they are collected by a police officer or a legal guardian.
The police whouls be contacted immediately. Any delay would require letting the person go. No power of detention exists otherwise.

 

As for you wanting to view the CCTV, you are entitled to do that FREE of charge.
That's not strictly true. DPA still applies, unless the CCTV footage is to form part of any evidence, in whcih case disclosure rules apply.

 

The easiest way to go about gaining access to view the CCTV is to go into the store and ask to speak with the SSM (Selling Support Manager). As much as you may be annoyed at the thought that someone has accused your daughter of shoplifting, the SSM is the 1 person that can help you at a store level and this is the quickest way to get what you want. He/She should tell you to fill out some paperwork and provide a picture of your daughter to compare to the CCTV and I.D. from yourself. Once this is done, that information will have to be checked and authorised by a regional Manager. After the regional Manager has given the all clear, you will then be invited into the store to view the requested footage and that only.
Again, DPA applies, unless it is a disclosure issue.

 

Debenhams policy is to prosecute all individuals commiting a criminal offence in our stores.
Good for Debenhams. I hope they allow the police to do the police's job, and don't attempt to shortcut the process for the sake of some money grubbing bottom feeding behaviour.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...