RLP Civil Recovery

phlogeston

ceedoubleu wrote: »

I will post where I like, and frankly do not need sanctimonious prigs like you commenting. Cease your stalking now.

:rotfl::rotfl:

And Madam, I too will post where I like!

ceedoubleu

That's your prerogative, you are clearly a sad person with an empty life that can only get off by insulting people (anonymously of course, your type always do).

What a big guy, insulting a vulnerable 14 year old. I trust that you feel really good about yourself.

ceedoubleu

Browntoa wrote: »

out of interest , does your daughter admit to doing it , your first post is not clear

She doesn't really know what she has supposed to have done. She tried a lipstick on her hand and as far as I know, didn't know that it wasn't a tester.

bookworm1363

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

So you think 14 year olds should be able to walk round stores "trying" goods as they feel fit with no repercussions.

Nope. What I think is that if a 14 year old commits or seems to have committed a crime, she should be stopped, the police called and the parents called. The police can then, based on the evidence they have, decide to prosecute or not, in which case the accused will have a chance to plead guilty or not guilty. It's called the justice system.

What I don't think is that a vigilante company with a questionable modus operandi should be allowed to play on the alleged guilt of a minor to try and get her to pay money she may or may not owe. I also think that such a company should be whiter than white in their dealings and since they seem to be currently operating without a valid credit license, they shouldn't be sending out ANY "bill" until they have their own house in order.

Call me old-fashioned, but for all its failings, I still would rather put my faith in the legal system than in a 2 bit self-appointed for-profit "security" company.

OlliesDad

phlogeston wrote: »

OK, don't post on a public forum then.

I only gave you some advice regarding opening mail that is not addressed to you, that is not raising a child.

As the child is still a minor the appropiate parent/guardian is permitted to open their mail as they are under their care.

Kez1983

I am actually a supporter of Civil Recovery, but in the circumstances stated above Im surprised the store have used it. The guidelines given state that it normally shouldnt be used for someone under 16. Personally I would have called the police/school/parents and dealt with it together.

I do think its useful in situations such as today where we had to observe and subsequently detain a shoplifter which took the time of management and staff. When the police arrived his reaction was "just give me the 80 fine and let me go". He is a well known lifter and thought that he could just get a fine and go and do it again! Civil Recovery can help retaillers recover costs incurred having to deal with these situations.

ceedoubleu

OlliesDad wrote: »

As the child is still a minor the appropiate parent/guardian is permitted to open their mail as they are under their care.

Indeed. Somebody clearly has a bit of a problem/issue with children.

OlliesDad

I had post through with my 5 year olds name on it. It would be ludicrous for the law to suggest that i cannot open it and he has to!

sarahg1969

OlliesDad wrote: »

I had post through with my 5 year olds name on it. It would be ludicrous for the law to suggest that i cannot open it and he has to!

There is no law that suggests that you cannot open post that has been delivered to your address. Don't worry!

Poppy9

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

So you think 14 year olds should be able to walk round stores "trying" goods as they feel fit with no repercussions.

No doubt someone will be along shortly to moan about the used lipstick they bought and you will be encouraging them to sue for thousands.

The daughter and friend used the good and boots should be reimbursed for the cost.

As a regular lipstick buyers I never buy one unless it's sealed with either a sticker or a full clear cover.

I test lipsticks before buying from the testers set out. These are ones that have been opened previously, it's not my job to determine by who.

If it's such a huge problem that is costing Boots over £30 per ruined £5 lipstick then they should really change their sales display so that only testers are out. Of course they won't do this as their mark up allows for damaged stock and thefts and it might deter buyers from buying if they have to take a ticket to cashdesk/make up counter.

Teenage girls are treated different by companies like Boots browsing at make up. I've witnessed for myself when I've been with DD. Staff are rude to them and follow them but then back off if they see they are with a parent. There are no signs saying adults only as teenage girls are their target market for many of the make up ranges.

Stores take the cheap option when it comes to security and fail to secure their goods. This does not mean they have to the right to bully younger customers. They have every right to ask a customer to leave the store if they don't like their shopping habits but I think it's questionable demanding personal details from a minor without an appropriate adult present. A police officer, who can provide official ID, has to interview the minor with an appropriate adult present and the same should apply to stores who are accusing a minor of criminal damage.

As a responsible parent I have always told my DD to not open make-up and only to use testers and I lead by example.