Please help!

dickydonkin

woody01 wrote: »

I said RANDOM....not ALL.
I think you are the Mail reader the way you pick up on imaginary words and twist them in an effort to be constructive (and monumentally fail).


Ahhhhhh....attacked by exclamation marks. It must be the new Northern weapon. :rotfl:

So you mention discrimination and call us 'sleasy londerners'. (It's sleazy and Londoner' btw). You should know that coming from the brightest spot in the universe.

It's fantastic how you have tried to chastise me in public, and made yourself look even more stupid. :T

You did indeed post ‘RANDOM’ estate, however, why would you feel the need to include 'Northern' when you could quite have easily suggested a 'random estate in the UK'?

But you still felt it necessary to continue making derogatory comments about the North to defend yourself.

As suggesting that some posters in response to your puerile parochial comments have made themselves appear more stupid, I think you need to have a look at your posts again and actually reconsider who is the stupid one!

dickydonkin

hairy_g wrote: »

hmmmmmm...
and which big retailer do you work for?/ are being paid by?
Fines CANNOT be issued by a private company, i.e Retail Loss Prevention Ltd .
If they want to recover their losses they must go to court ( and win ) before the debt collectors can become involved.
these are the same scaremongering tactics used by private parking companies.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE STATED. Read my post (on this very page) thoroughly before embarrassing yourself.

And for your information, a 'civil recovery fee' is not a fine - it is a form of compensation for a retailers losses - the clue is in the title!

Re my post #81

Yes and Yes albeit contentious, although if the thief refuses to pay the civil recovery fee, the retailer (usually via an agency acting on their behalf) can pursue the 'debt' through a civil (not criminal) court.

This could be in addition to any fines imposed by a criminal court for the original offence.

As for the refusal to pay:

What will happen if I don’t pay?

If you fail to pay the compensation sought, our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings to recover all of their financial losses, together with costs and interest, which will greatly increase the overall cost to you. Interest is accruing on a daily basis at an annual rate of 8% while this claim remains outstanding. If a Court Judgment/Decree is obtained, this is likely to adversely affect your ability to obtain credit in the future

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....and BTW, I do not and never have worked for any retailer, however, I shop a lot and I do defend retailers who attempt to recoup their losses from THIEVES as this will keep the cost of goods down and assist retailers to remain in business and maybe act as a deterrent.

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd are just bullies employed by retailers as an easy option of dealing with theives

Well there is an easy way to prevent the 'bullying' from retailers isn't there? Don't nick!

I have sympathy with retailers as the Police are just not interested in offences such as shoplifting that are deemed as 'petty', however, stealing a thousand pounds out of a shops till or a tin of pilchards from a display is exactly the same in my eye. Theft is Theft.

If the Police dealt with shoplifting in a more effective manner, then perhaps the retailers would have no need to implement a civil recovery system.

hairy_g

From the Citizen Advice Bureau:

Unreasonable demands?
Threatened civil recovery against those
accused of shoplifting or employee theft

Summary
Citizens Advice Bureaux report dealing with a growing number of cases of threatened civil
recovery against those accused of shoplifting or employee theft.
The vast majority of these reported cases involve “dedicated civil litigators” Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), who claim to have recovered millions of pounds on behalf of many high street retailers such as Boots, Tesco and TK Maxx. The remainder all involve the retailer Asda, which conducts its own claims through law firm Drydens Lawyers.
In the vast majority of these CAB-reported cases, the value of the goods or cash allegedly stolen is relatively small – often just a few pounds.
But letters from RLP and Drydens demand substantial sums as compensation for “the loss and damage caused by your wrongful actions” (RLP) or “the security costs incurred as a result of your actions” (Drydens), and threaten county court proceedings if prompt payment is not made.
Some letters from RLP have also stated that “the personal information we hold [on you]” will “now be held on a national database of incidents of dishonesty”.
Most of the CAB clients concerned are young – one in six of those who received a letter
from RLP were under 17 at the time – and many are sufficiently ashamed and/or
intimidated by the threat of court action and escalating costs to pay up without
challenge.
However, both RLP and Drydens have failed to provide clear evidence that the civil courts have consistently and explicitly supported, at contested trials, the recoverability of the sort of sums they routinely demand in cases involving a relatively minor, low-value and one-off alleged offence.
In the absence of such evidence, Citizens Advice considers such claims letters, and their threat of escalating costs, to constitute ‘deceitful’, ‘unfair’ and ‘improper’ business practice, as defined by the Office of Fair Trading.
Citizens Advice does not condone crime of any kind or level, and does not underestimate the monetary and other costs of retail crime. However, the ends of deterring crime or recovering its cost do not justify any means. If retailers, dissatisfied with the level of governmental action against retail crime, are to seek civil redress, they must do so using means that are transparently fair and proper.
Unreasonable demands? sets out recommendations to the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the British Retail Consortium and others that civil recovery be limited to cases involving serious, determined or persistent offences for which there has been a criminal conviction.

hairy_g

dpassmore wrote: »

Yes and Yes albeit contentious, although if the thief refuses to pay the civil recovery fee, the retailer (usually via an agency acting on their behalf) can pursue the 'debt' through a civil (not criminal) court.

This could be in addition to any fines imposed by a criminal court for the original offence.

As for the refusal to pay:

What will happen if I don’t pay?

If you fail to pay the compensation sought, our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings to recover all of their financial losses, together with costs and interest, which will greatly increase the overall cost to you. Interest is accruing on a daily basis at an annual rate of 8% while this claim remains outstanding. If a Court Judgment/Decree is obtained, this is likely to adversely affect your ability to obtain credit in the future.

Whether the thief has the ability/means to pay is another matter of course.

I am not embarrassed by anything I say or do, I stopped that years ago
There is no " debt " until decided / proven by a court.
You cannot charge interest on a non exsistent debt.

dickydonkin

hairy_g wrote: »

From the Citizen Advice Bureau:

Unreasonable demands?

Threatened civil recovery against those

accused of shoplifting or employee theft

So you have copied and pasted a biased page from a CAB document.

Your point being.........?

I could do the same from a retailers publication, but it is not worth wasting the sites bandwidth.

As I have already stated in a previous post which you have probably missed, it is and always will be a contentious issue, but can very very easily be avoided by simply not stealing - do you have an issue with that or do you believe that thieves should go unpunished?

The retailers are acting legally to gain compensation from someone who hasn't, so what is the issue?

Whether it is morally right (I believe it is) to attempt to recoup losses from a thief, is irrelevant in my mind as it legal to do so.

I suspect your attitude would be different if you were a victim.

Many recovery agencies may be perceived as bullies and perhaps some retailers are accused of demanding excessive recovery fees, but again, it can easily be avoided.

I am sorry, but you are attemting to defend thieves which in my mind is indefensible.

You have incorrectly assumed that I work for a retailer due my persistent defence of them, using your analogy then, by your continuous attack of the civil recovery scheme to recoup losses from thieves, I won't ask if you are one.

There is no " debt " until decided / proven by a court.
You cannot charge interest on a non exsistent debt.

Have I suggested otherwise? I am peeing into the wind here!

hairy_g

dpassmore wrote: »

So you have copied and pasted a biased page from a CAB document.

Your point being.........?

Yeah right............

dpassmore wrote: »

What will happen if I don’t pay?

If you fail to pay the compensation sought, our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings to recover all of their financial losses, together with costs and interest, which will greatly increase the overall cost to you. Interest is accruing on a daily basis at an annual rate of 8% while this claim remains outstanding. If a Court Judgment/Decree is obtained, this is likely to adversely affect your ability to obtain credit in the future.
Whether the thief has the ability/means to pay is another matter of course.

So you have copied and pasted a biased page from a Retail Loss Prevention document.

Your point being.........? :rotfl:

As I have already stated in a previous post which you have probably missed, it is and always will be a contentious issue, but can very very easily be avoided by simply not stealing - do you have an issue with that or do you believe that thieves should go unpunished?

The person was caught, and has admitted their guilt. Boots chose not to get the police involved.
Therefore it will not go to court.do you agree with this then, as the person will now go unpunished by the British justice system ?...it seems you prefer the bully-boy tactics of RPL. why not have a go at Boots? they are the ones who didn't press charges. I would insist on prosecuting all thieves.

The retailers are acting legally to gain compensation from someone who hasn't, so what is the issue?

someone who hasn't what?

Whether it is morally right (I believe it is) to recoup losses from a thief, is irrelevant in my mind as it legal to do so.

Requests for compensation can be made to the police:
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/victim/compensation/

I suspect your attitude would be different if you were a victim.

I have been a victim of crime several times.

Many such agencies may be perceived bullies and perhaps some retailers are accused of demanding excessive recovery fees, but again, it can easily be avoided.

they are bullies and do charge excessive fees.

I am sorry, but you are attemting to defend thieves which in my mind is indefensible

So you would do away with defence lawyers then?

You have incorrectly assumed that I work for a retailer due my persistent defence of them, using your analogy then, by your continuous attack of the civil recovery scheme to recoup losses from thieves,.

I am clearly attacking the people using the civil recovery scheme for their own ends.
They are the Ambulance chasers of retail.

I won't ask if you are one.

Read what I said above.
That is a personal remark and uncalled for, it [STRIKE]will be[/STRIKE] has been reported as such.

There is no " debt " until decided / proven by a court.
You cannot charge interest on a non exsistent debt.

Have I suggested otherwise? I am peeing into the wind here!

You quoted the above in your post, which clearly states they want to charge 8% per day interest.
People who pee into the wind should expect it blow back into their face.

SandC

I don't know about keeping your job but things might not be so bad seeing as the police were not called.

For what it's worth - I don't think for one minute the shopping centre security have your name and picture handed to them and instruction to 'memorise this face' in readiness for evicting you from WHSmith or whatever.

When I was a kid a friend and I were caught nicking sweets from Woolies and banned from the store for life. It put an end to our shoplifting jaunts as the store manager did ensure our parents were told all about it but they didn't call the police. However, we did end up going back in the store.

I just thought I would say that if you leave it a while I'm sure you can continue to shop in the centre without fear of forcible eviction.

dickydonkin

hairy_g wrote: »

Yeah right............




So you have copied and pasted a biased page from a Retail Loss Prevention document.

Your point being.........? :rotfl:
The person was caught, and has admitted their guilt. Boots chose not to get the police involved.
Therefore it will not go to court.do you agree with this then, as the person will now go unpunished by the British justice system ?...it seems you prefer the bully-boy tactics of RPL. why not have a go at Boots? they are the ones who didn't press charges. I would insist on prosecuting all thieves.

someone who hasn't what?

Requests for compensation can be made to the police:
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/victim/compensation/

I have been a victim of crime several times.

they are bullies and do charge excessive fees.

So you would do away with defence lawyers then?

I am clearly attacking the people using the civil recovery scheme for their own ends.
They are the Ambulance chasers of retail.

Read what I said above.
That is a personal remark and uncalled for, it [STRIKE]will be[/STRIKE] has been reported as such.


You quoted the above in your post, which clearly states they want to charge 8% per day interest.
People who pee into the wind should expect it blow back into their face.

Please Please read the posts. The quote you are referring to is NOT MY QUOTE but a copy/paste from a recovery agents website which I explained and you indeed referred to.

The retailers are acting legally to gain compensation from someone who hasn't, so what is the issue?

someone who hasn't what? Acted legally! Read the post.


Did I call you a thief? I am sure I stated that I would not ask if you were one. Your arguments are now becoming illogical.

Look, this has drifted way off topic and I apologise to the OP and others for hogging this thread.

Clearly, you have your opinion and I have mine - let's leave it at that as I am sure others reading this thread can decide who is right or wrong as I do not wish to become embroiled in a protracted game of internet tennis.

dickydonkin

Uncertain wrote: »

The shop and uniformed so called security guards have no more power than you or me. Again, like you or me, they can make a citizens arrest if they reasonably believe they have proper grounds. They have no powers to search the individual or demand any details. The can call the police and, if they had reasonable grounds to make an arrest, they can detain the person until the police arrive. If they do this they become fully responsible for the person's safety and well-being.

That was my take on it as well - so I wonder if the OP was asked to disclose her details and have her photograph taken or was the issue forced and if so - by who? - although she did state that it was the security people who actually took the picture.

In the age of data protection and all that stuff, can they do that??

Uncertain

dpassmore wrote: »

That was my take on it as well - so I wonder if the OP was asked to disclose her details and have her photograph taken or was the issue forced and if so - by who? - although she did state that it was the security people who actually took the picture.

In the age of data protection and all that stuff, can they do that??

Contrary to popular belief you do not need somebody's permission to take a photograph of them - certainly not if they are in a public place. The Met Police have recently issued guidelines to remind their own officers of this as they were tending to make up the law as they went along! As an aside this is still true even if it is a child despite the current myths.

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

I'm less sure what the position is if you have detained that person (citizens arrest) as they are not free to walk out.

There is no doubt that OP was not obliged to give the store any details or even utter a single word. If the store felt they had enough evidence they could call the police. They could also mount a private prosecution but they might struggle with this if they cannot identify the person.