It would not be a breach of data protection laws, as they specifically allow data to be passed for purposes of prevention and detection of crime. It would not be RLP contacting the op's employer, it would be the store security or other staff, and there is nothing, realistically, that can be done about it. Think of all the shopwatch schemes and the info they pass to each other. If it were against the law would they be able to function?

@ biggeorge, even if they involve the police, they will still refer it to RLP. I expect everyone is correct about the chance of being taken to civil court, i.e. very unlikely, but that still leaves you with the chance of a letter being seen by your mother. Perhaps a way of avoiding that would be to get your mail re-directed by royal mail. Perhaps someone else could confirm if that would be an option? I know it would cost on a monthly basis, but would be less than RLP would ask for, and could prevent any awkwardness with your family. Anyone else think this could work?

I don't think the police would bother with a crime report and number, if there was no case to answer. I would also expect RLP to be in touch.

Where I live, out of the 3 retailers you mention, only Sainsbury use contract guards. The others employ them directly.

How can you possibly guarantee that? I still remember shoplifters faces and names from 8 years ago!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if the police were going to give the store a crime number, then they are raising a crime report, which will be recorded. I would guess that what happened was their idea of restorative justice, you apologise to the store and pay for the goods taken, but they still report the crime. This may appear on a future crb check. Sorry!

Just to set some things straight, when store security ask for a NI number, it is solely for the purposes of indentification. There is no problem with giving this info. If they get other printed ID with address, then they won't be bothered about a NI number. Stores can, and do, call the police after the event. What is there to stop them? Also, they can show cctv to the police, and if they recognise the suspect, they will take a crime report and go arrest the suspect.

Why would you accept a FPN from police when you did not intend to steal? You can still opt to go to court instead of paying the fine, then it's up to the CPS to prove intentional theft. Be aware that a FPN will show on the police national computer.

This is not right, I think the police officer has made a mistake. Perhaps he has never dealt with a shoplifting incident before. The fixed penalty will not be issued by post, the time for a PND is at the time of the incident, and is instead of being charged with a crime. Your wife has been charged and fingerprinted, so either she is going to court, or the cps will throw it out. If you are lucky, it will be the latter.

Hi, retail premises are private property, and they can ban anyone they like. Some retailers will give a banning order or letter, and may ask people stopped for shoplifting to sign these, but they are not mandatory. They can and often do simply tell people that they are banned and not welcome there any more. As to will you be recognised?, well that would depend on the people who banned you, if they are still working there, and if they have a good memory. I work for a retail chain store, and I remember some people from several years ago. The cctv system may have a video printer, so they can make a still photo from that at the time. I always print photos of shoplifters, and these are attached to an incident report, and kept in a file for future reference. You could always try to change your appearance, a different hairstyle can make a huge difference. Sorry if it's not what you hoped to hear.

OP, this was a joint venture, and in RLP's own words you are jointly and severally liable. Since your friend has paid up, then RLP have no reason to pursue payment from you. Write to them and point this out.

The police officer was getting you to sign his notebook so that you could not later deny what was said. I know of one officer who always does this when he issues a PND. If you don't know, a PND is a penalty notice for disorder, and is basically an on the spot fine of £80, payable within 21 days. If you later contest the PND, then he has his notes, signed as true by you, to back him up as a true record of events. RLP are not connected to the police in any way, and the money they ask for is not a fine, it is an invoice for costs and damages. Sometimes the police will not issue a PND, satisfied that the punishment will be a bill from RLP, but the police are not familiar with civil law, and do not seem to realise that paying the bill is not mandatory. Some police officers will issue a PND regardless. As you have seen from the letters, RLP ask for a contribution toward the costs of cctv to monitor you, the operators time, security guards time and admin and management time in dealing with your wrongful act and detention etc. These costs seem to have a tentative basis in law, but have yet to be really tested in shoplifting cases. The advice on this board is usually to ignore, or to respond once, denying any liability, or maybe ask for a breakdown of the sums claimed. It has also been said that a case from Boots is continuing to litigation. I can state that RLP are asking for video evidence to be retained, in case they need it. Your legal knowledge, and your mother's, will probably have no relevance.

This was meant to convey that if ID is witheld until police arrive, then they will give that info to the victim, if they are satisfied that a crime has taken place. If someone has stolen, then it may be better to give ID and possibly avoid police attention and a possible PND.

Your friend is right in the first part, but wrong in the second. If details are refused, they will have to call the police. The victim, i.e., the store, are allowed to have the info for the precise purpose to pursue civil action. His advice therefore, is pretty poor, unless you have not stolen anything. If you have stolen something, then just give them the details/ proof of ID. You will get referred to RLP, but they may not call the police. If the police are involved, you may end up with a PND costing you £80, and then still be referred to RLP.

The national retailer I work for has tracked people twice recently, via their bank card details. The most recent one was a female who stole 3 voile curtains, leaving the empty packages on the shelf. This was a simple matter to track, firstly via cctv, which showed her removing the items and then shoving them into her bag. She then selected a couple of small items, which she paid for using a card, and also got £10 cashback! The card details were tracked by head office, and passed on to police locally. The value of items stolen was £27.

Although this has similarities to the process used by RLP, i.e. sending invoices, it will be about a different area of law. It is interesting that the article states that no evidence was produced on behalf of the copyright owners. Presumably, if this had been presented, the cases could have gone ahead. The above makes me wonder why RLP do not proceed to court for shoplifting cases, as they must be able to get cctv evidence of the majority of incidents. If the cctv is complete, and captures selection, concealment etc., then it would be irrefutable surely? Could it be that they know they would win, but would not get anything like the sums of money they ask for? Any opinions?

Did the police view the cctv? Surely this would show that you were not deliberately concealing items? Ask for a copy of the cctv, you will need to submit a subject access request asap, the cost is £10 maximum.

Stop worrying, you are all done and dusted! All they were after was the money, and you paid up! so it's finished. They will have added you to their "database", but if you do a search on ask.co.uk, for pre-employment screening, you will get through 20 pages without finding Cireco, which is the name of their screening company. The police, if they were even informed, were not involved. The worst case scenario is that they would record your name locally, not on the police national computer, and they would only find that again if you done something else in the future. This would also come up if you were a victim of crime, but it isn't going to have any adverse effects if you do not offend again in future. Somehow, I know that you will never do anything like this again, lol. So, relax, breathe, relax, breathe, you are all done with this, so put it all behind you. ETA, regarding cctv, this is routinely discarded after 1 month, and will only be kept for a specific purpose, such as a case where police are going to prosecute, and then it will usually be surrendered to the police. Tkmaxx may keep it for a time, for identification purposes if they do not have a still photo facility on their system, but this is unlikely.

They allowed you to pay, guess it's done and dusted. Anything else, ignore.

This can't be anything to do with RLP's database, they claim it is searchable to their clients, but I think it is just bunkum. In any case, the OP's employer would have to pay for a search, and they would have no reason to after taking on a christmas temp. My employer is a client of RLP, and they do not check out potential employees via their database, and yes, they take on christmas temps, and even keep a couple on each year.

There is some confusion here. The security guards work for a security company, which provides guards under contract to TKMaxx. They are nothing to do with RLP, who are a company who sends demands for costs to anyone caught shoplifting. The only way your employer can know about the incident, is if the security guard or another employee of TKMaxx tells them, either directly, or via a secure website which is part of the local shopwatch scheme. The guards may have passed details of the incident to the police, but as they were not called at the time, and assuming you are not known to the police, it is very unlikely that they would take any action.

Hi, lets see if I can answer some of your comments here. The reason they have said you took an item valued at £20 is, I assume, because the value of the original perfume item, with the "free" toy, was £20, correct? They got that back, so would have been able to sell that item for £20, unless you greatly damaged the package. The value of the theft was still the total value of the item. Your employer did not receive a police report, no way! What is much more likely is that your local shopsafe / shopwatch / townlink scheme has a secure website where photos and incident reports are submitted, so that they can be seen by all members of the scheme. They may even have been alerted by security at TKMaxx, that there was an incident of particular interest to them. Of course, it could have been sent directly by TKMaxx. On the subject of the Data Protection Act, this covers the processing and sharing of data, and I'm sorry to tell you that the prevention and detection of crime are legitimate reasons. On a more positive note, the police were not called to deal with the incident, so there will be no police action.

You are correct in your assertion that the police must be called to make the citizens arrest lawful, however, security guards will often request that you accompany them to the office or holding room, so this would not be a citizens arrest, merely a request. To make a citizens arrest, the guard or other person, must tell you that you are under arrest. This does not necessarily include physical contact, but it can be used if a person refuses to comply and tries to leave. Also worth noting, you cannot be forced to go anywhere with the guard, but you would have to remain where you are until police arrive. As to civil recovery, this is to do with civil law, and is separate from the arrest, which is criminal law. I guess you could raise a civil suit against someone for unlawful arrest and detention, if they told you you were under arrest and then police were not called, but I wouldn't like to gamble on the outcome if they could show that you were in fact stealing.

Sorry, but it is you who is totally incorrect, as a google search will show you. I believe the wording is "reasonable suspicion that a theft has taken place", and it is not practical for the arrest to be made by a police officer, i.e., the person will have absconded. Theft is theft, regardless of value, and is indictable. I believe the maximum penalty is 7 years in prison. Everyone knows this is not going to happen for a low value theft, but it is still the maximum penalty allowed by law.

It is not necessary for you to sign anything, all they need is your details and proof of ID. The civil recovery paperwork can be filled in later, then phoned in to RLP, and followed up by post. I would be surprised if they, RLP, take this on, being such a low amount in value, but that will depend on the lower limit set by TKMaxx. The guards do not want you to pay for the goods, they probably have civil recovery targets, or a regional league table, where they want to get as many civil recoveries as possible. The police will not be interested, I'm sure, as the value is too low. As for other stores, they may send a photo to stores in the region, but it would be down to the memory of a security guard having seen the photo, to then recognise you going in there. Unlikely.