Valproate banned without the pregnancy prevention programme READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/valproate-banned-without-the-pregnancy-prevention-programme

Hi I am looking for some advice/information on behalf of my son. He has a small window cleaning business. He has also had learning difficulties all of his life, but gets by with a little (lot really!) of help from us. Every so often I check his bank account (Yes, I have his full knowledge and consent) to try and make sure he is managing his money OK and check for 'odd' transactions as he is quite susceptible to being [problem]med, basically he will sign up for anything anybody tells him to. I recently noticed a Direct Debit for £58.00 to a company called RCP Media. I asked him about this and he told me he had been telephoned by this company a couple of months ago. They claimed to be working closely and tirelessly with various crime prevention agencies and were looking for "honest" business's like his to advertise in their "Widely distributed" magazine. They wrapped him around their little finger and he 'jumped' at the chance to have an advert with such a distinguished magazine, particularly as being in this magazine would show he is a trusted business and the vulnerable and elderly would be confident in using his services. Shortly after this phone call (a few days) they sent him an email showing his 'advert' with a price tag of £174.00. He is unable to find this email (probably deleted knowing him) but the gist of the email was: This is your advert, the fee is £174 to be paid within 14 days (no exceptions). If you want to change the advert (free of charge) reply to the email stating your requirements. Additionally, whilst we can change the advert before print, you are now obligated under contract and the advert can't be cancelled and must be paid for. He explained he could not afford that amount (this is true, he lives (much to our annoyance) off his small overdraft). They agreed on a three month payment plan. He has paid twice so far with the third payment overdue. I was going to telephone them today and pay the outstanding amount, but decided to look (or try to) further into this. I have found a couple of sites that seem related and they all claim this is a [problem]. I have asked around, he has also asked many of his customers, if they have ever seen this magazine and specifically his advert and nobody has ever heard of or seen this magazine. They sent him a copy to show his advert was live. I can see this magazine on their website, minus his advert. So it seems the only advert for his business is in the only magazine that exists (his copy). Alarm bells are doing overtime. I think this is a [problem]. They make it plain on the back of their invoice that this MUST be paid. Late fees of £35 will be added if not paid on time. I was wondering if anybody else reading this has had any dealings with this company or knows anything about this company. I am not comfortable with this, but at the same time, if he "HAS" to pay this or end up with CCJ or other problems I'd rather not allow it go that far. I just feel mad at him and even more mad with this company who seem on the face of it very genuine, but with no sign of this advert and their pushy tactics I think there is more to this. Sorry for the lengthy post and hopefully somebody will know something about this business. The website can be googled. Search for RCP Regional Crime Prevention. Looks like a genuine site, but I guess that's the idea. https://www.rcpcrime.com/home https://twitter.com/RCPCRIME1 https://www.facebook.com/rcpmagazine/ Thanks.

See attachment for full judgment A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K Approved Judgment 09.05.12.pdf

Well it looks like that there is a another company which is now offering Retail Loss Prevention. It is very confusing. I wonder if they are part of Jackie's Retail Loss Prevention company or whether they are independent. Maybe Jackie's Retail Loss Prevention company is merely operating on a franchise from the parent company SINSO - http://sinsoretailsupport.com/?utm_expid=94136120-1.KQXYxP2ZRlmLrRrg2_kZaw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fsinsoretailsupport.com%2Floss-prevention http://sinsoretailsupport.com/loss-prevention#find-out-more

In August of this year I was in TKMax when I was asked by a retail loss investigator to go into a private room. Whilst in the room I was accused of buying an item and taking another item back and of swapping prices. The swapping of prices was due to it be a childs toy that had been in the basket with other items and the price tag had come off. I notice that TKMax openly sell seconds and do not always tell the customer. I returned a pair of jeans and t shirt (both definitely TKmax items) that were faulty or had become faulty I found a receipt in a bag I assumed that for them as the receipt is not itemised of course I couldn't be sure, I explained to them that a mistake may of happened and offered to pay in full for any amount owing, they refused this and called the police even though I had childcare issues at home, they were adamant that I stayed. The police arrived and I offered to attend the station the next day. I attended the police station and asked to be represented by the duty lawyer. on being interviewed by the police I explained to them that what had happened had been a mistake and the solicitor recommended that I take a caution thus not having to attend court, I didn't want this to happen for fear of this case being in the local newspaper and my employer finding out so I had no choice but to accept a simple caution. I have never had a monetary refund off TKMax only a credit note to get to choose something else. TKMax have taken back the items that I bought and received payment for them. I have since received a letter from RLP demanding £170.00 I myself have just had a serious stroke and recovering from this I have phoned RLP and explained the situation and need more time to recover and seek legal advice, I also asked the person on the phone for a full break down of the cost which he refused saying that they would only send this to a solicitor. A week later I receive another letter say that they would give me until the 19th of September and that they don't have to provide me with a break down of the costs as this is acceptable by law. Please help as Iam not sure what to do next and both letters have stated that TKMax may opt to take me to court. Im feeling really low as it is at the moment due to the Stroke and this is adding a great deal of stress. Do I write to TKMax themselves and explain the situation ?

Not sure if I have posted in the right place! Just found a letter from this company that have charged my elderly mother £121 for nuisance call prevention (she bought a little box from a shop and couldn't get it to work-related so called the helpline) . It doesn't work!!! I have already added her to the free Service- is it TPS? Are they [problematic]? What rights do we have to get a refund? Funnily enough they aren't answering their phone!!!! Many thanks

The Consumer Action Group will never condone theft in any way and we feel that all alleged acts of shoplifting be dealt with by the relevant people. The police. If a store fails to get the police involved then that should be the end of the matter. If goods stolen are not fit for resale, the store should seek compensation for the loss of the goods. If they choose not to then that is their choice.. Many items stolen are low value so to seek the value of the goods through the courts is not cost effective to the store so what do they do? They pass the responsibility to a civil recovery company. One such Company is Retail Loss Prevention. One Cagger, aged 17 was detained by security staff at Primark for shoplifting. The goods were recovered fit for resale so no loss was incurred by Primark. After receiving the usual letters from Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) which the Cagger ignored, what followed can only beggar belief. RLP wrote to this persons parents. The thread is HERE The post containing the letter is HERE This is a first for CAG and further scrutiny is required. This letter clearly states: “Under the provisions of the DPA we are required to judge whether the juvenile fully understands the implications of this action and the potential consequences. In order to ensure we have considered all aspects and been fully compliant, we now write to you to advise you on the incident.” This requires examination. What steps did RLP take to ensure that they followed the Data Protection Act. The Cagger is 17 so 'should' understand the implications. Are RLP saying that they believe this person hasn't the mental capacity to judge for themselves the implications? How would they know having never had any contact with the Cagger? Is it purely because the Cagger ignored all the previous letters? Is this a cynical attempt by RLP to shame the Cagger into paying this speculative invoice? For the avoidance of doubt, in terms of capacity, it is usually presumed that an individual has capacity unless there is substantive evidence to the contrary. RLP cannot say that they have considered all aspects and been fully compliant because they have acted only on the information received from the shop staff - who are as qualified as RLP are to decide, i.e. not at all. As this is sensitive personal data, RLP would need the permission from the Cagger to write to another person. Did they have this permission? The Human Rights Act gives everyone an expectation of privacy. Did RLP consider the HRA before writing the the parents? From information gleaned from the Cagger, nothing was signed at the store so there was no permission sought to divulge sensitive personal data. There are also some serious implications for RLP if they have failed to ascertain that the Cagger does not come from a 'vulnerable' household. What checks did RLP make as to whether the family situation was stable and did not contain a history of abuse (either mental or physical). There is also the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which based upon the above letter has been ignored. The five key principles in the Act are: Every adult has the right to make his or her own decisions and must be assumed to have capacity to make them unless it is proved otherwise. A person must be given all practicable help before anyone treats them as not being able to make their own decisions. Just because an individual makes what might be seen as an unwise decision, they should not be treated as lacking capacity to make that decision. Anything done or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done in their best interests. Anything done for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms. http://www.justice.gov.uk/protecting...l-capacity-act While the above act generally refers to adults, children and young people(16/17) are also covered. These are the guidelines. http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_186484.pdf Section 12 deals with children and young people. If a juvenile is arrested by the police they are entitled to have an appropriate adult present. This does not necessarily mean the parents. Any responsible adult will do. RLP seem to have forgotten that and gone straight to the parents. If the security staff felt that the Cagger was not of a mental capacity to deal with this matter, why did they not get an appropriate adult to be present? Even in RLPs own advice/FAQs for under 18s their responsibilities are already known to them so 'if' they have ignored their own advice,where does that leave them? adviceU18.pdf Point 4 in their own document is very striking as it would seem they have gone away from their own rules. On the 15th April, I took it upon myself to contact Primark regarding this matter. I didn't identify anyone but wanted them to investigate this matter. What follows in their responses. Thank you for your email. I would appreciate if you could send on a copy of the letter from RLP and I will have this fully investigated. As the letter was on open forum, I copied them into the thread. What came next beggars belief. 17th April I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email. I confirm that this will now be passed onto the relevant department who will be in touch in due course. Excellent. Or so I thought. This arrived the same day. We acknowledge receipt of your email below that our client Primark has forwarded to us. We will respond in full on Tuesday 22nd April 2014 and advise you of the process agreed with the ICO with regards to Juveniles. Which department was dealing with this matter? RLP! Primark have abdicated all responsibility to RLP. Not once did they offer any explanation for their agents actions.

A friend and I were caught shoplifting on the 6th of July in a local drug store (Boots) and we live in Southern England. We are both 16 years old. At the time when we shoplifted, we stupidly took a couple of items of make-up out of their boxes and left them on the shelves. However, we never left the store holding anything. We didn't even go to the door, a security guy approached us and took us to his office. He accused us of shoplifting because we 'Had no intention of buying any of these things because we took them out of their little boxes' and he made us sign a piece of paper saying we'd shoplifted in Boots and we can't come in for the next 12 months. All items had been put back, except from two cheap items were slightly ripped and deemed unsellable. We offered to pay for these items at the scene but he said no. He called the police which was very unnecessary as she didn't do anything but shout at us. We were set free and told we would receive a Retail Loss Prevention letter. And then, three days later, we received a letter demanding £219.75. We are both obviously scared and worried about this. We first received a letter stating if we do not reply within 21 days then they will send another letter, and we didn't. So I have just received my second, and it states I have 14 days to respond. And it also states, 'We think you do not understand the full potential consequences of this letter, so given your age, you may fall under vulnerable, meaning a parent or adult will take your responsibility.' I do not want this. Me and my friend are not in a perfect financial state to just pay the money. However we do not want to be taken to court. We have had to RLP letters now and it's frightening. I wouldn't like to tell my mother about this, I'd rather deal with it myself. But - we are trying to form an argument, because we never left the store. We are just scared something will happen to us if we don't pay. What could happen?

A friend and I were caught shoplifting on the 6th of July in a local drug store (Boots) and we live in Southern England. We are both 16 years old. At the time when we shoplifted, we stupidly took a couple of items of make-up out of their boxes and left them on the shelves. We stupidly put the products in a plastic bag..However, we never left the store holding anything. We didn't even go to the door, a security guy approached us and took us to his office. He accused us of shoplifting because we 'Had no intention of buying any of these things because we took them out of their little boxes' and he made us sign a piece of paper saying we'd shoplifted in Boots and we can't come in for the next 12 months. All items had been put back, except from two cheap items were slightly ripped and deemed unsellable. We offered to pay for these items at the scene but he said no. He called the police which was very unnecessary as she didn't do anything but shout at us. We were set free and told we would receive a Retail Loss Preventionicon letter. And then, three days later, we received a letter demanding £219.75. We are both obviously scared and worried about this. We first received a letter stating if we do not reply within 21 days then they will send another letter, and we didn't. So I have just received my second, and it states I have 14 days to respond. And it also states, 'We think you do not understand the full potential consequences of this letter, so given your age, you may fall under vulnerable, meaning a parent or adult will take your responsibility.' I do not want this. Me and my friend are not in a perfect financial state to just pay the money. However we do not want to be taken to court. We have had to RLPicon letters now and it's frightening. I wouldn't like to tell my mother about this, I'd rather deal with it myself. But - we are trying to form an argument, because we never left the store. We are just scared something will happen to us if we don't pay. What could happen? (Update, I wrote that when I recieved my second letter. I've just gotten my third, and it's addressed to my parent this time. It says I have a further 21 days or they will refer to the client. (Boots) and I'm seriously scared. What do they do after the third letter?)

Who the chuff are Retail Decisions UK Ltd and HNC Software Inc?

I need some advice on what to do about my current situation. On Thursday I was caught walking out of a Primark store with some items with a total value of £22. I know fully how wrong my actions were and am disgusted in myself at was has happened so please I'm just asking for some advice not judgement on my stupid mistakes. I was taken in by the security guards at Primark and because in 9 days I am going to be turning 18 the female security guard said that she wasn't going to be phoning the police as I had my provisional driving license on me so she just took my details down, at this point I began to cry and she said to me that there was nothing to worry about and that all she was going to do was ban me from the store for a 12 month period and that I would be fined by a company called RLP, she said that there would be no police involvement and that I would not receive a criminal record. I was then allowed to leave the store. Whilst I was in there she mentioned about the fine and said she didn't know how much the fine would be and that I would have to pay it with in a certain amount of days, and she gave me a piece of paper with a number to phone to arrange to pay the fine in instalments. Up until now I have been fine with the fact that I will have to pay the fine to RLP to get this over and done with. however since Thursday I have been researching more in to RLP and what other people have had to say about them and now I am wondering whether I should still pay them the fine or not, as I've read a lot about people saying that they have no right as such to demand large sums of money from people?. I am still awaiting the letter from them and to be quite honest, I am dreading receiving it as I am not planning on telling my mother about this situation so am scared that the letter will come through the post and it will be obvious to her from the outside of the letter and if I continue to ignore their demands then I will get more and more letters come through, has anyone received a letter that knows what it looks like? It would be most appreciated if someone could help me and give me advice on what to do in my current situation then that would be most appreciated!!

Compare and contrast with http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?356933-Oxford-Retail-Loss-Prevention-A-Retailer-JudgmentDebenhams v Gee, transcript of hearing.pdf DEBE1105APP.pdf

Don't believe me? Hear it for yourself [video=youtube;LibdhY-ARlo]

Denis MacShane http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/defamation/120626/pm/120626s01.htm