Civil Procedure Rules

[nitecard]

My partner was shopping in TKM, she had made 3 purchases and made a couple of returns. The shoes she bought were marked at £10, the shoes had been reduced and she had attempted to peel back the label to see what the old price had been.

 

As she left a security guard approached her and accused her of switching labels, to cut a long story short, the police were called, she was arrested and the first I knew about this was when 5 uniformed police officers arrived to search our house !

 

The security guard was asked if he had cctv of her switching labels - he did not.

 

She was not allowed to call me and the first time I spoke to her was at 20 past midnight when she was allowed to leave.

 

She was bailed to appear at the police station in December, she was not charged.

 

Today a letter arrived from Retail Loss Prevention demanding £137.50 ! It claimed as she had commited a wrongdoing she had been traspassing and claimed expenses, as she had made 3 valid purchases how can this be true?

 

Also they said that she returns lots of product, this is true, she buys lots there and takes back what she doesn't like/want - this is within the TKM policy.

 

My partner has an impecable character and has never been in trouble with the police.

 

Any comments gratefully received.

[nitecard]

My partner was shopping in TKM, she had made 3 purchases and made a couple of returns. The shoes she bought were marked at £10, the shoes had been reduced and she had attempted to peel back the label to see what the old price had been.

 

As she left a security guard approached her and accused her of switching labels, to cut a long story short, the police were called, she was arrested and the first I knew about this was when 5 uniformed police officers arrived to search our house !

 

The security guard was asked if he had cctv of her switching labels - he did not.

 

She was not allowed to call me and the first time I spoke to her was at 20 past midnight when she was allowed to leave.

 

She was bailed to appear at the police station in December, she was not charged.

 

Today a letter arrived from Retail Loss Prevention demanding £137.50 ! It claimed as she had commited a wrongdoing she had been traspassing and claimed expenses, as she had made 3 valid purchases how can this be true?

 

Also they said that she returns lots of product, this is true, she buys lots there and takes back what she doesn't like/want - this is within the TKM policy.

 

My partner has an impecable character and has never been in trouble with the police.

 

Any comments gratefully received.

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome to the site.

Recently there has been a couple of threads concerning issues you speak of,although not to this extent.

It seems that TKM suffer frequently from the practices of price ticket swapping so it is something they take seriously .

The response by the store and the Police in your partners case seems quite extraordinary and suggests that there was a belief that this was organised theft on a bigger scale than eventually was found(or not found as the case was to show)

Many stores now clearly advertise that it is their policy to pursue recovery of losses through the courts and this of course includes any costs associated with that process that they have to sustain.

One of the previous postings on this subject was from an ex TXM employee might be an idea to ask them a few questions.

Your partner should have been given the right to have someone informed of her arrest once she was taken into custody,however as they planned to search your house they could claim it could have predjudiced their investigations if you had been forewarned.

It all seems rather heavy handed based on the info you have given here.

Have they given a breakdown of the costs they are claiming?

Has the demand come through TKM or its solicitors ?

[ForestChav]

Hmm, this sounds strikingly like another thread.

[nitecard]

Hi MArtin

 

Thanks for your quick reply.

 

The demand has come from a firm called "Retail Loss Prevention"

 

Interestingly it is only claiming costs with regards to staff, management and security costs not losses, have you seen the film 'Brazil"? where you paid for your own interogation!!

 

Heavy handed to say the least.

 

Do you have a link to the ex TKM employee?

 

Thanks again.

[Bookworm]

But she didn't "commit a wrongdoing" if the police didn't charge her, or at least, the police decided that there was insufficient evidence, therefore RLP can't ask her to pay! :-?

 

Can you imagine the money-making scheme? Stop someone with or without reason every few minutes, examine ticket, get their details, then bill them for inconveniencing them?

[Michael Browne]

Any 'loss/expenses' is entirely their own doing.

 

Did they allow your partner to keep the goods?

[MARTIN3030]

Hi the user is; Giveitback

 

Unfortunately last activity was in September but you could try a pm.

Given that TKM were not able to establish that an offence had been committed,and neither was the Police I cant really see how they can have proper grounds to demand any money.

I would reply to their letter telling them so.

The basis of this is that they cannot clearly demonstrate that you were responsible for any loss.The costs they claim to have incurred by investigating a suspected or potential loss should not have to be borne by you.

The onus is on them to prove you caused them a loss which warranted the measures they took.

In this case it seems their action was Unwarranted.

Send also a letter to their head office warning them that any attempts to enforce their charges on you will bring about a complaint to your local trading standards.

 

 

As they also clearly have your personal details it would do no harm to send them a section 10 notice under the data protection act.

This requires them to refrain from processing your data without your permission.

Non compliance can involve a county court order to force them to comply.

I am just telling you this now in case they decide to pass it on to a dca for collection.

Better to be prepared early.

[nitecard]

She was able to keep the goods apart from the shoes in question.

 

Interestingly, she returned a shirt which I had bought on my card and they credited her card ! - lax till policy or what ??!!

[nitecard]

Interestingly, she returned a shirt which I had bought on my card and they credited her card ! - lax till policy or what ??!!

 

We have written pretty much what you have suggested, we did consider a counterclaim, but at this stage do not want to antagonise too much.

 

My partner is a jounalist with friends at the Daily Mail - as soon as the dust has settled we will try to get a nice article done on this story.

[ScarletPimpernel]

This thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/111252-debenhams-dca.html?highlight=debenhams#post1087129 shows how to deal with RPL.

[MARTIN3030]

A counterclaim would certainly be justified but to be legally enforceable of course it would have to be County Court.

If it got heavy I would certainly consider doing a small claims for damages on an N1 any data protection issues could be tied in with it.

Of course you would need to show that you have suffered by all this......which quite clearly should not be too hard.

[nitecard]

Thx Scarlet - it made very interesting reading - I'll keep you posted.

[Lara blues]

Hmm, this sounds strikingly like another thread.

 

Well, it is slightly similar to what happened to me. I am very greateful for The replies and comments I gathered from here. I can say I was lucky compared to nitecard´s story. In my case, Tk maxx called the police, they told them they had to deal with me, soon after two police officers arrived and the security guard told them, the shop was already dealing with this.It all took around an hour. I was banned from the shop and told I would receive a letter from RLP, the two police officers offered to the shop come to my place later to verify my address the security guard told them it wasn´t necessary as my landlord confirmed over the phone my address.Anyways,The police officers did come to check my address, I can say they were very nice when they came round.

 

I think it´s been about 3 or 4 weeks now and I guess I´ll have to reply when I get RLP letters and deal with them. Soon I am returning permanently to my country and I am stressing over leaving that issue unsolved.

 

When did this happened? How long did it take her to receive the letter?Because my issue was three or four weeks ago and I still haven´t received anything from RLP.

[Guest Gertie100]

Emmmm Lara this is not similar to what happened to you :

You delibrately swapped labels around to purchase an item at a cheaper price.

The OP oh's was wrongly accused of stealing without proof.

 

As per Forestchav, very odd things happening at TK Maxx lately - wonder if it was the same branch?

[Lara blues]

Emmmm Lara this is not similar to what happened to you :

You delibrately swapped labels around to purchase an item at a cheaper price.

The OP oh's was wrongly accused of stealing without proof.

 

As per Forestchav, very odd things happening at TK Maxx lately - wonder if it was the same branch?

 

 

GERTIE I appreciate your remarkable comment to me. I said SLIGHTY similar in the sense it happened at tk maxx. Sorry

[make them aktiv runners]

Anyone else getthe impresion that 2 posters onthis thread are linked?

[ForestChav]

Anyone else getthe impresion that 2 posters onthis thread are linked?

Twins separated at birth, probably.

[Lara blues]

Twins separated at birth, probably.

make them aktiv runners, Very funny you two eh.

[nitecard]

I posted the original.

 

Our experiences are not related to any others.

 

RLP wrote to us within a week.

 

We responded with the facts, told them that we were not trespassing as we had bought goods legally and that my partner was released without charge,

we ended the letter by saying that we considered our letter to be the end to the matter, so far nothing else from them ........ yet !

 

I am sorry Lara, but if you got caught switching labels then you have no argument.

 

The police say they will return (most) of te things they took from us, but have not yet.

 

We suspect that they consider her to be a criminal mastermind, seriously though, it is very worrying, what if they put some trumped up charge against her? and she ends up in court.

 

Aktiv and forestchav - be nice !!

[Lara blues]

You are right, I have no argument other than to say I never did anything like that before and that I regret doing it. It seems that regrets, shame and repentance don´t count in here and I respect that. I was lucky that the police did not arrest me, no pictures taken, fingerprints or anything.

 

I understand the stress you might be experiencing but if your girlfriend hasn´t done anything wrong then I am sure it will all be resolved positively. Wish you the best.

[make them aktiv runners]

Nitecard, perhaps you could give Lara the telephone number of RLP, so she can clear up before leaving the country.

 

Lara, an actual crime is just that, no-one on here will condone such actions.

[blueskies]

I have replied to your PM Lara. I advise you to stop posting in this users thread as I can see the discussion deteriorating into a racist argument the the OP in this case doesn't need.

 

MTAR and ForestChav I hope you can allow this to pass without further comment on nitecard's thread. Thanks

[make them aktiv runners]

Sorry Blue. I just wanted to make sure there was not the convenient connection that appeared to be there. There was no chance of a racist argument from me as I had read the other thread, and my last post simply addressed the concerns Lara had raised on her thread.

 

As far as Nitecard's concerned, I think there as already been enough information provided to ensure that this is buried. Keep us posted though Nitecard in case you get any further grief.

[nitecard]

Now it's getting worrying.

 

We got another letter from RLP - they claim that they have CCTV footage of my partner changing the price label, and this simply isn't true.

 

We have written back telling them that we will not discuss the facts with them as they are merely trying to obtain money for their client by civil means.

 

They also claim she was stopped outside the store, this too is incorrect as she was stopped inside.

 

What next ???