Civil Procedure Rules

[PI Guy]

yes

[nitecard]

So RLP can safely make fraudulent claims in order to coerce people into paying ?

[Zamzara]

Without prejudice only means anything if the letter is an attempt at negotiating.

 

But I doubt a claim for £200 has much basis anyway unless you can prove a contractual basis for it, or if they have committed a tort.

[counsellor]

Well done nitecard, I'm glad to hear that its all sorted and you can now get on with your life. I think TK Maxx is so wrong and hopefully they'll get theirs. They know that the civil recovery is so much more than the cost of the item so its not in their interest to change their labels. Now the cashiers are in on the act, if you go to the cashiers and they think the price is wrong instead of checking the price of the item they put it through the till and then call the S/O, so I'm wondering if this is what TK Maxx wants their staff to do.

[emsgeorge]

Now the cashiers are in on the act, if you go to the cashiers and they think the price is wrong instead of checking the price of the item they put it through the till and then call the S/O, so I'm wondering if this is what TK Maxx wants their staff to do.

 

Woah there - Since the introduction of the Fraud act, there is no need for the sale to actually go through, so what is the point of letting it ?. Once the labels have been swapped, and there has been some attempt to decieve (IE attempt to pay) then the offence is complete.

 

Since this thread comes up as the first couple of hits on google, I hope you have some solid evidence to back your claims up, im sure tk maxx will see this thread sooner or later !

[nitecard]

I must admit I find it unlikely that cashiers are advised to behave in this way.

 

Regarding our particular problem, I am going to try to arrange to see the manager of the TKM in question, the overzealous, lying S/O has caused us a lot of stress, try having 5 uniformed police officers arriving unannounced to search your home.

 

Going to try to see the manager this week so will keep you posted.

[counsellor]

Woah there - Since the introduction of the Fraud act, there is no need for the sale to actually go through, so what is the point of letting it ?. Once the labels have been swapped, and there has been some attempt to decieve (IE attempt to pay) then the offence is complete.

 

Since this thread comes up as the first couple of hits on google, I hope you have some solid evidence to back your claims up, im sure tk maxx will see this thread sooner or later !

 

Well I certainly hope that TK Maxx is reading this! TK Maxx supposely has a problem with people switching their tags but they dont do anything about it. Why? Well they dont actually suffer any loss, they get the item back and they get up to up to £250 per item, so if they 'catch 10 people per day = £2500 and in a year? you do the maths! I dont think they are actually interested in preventing loss. Crime actually pays - the retailers and Retail loss prevention and such companies. Its a million dollar industry. I wonder if I were to pop down to company house and have at look at their accounts for the last year how much of that comes from civil recovery. I'm not saying that people who steal shouldnt be punished but since most people who do are ill (on drugs etc) and therefore vulnerable or young then instead of lining the pockets of retailers it should be ploughed back in treatment programmes. I think its unethical, but most people dont really care about the problems of the 'underbelly' of society and thats why retailers can get away with it.

 

Emsgeorge I said I wonder if TK maxx encourages their staff to do this. Obviously I dont know that they do but money corrupts and when companies have an avenue for profit then they want to keep that profit. maybe they dont directly tell their staff to do this but their S/D may have targets which means that they may bend the rules a little to meet those targets, in the normal course of their business they already have to pay security staff, but because of the profits involved may employ more, as more S/D = more civil recovery = more profits and they justify civil recovery for their security costs this way. so the innocent and the not so innocent are caught up as we have been reading.

 

And what does RLP do with the data they collect? On their website they say that they advise employers on vetting future employees. does that mean that employers use their database to vet employees? this is dangerous as someone who is innocent could be on that database because of what we have mentioned above and could have a slur on their character as there is the presumption of guilt.

 

I think that most people who shop in tk maxx are poor people looking for a bargain who dont have the wherewhittal or the nous to fight and who probably dont understand all the implications. This is another example of a society where justice hangs in the favours of the haves.

[emsgeorge]

Crime actually pays - the retailers and Retail loss prevention and such companies

 

Lets do some sums:

 

TK Maxx lost a total of £18.6 MILLION last year due to stock loss.

Factor in 2 x SD per store x 130 stores @ £20,000 per store.

 

Confirmed this morning with my collegue, who works for them.

 

Think they make all this money back from RLP each year ?. What about camera systems, Tagging systems etc, ongoing maintenance etc.

 

Without people swapping labels, stealing stuff etc, they wouldnt have to have any of this.

 

Any more ill thought out comments ?

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

I agree with emsgeorge poor old TK Maxx all that loss,

However they really are not helping themselves when they

cover an original price with a sales ticket, so one can't make

a comaparision.

Neither can shoppers feel safe it they try to con people,

by claiming losses and using RLP

 

p.s. emsgeorge I've just wondered how your "Friend" gained this

sensitive Just as you hpeened to to be on line or are you one in the same.

[emsgeorge]

Nope, i work for Debenhams LP.

 

Wish I worked for TK Maxx though, they spend a LOT more than us on loss prevention.

[PI Guy]

they don't spend a lot on their so-called investigators What will you find at Tk Maxx? - TK Maxx Careers

 

 

Job Code FY06S2279 Job Title Loss Prevention Investigator Opportunities City North England Salary up to £17,000 Description As a Loss Prevention Investigator you will be responsible for investigating any areas of loss within a store. You will be expected to understand and influence operational compliance, build partnerships with your management colleagues, and resolve internal and external dishonesty thereby reducing shrinkage and maximise profits.

 

You will achieve this by implementing effective shrinkage reduction strategies and support and promote company shrink programmes. Requirements We are happy to provide training to the successful applicant and so management experience is not a must. The successful individual will have an understanding of the Loss Prevention function within a retail business.

 

They will be great with people, highly motivated and have a high level of integrity.

[nitecard]

I am currently in talks with T K MAxx customer service and there is to be an investigation.

 

I have just spoken to the district LPI manager and he tells me that last year their losses ran to £24M - still no reason to harass respectable innocent people!

[nitecard]

Finally had a response for RLP, reading this it is a standard letter which does not address any points raised in my previous letter to them - reading these two paragraphs, they really are trying to browbeat you into paying.

 

I especially like the part "Having considered all the information provided by you, we would inform you it has no legal basis as a defence to our client's claim and does not extinguish your liability" - how about being innocent of any wrongdoing???

 

Excerpt from latest RLP letter:

 

 

 

As previously highlighted, under the civil law, if liability is established, damages will be awarded. These damages will be assessed in accordance with established civil law principles and will not be reduced because of any 'mitigating circumstances'.

 

Having considered all the information provided by you, we would inform you it has no legal basis as a defence to our client's claim and does not extinguish your liability, nor does it negate the fact that our client has suffered loss as a result of your actions. Should this case proceed to the civil Court and we have to issue a claim for Summary Judgement, based on the fact your defence has no legal basis and therefore no likelihood of success. >>>>>>

 

They are now claiming loss - when previously they had not - this considering they still have the shoes my partner paid for!

 

Whoever compared them to wheelclampers is not far wrong!

[counsellor]

emgeorge, I dont understand why you are getting personal, my comments are not ill thought out. in the normal course of their business retailers have to pay the cost of CCTV etc, you can say that if people didnt swap labels etc then they wouldnt have to, but society is what it is and we are after humans and every one of us at some point in our lives makes a mistake. Imagine if everyone accused of a crime falsely or not had to pay the police?

My general opinion of S/D is what a fantastic profession. When you look back on your life you can say what an upstanding moral member of society you had been and what a great contribution you made to humanity.

[Conniff]

since most people who do are ill (on drugs etc) and therefore vulnerable or young then instead of lining the pockets of retailers it should be ploughed back in treatment programmes. I think its unethical, but most people dont really care about the problems of the 'underbelly' of society and thats why retailers can get away with it.

 

 

Judges believe that rubbish as well that's why so many get away unpunished.

I don't care much for the 'underbelly' of society either.

[hellohello]

Dear All

Just thought I'd update you on my dilemma. I received a letter of apology along with gift voucher for my trouble - an over zealous security guard I'm told!!!! Not leaving it there however, I intend to take legal advice.

[PI Guy]

good work

[make them aktiv runners]

It is not a shop that I tend to use often. I must admit though, I innocently let my children try on clothes (on top of existing clothes) or hold the clothes against them to check size. I often notice "supposed" hidden customers (security) watching me, which I find rather amusing as I have never taken anything in my life and have no intentions of doing so. Still I must admit that I am now put off buying anything from TKMAXX.

[nitecard]

Whereas my situation continues - trying to call RLPs bluff, have told them that we are preparing for court and ask them to either repeat their fraudulent allegations in a letter with 'without prejudice' omitted or for their permission to use their without prejudice mail in court.

 

Also asked why they refuse to provide the evidence they claim to have.

 

I have noticed that they will not answer points raised in letters they merely send standard letters.

[nitecard]

We have finally had a reply from TKM, "they are not satisfied and will continue with civil action" - don't beleive it!

 

Can anyone help with this - under Civil Procedure Rules:

 

"If no response is received by the claimant within the period of 28 days (or such other period as has been agreed between the parties), the claimant shall be entitled to commence proceedings without further compliance with this Protocol."

 

It also states: "The claimant shall provide a response to any counterclaim within the equivalent period allowed to the defendant to respond to the letter of claim under paragraph 4.3.1 above."

 

RLP wanted 21 days, we have not had a response to our letter dated 17 January 2008, does this have a bearing??

 

Our last letter was asking for evidence etc and allegations reiterated in a letter not bearing "without prejudice"

[nitecard]

We have a long running dispute with TKMaxx and Retail Loss Prevention.

 

Not to go over old ground, but basically the CPS have decided there is no case to answer but TKM have decided to proceed with their civil action.

 

Can someone help with this:

 

Civil Procedure rules states:

 

"If no response is received by the claimant within the period of 28 days (or such other period as has been agreed between the parties), the claimant shall be entitled to commence proceedings without further compliance with this Protocol."

 

It also states: "The claimant shall provide a response to any counterclaim within the equivalent period allowed to the defendant to respond to the letter of claim under paragraph 4.3.1 above."

 

RLP wanted 21 days, we have not had a response to our last (of a series of) letter dated 17 January 2008, does this have a bearing??

 

We have also asked on several occasions for them to provide the evidence they claim to have they have yet to provide anything at all.

 

Thanks in advance.

[buzby]

Civil actions are pretty lax - any stated timings can be varied by the judge agreeing that for whatever reason, it could not be done within the original timeframe (unlike criminal cases). I can only speak for the process in Scotland, but here RLP usually go for a value, and then raise a small claims action to recover these costs ('civil recovery') from the alleged miscreant.

[Guest grizzleguts]

I am sure you should ask for a CPR 18, which is a request for more information, as per the charges, get you solicitor, or contact the court for advice

[nitecard]

we have not received any summons, just letters threatening court action.

[Bookworm]

3 threads merged, please stay on the one thread, it makes things easier to follow.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but the claimant being RLP, unless I am mistaken, they have gone well over 28 days before starting court action (if they do) since the time of the alleged incident and further communications. As for counterclaim, you can't have one of they haven't started legal proceedings, so I am even more confused.

 

To clarify: The claimant must allow a certain period of time to try and settle a dispute without resorting to court action. That acceptable period of time is defined as 1 month from first contacting the defendant to request payment of the monies due. Once the month is gone, the claimant can then initiate court proceedings without fear of the judge deeming them vexatious (as regards timescales anyway).

 

You should respond to them in with something on the lines of: "any action you may contemplate will be vigorously defended". In other words, "bring it on!"