Civil Procedure Rules

[make them aktiv runners]

As you are certain they are bluffing, ask them to either provide you a copy of their evidenceor go away. If they refuse then any action they take via the civil courts is not going to look too good when you demand a copy via civil procedure rules.

[nitecard]

We have already asked them to provide the cctv footage and await their response.

[essexbas]

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 ???

 

 

Sorry to hear about what is happening to you and your OH, what annoys me is that if the police took dna and finger prints when your OH is innocent it will not be removed from the database.

Also, if l have followed the thread correctly, your OH has not been charged, and is bailed to return in Dec, therefore if the shop has CCTV showing switching of the labels, as they claim, l thought they would have passed this to police and upon returning to answer bail charges may be brought if the CPS felt the evidence was strong enough, thus giving the shop a quicker way to re-claim alleged losses if found gulity in the court of law.

 

Please stay strong, support each other and don't let this get you down to much, keep fighting for your rights

 

Good luck

 

EssexBas

[nitecard]

Thanks for your best wishes Essexbas.

 

The TKM in question might be 20 miles east of you !!

[mata]

Again sorry to hear this.

 

Just a thought, if she had paid for the shoes and she could have paid the reduced price or the higher price before reduction. You will to confirm what was the selling price at that time and compare what she had paid or tkmax should provide the price at that time.

 

If they have the cctv footage, they must provide evidence of what price she exchanged to.

 

I would reconsider myself going to this kind of places.

[ForestChav]

This is becoming quite sad now.

[hellohello]

Dear All

I am looking for some advise. I was in TKM over one week ago. I picked up a bath product contained in a clear protective plastic bag. There were two prices on the product, one on the inside of the protective bag showing £5.99 and one stuck to the outside showing £7.99. I searched through the shelves for another product and found one it showed the price as £5.99 but as the box of this item was a bit bashed, I felt confident in swapping them around. I did not make any attempt to hide what I was doing as I didn't consider for a minute that there was anything untoward. After paying for the items, I was stopped as I left the checkout and asked to accompany the security to a room on the upper floor. I asked if I should have someone accompanying me, but was told 'no, we just want a little chat'. They informed me that they had observed me on CCTV changing labels, I did not deny this and explained the situation. They asked for my name and address and issued me with a barring notice (I was also informed at that time that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on)and the item was confiscated. I was left for a few minutes alone with the female member of staff, who informed me I would receive a fine, she also said 'I shouldn't tell you this, but it's like the car park fines, just ignore it'. I didn't think to ask what she meant as I was terrified and felt totally humiliated and quite sick at what was happening to me, I have now received a notice asking for £70 for costs as I was trespassing. The police were not involved and no suggestion of involving them was made. What should I do now, ignore the letter or pay up. I don't honestly feel I did anything wrong, although on hindsight I maybe should have clarified the price with a member of staff. I have since gone into another branch of TKM and sought out the item in question, and yes it was only £5.99

[hellohello]

Following on from the above post, I have written to this company and informed them that as:

1 there was no police involvement

2 I was refused a witness or anyone to be present with me

3 I hadn't left the premises

4 I was not tresspassing and purchased goods

I would not be paying their costs.

[nitecard]

Yet another letter from RLP - not addressing any points from my letter, just a standard reply - now offering payment terms and even arbitration.

 

My reply:

In my previous letter I informed you of the following:

 

The witness statement referred to in your letter is entirely incorrect, said CCTV footage will bear this out.

 

The facts (to which I am prepared to attest to in court) are in complete opposition to what you have stated in your letter.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of English law, you have predetermined me guilty of a crime which I did not perpetrate, for which there is no proof and for which I have not been charged.

 

If you wish to arbitrate that is fine, I am prepared to meet at my address where you will have to provide solid evidence of any wrongdoing on my part.

 

Under Civil Procedure rules you are required to provide evidence, so please send a copy of the CCTV footage you claim to have (digital format).

 

Please respond to the points raised in this letter and not just send a standard reply.>>>>>>

 

We'll see where this gets us !!

[emsgeorge]

We use RLP at work, and having read this thread, and having had a long read through their manual:

 

The 'fine' is for doing a civil wrong, or 'tort' against the retailler. They can process for theft, criminal damage, making off without payment etc.

They send a civil demand for payment, and their paperwork then says they follow it up with court action if needed.

 

To clear up some confusion: you DONT need to leave the store for theft, let alond a ticket swap (which used to be obtainin property by deception, and is now under the fraud act - Fraud by misrepresentation). You simply need to of attempted to pay.

 

You have NO LEGAL RIGHT to have a witness present during your detention.

 

If they wanted to, peeling off labels is criminal damage at the least. If they wanted to be that pedantic, they could process you for that !!.

[nitecard]

Hi Emsgeorge

 

Thanks for your informative post.

 

I started this thread and while I don't really have sympathy for the people that got caught swapping labels, my partner merely peeled back the label to see what the previous price was - nothing too unreasonable I feel.

 

Now we have all this grief with RLP claiming trespass, when she has legally bought other items.

 

She has an unblemished character and is being made to feel like a criminal.

[emsgeorge]

EDIT: Whilst thinking about it, there is also stated case law (Tesco Vs Khular) that civil costs are claimable from the wrongdoer - unlike the private parking companies !!)

 

Theres a section in the RLP that states that they require less proof than in police cases (balance of probabilities ???)

[emsgeorge]

In your case, I would write to TK MAxx themselves, and explain the circumstances - most retaillers head offices will ask the store for the tape / dvd, and review it themselves. Theres no point in letting RLP take it to court, if tk maxx will end up with egg on its face !.

[Conniff]

Get them to use those labels which have really nasty adhesive on the back, that will stop people !.

 

They can't do that, they will loose half their income if they stop people removing or checking under labels.

[PI Guy]

This is an interesting thread. In a former life, I was a store detective and frequently dealt with shoplifters, the RLP and so on.

 

Before a member of security or store detective can detain anyone, the must see some basic things first.

 

Definition of Theft (taken from The CPS : Theft Acts, incorporating the Charging Standard

Theft, contrary to section 1 of the 1968 Act.

 

(Archbold 21-6)

The offence consists of dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Theft is an either-way offence, which carries a penalty on conviction on indictment of up to seven years imprisonment. On summary conviction it carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to the statutory maximum.

 

In order to detain SO & SD's are taught that they MUST see the following;

 

Approach, Selection, Concealment, leaving the store and offering no payment for the goods.

 

In this case the offence takes place when the SO/SD sees the switching of the label and an attempt is made to purchase the goods for the lower price.

 

The SO/SD doesn't any other evidence than his own 22 pairs of eyes to detain but obviously CCTV and other witnesses are desirable. No doubt TKMAXX will be able to provide CCTV and other evidence to back him up. Just because the police don't bother charging anyone or the CPS don't want to proceed doesn't mean that the person is not guilty and they are in the rights to commence civil proceedings to recover the cost of their investigations.

 

Now it may be that the person is innocent as they allege on this thread in which case there will be no CCTV and it will be one persons word against another and the police and indeed the CPS are very unlikely to proceed with the case. This is because they need the case to be "beyond a reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case the it needs to be "on the balance of probabilities" a much lower standard of proof. I hope that helps.

[emsgeorge]

Yes, but dont forget - its not theft, but fraud. Now 2 different acts. (fraud act 2006)

 

All you need to see now is a dishonest act - IE pulling off one label, and replacing it with another.

[PI Guy]

Yes, but dont forget - its not theft, but fraud. Now 2 different acts. (fraud act 2006)

 

All you need to see now is a dishonest act - IE pulling off one label, and replacing it with another.

Yes but its handled as if it were theft as the charge is easier.

 

"

Obtaining Property By Deception: Overlap With Theft

 

In many cases obtaining property by deception will also be theft (R.v. Gomez (1993) A.C.442, HL) and (Archbold, 21-179).

Consider:

• Theft carries a lower minimum sentence;
  
• A charge should describe what actually happened and reflect the true criminality;
  
• The indictment or charges should be as simple as reasonable possible.

Generally, charge an obtaining of property by deception under section 15, not as theft.

Charge theft when a defendant has swapped price labels on an item to buy it cheaper. This avoids the argument that where the ticket is a bar code read by a machine, there was no deception operating on the mind of the till operator."

[patdavies]

We use RLP at work, and having read this thread, and having had a long read through their manual:

 

It sounds more like a marketing leaflet than a user manual given the rest of your post below.

 

The 'fine' is for doing a civil wrong, or 'tort' against the retailler. They can process for theft, criminal damage, making off without payment etc.

They send a civil demand for payment, and their paperwork then says they follow it up with court action if needed.

There is no facility in civil law for a fine/penalty to be levied. This is the whole point of the threads about private parking tickets. Only actual costs/losses may be sued for.

 

To clear up some confusion: you DONT need to leave the store for theft, let alond a ticket swap (which used to be obtainin property by deception, and is now under the fraud act - Fraud by misrepresentation). You simply need to of attempted to pay.

There is no theft until you leave the premises without offering to pay. In your scenario, anybody who picks up an item whilst browsing could be accosted by the store staff for theft! Swapping labels is not theft, it is Fraud - and entirely different Act of criminal law

 

You have NO LEGAL RIGHT to have a witness present during your detention. I believe that TK Maxx (as most other retaillers) have a policy for having a female in with them if they are male security. But its only policy, not law.

This is probably because the store has NO LEGAL RIGHT to hold someone in detention, let alone question them. A citizen's arrest may be made and the accused then must be passed to the Police to be dealt with. The store has no right to force someone to accompany store staff to a particular place or part of the store (eg an office) - to do so would be false imprisonment.

[nickmcmechan]

Having had worked in Retail for a long time, I am aware that TK Maxx will pursue Civil Action with you.

 

You need to be confident of there being a lack of substantial evidence. If you were wrongfully arrested I would suggest you seek legal advice.

 

You are able to claim damages of £150 per hour for each hour you were wrongfully arrested + costs + emotional damages...

 

Get a Lawyer to write a letter for you...

[PI Guy]

There is no facility in civil law for a fine/penalty to be levied. This is the whole point of the threads about private parking tickets. Only actual costs/losses may be sued for.

 

This is probably because the store has NO LEGAL RIGHT to hold someone in detention, let alone question them. A citizen's arrest may be made and the accused then must be passed to the Police to be dealt with. The store has no right to force someone to accompany store staff to a particular place or part of the store (eg an office) - to do so would be false imprisonment.

 

1st Point - And that's what RLP sue for, actual costs of running a Loss Prevention Department, of an investigation, staff time spent on the case ect.

 

2nd point - Of course they didn't force anyone, they asked them to accompany them to say a managers office and they did so and police were called. But you are wrong if I detain someone for say theft and that person refuses to return then i am quite in my rights to detain using reasonable force to do so.

[Conniff]

But you are wrong if I detain someone for say theft and that person refuses to return then i am quite in my rights to detain using reasonable force to do so.

 

No you can't, that is the whole point Pat was making. You can only hold them until the police arrive, if you haven't called the police then it is kidnap.

[PI Guy]

No you can't, that is the whole point Pat was making. You can only hold them until the police arrive, if you haven't called the police then it is kidnap.

If i had to use reasonable force to detain then i would be calling the police and their guilt would be 100% proven by my eye witness evidence.

[Conniff]

What do you call reasonable force? If they refuse to go to some office then you cannot physically restrain them or that will be assualt.

[PI Guy]

Reasonable force is permitted in order to detain someone who has committed an indictable offence (it used to be called arrestable offence) and no it wouldn't be assault.

 

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

• self-defence; or
  
• defence of another; or
  
• defence of property; or
  
• prevention of crime; or
  
• lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

• was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
  
• was the force used excessive in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276, R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367 and ).

To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

In R v Martin (Anthony), TLR 1 November 2001, the Court of Appeal held that in deciding whether a defendant had used reasonable force in self-defence it was not appropriate to take into account the fact that the defendant was suffering from some psychiatric condition at the relevant time, except in exceptional circumstances which would make such evidence especially probative.

In R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315, it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in Palmer v R ,1971 A.C. 814;

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".

The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable.

Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

Where the purpose of the act is alleged to have been the prevention of crime and/or the apprehension of offenders, necessity in acting may not equate with reasonableness in the choice of action deployed. This approach was confirmed in R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL .

[Conniff]

Yes, but what do you call reasonable force if they refuse to go to an office??