BOOTS-RLP 17 year old employee demand £876.00

[Lil_Button]

Hi I'm new to this and just wondering if anyone can help me.

 

Heres the problem, I'm 17 and had a part-time job for 11 months in Boots the Chemist until I was dismissed at the start of July. I was dismissed because I sold 2 cameras at the wrong price by using a code I wasn't allowed to use (I wasn't aware I was not allowed to use this code as was never properly till trained and had to pick most things up myself)

 

I thought these cameras were reduced and sold them for a cheaper price to 2 different customers losing the company £200. I did not do this delibrately it was a genuine mistake and Boots knew this as they checked the customers address to see if I knew them but they dismissed me on grounds of breaking their security rules and losing the company £200 which I totally understand and do not object to them dissmissing me. I was told at my dismissal that Boots would deduct all the holiday pay owed to me (which was about £200 anyway) and that I should expect to hear from retail loss prevention (RLP).

 

On 8th August I received a letter from these people (RLP) which basically says the following -

 

Your conduct has caused our client (Boots) to incur considerable costs in investigating and mitigating your wrongful actions. It has been necessary for our client to incur these costs in discharge of the duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent wrongful acts on company premises.

 

Further, your actions mean that you have breached the duties every employee owes to their employer, these duties include duties of good faith, loyalty and honesty.

 

The loss and damage suffered by our client is as follows:

 

1. The value of the goods or cash stolen, if not recovered or unfit for resale, or value of the service not paid for - £200

 

2. Staff and management time spent in investigating and dealing with your wrongful actions - £216.67

 

3. Administration costs resulting from your wrongful actions - £60.20

 

4. Apportioned security and surveillance costs resulting from your wrongful actions - £400.00

 

Total = £876.87

 

They then basically go on to say that I can pay the full amount within 21 days or I can pay in installments in which administration costs for their company will be added.

 

Sorry this is so long but I really need some help I don't know what to do there is no way I or my family could afford this and I think it is ridiculous they are making me pay this amount for an error I made I didn't do anything wrong intentionally My mum wants me to go to a solicitor to try and get this sorted..

 

Do you think I would have a good case?

 

Points to consider - I did not steal, only made a mistake

I am only 17

This is a ridiculous amount of money

I am being asked to pay!!!!!

[KER]

From looking at what you have written, you need a solicitor. Most of the issues here are for consumer law. You seem to need a specialist in employment law.

[palomino]

This is a joke. They are going for the jugular knowing they will get knocked back.

I'm not an employment law expert (or even a layman) but in my view you must take this to the Citizens Advice Bureau. Discuss two things with them -

1. Dealing with the letter you have received.

2. Employment tribunal claim for compensation for inadequate training, for not holding a disciplinary hearing and for things like withholding wages (holiday pay).

[babybear39]

I agree that you should see an expert in employment law ASAP.

 

I am sickened by the way you have been treated for a mistake caused by their lack of training provision.

[Bookworm]

1) If the holiday pay withheld was for holiday already taken but not accrued, they are within their rights to claw it back. If holiday was accrued, not taken but kept back to cover loss, then they are wrong to do so and you should pursue them for the pro-rata of holiday pay earned.

 

2) You can't bring a case for unfair dismissal as you haven't been continuously employed for 1 year.

 

3) You may be capable of bringing in a claim for wrongful dismissal, but it is fairly complicated and we'd need to know a lot more about the ins and outs before being even able to guide you on this one, so I'm not going to go on about that right now.

 

4) RLP: I would write back saying that your actions were the consequences of poor/lack of training from your ex-employer and that you deny any wrongdoing on your behalf. You have committed no criminal act, which your ex-employer has agreed was the case, and any costs incurred by your ex-employer must be borne by them. State that you will vigorously defend any legal action considered by RLP, and are quite happy to let a judge decide as to whether RLP have a case or not, as you are confident that they do not.

 

Don't let them bully you.

[Lil_Button]

Thank you for all your help. I have an appointment with a solicitor on Thursday, I just hope I'm in the right as don't want to be made a fool of

[babybear39]

Goods luck and best wishes LB *hugs*

[Lil_Button]

1) If the holiday pay withheld was for holiday already taken but not accrued, they are within their rights to claw it back. If holiday was accrued, not taken but kept back to cover loss, then they are wrong to do so and you should pursue them for the pro-rata of holiday pay earned.

 

2) You can't bring a case for unfair dismissal as you haven't been continuously employed for 1 year.

 

3) You may be capable of bringing in a claim for wrongful dismissal, but it is fairly complicated and we'd need to know a lot more about the ins and outs before being even able to guide you on this one, so I'm not going to go on about that right now.

 

4) RLP: I would write back saying that your actions were the consequences of poor/lack of training from your ex-employer and that you deny any wrongdoing on your behalf. You have committed no criminal act, which your ex-employer has agreed was the case, and any costs incurred by your ex-employer must be borne by them. State that you will vigorously defend any legal action considered by RLP, and are quite happy to let a judge decide as to whether RLP have a case or not, as you are confident that they do not.

 

Don't let them bully you.

 

I hadn't taken the 2 weeks holiday I was owed, but they kept the money and I'm not sure if it was to cover the costs I lost I will get help with the solicitor to write a letter to RLP and if it doesn't work I guess I'll have to take them to court wish me luck, and thanks for all your help

[2Grumpy]

This sounds like a try-on by these people

 

It sounds as though boots have already recovered their costs by withholding pay - which they shouldn't have done.

 

These people have no right to invoice you for this. Boots might have asked them to investigate things - but that's up to them to pay (and they might already have done)

 

If boots really thought that there was theft or criminal wrongdoing then they would have called the police.

 

These people (or others like them) appear in other threads where there is alleged shoplifting but no proof!

 

You shouldn't have been asked to work on the till if you hadn't been trained.

[Guest forgottenone]

Good luck. As for Boots? Many years ago ... happened to get in there just as they were opening ... empty store, really quite eerie, at 9 am ... only staff. Gathering round one of the cash desks ... got my attention, well fact is there were around 30 odd staff stood around it, hard not to ...

 

Seems they did it regularly at that branch ... they read out a customer's complaint letter to all the staff at once ... bearing in mind, the store was opened, customers were gradually drifting into view, would have overheard it ... whatever the letter was, was met with much hilarity. So, if that's how they treat customer complaints ... read openly, with such an arrogant disregard for any wrongdoing in doing so making it so public, not kept private in the office, where it should have been ... how do they treat their staff behind closed doors?

 

Yet another 'well known' high street store ...

[2Grumpy]

Do you have to log-on to a till/swipe id before using it?

Did you do so for yourself, did some-one do it for you or is there a general password/pin

 

When you gave the discounts was there a message that would have given you a clue that you were doing something wrong?

When you used the code that you did, you said that you weren't allowed to use it - but the till did let you use it, so how were you supposed to know that you shouldn't?

 

You will have to try to remember why you thought those cameras should have been discounted (and why you used the discount code that you did).

[OnMyWayOut]

Most till software requires a 'supervisor' override to allow functions to be carried out that are outside the scope/authority of the logged on user - usually via a special key that turns further than the normal user's key. If you were allowed to enter the code without requiring an override, either the log on you were provided wasn't strict enough, or you were using the log on of someone with more authority than you should have had.

[2Grumpy]

This is where I was heading ...

Most till software requires a 'supervisor' override to allow functions to be carried out that are outside the scope/authority of the logged on user - usually via a special key that turns further than the normal user's key.

Sometimes the users id badge swiped through the card reader

If you were allowed to enter the code without requiring an override, either the log on you were provided wasn't strict enough, or you were using the log on of someone with more authority than you should have had.

Or the system has insufficient controls & validation built in & relies on the operator's knowledge. The UK hasn't implemented the same kind of laws that the US did after Enron. That would be tight user control, user ids can't be shared, maximum ranges for values - so discounts of that size wouldn't be accepted unless verified by someone else.

[Guest forgottenone]

Ah, would this be something like a 'PID?' as used by the DWP to access their system? Swipe card, plugs into the side of your keyboard *or did when I used them* before you can use it.

[Guest forgottenone]

Would I also be correct, going from your first post, that you had just turned 16 when you started working for Boots? Makes no difference ... but they seem to be coming down on someone under 18 like a ton of bricks for some reason. If anything ... Boots have a serious issue with their system ... not very security conscious if this can happen regularly.

[SirHumpy]

This isnt a joke, I have worked within the company (and continue to do so) on the cival recovery scheme - which this is. Boots do get cash from these things.

 

Do you have the notes etc from the hearings you attended?

 

If the OP wants to pm me - then I can let him know some background stuff - and advice I cant post.

[JonCris]

any updates??

[MARTIN3030]

I have tried to contact to ask.This is a bad one.I thought it was illegal to take money from wages ?

[JonCris]

Unless there's a previous agreement it is

 

Also calling the OP a thief I'd have had their guts for garters The writs would have been flying within minutes of receiving such evil c'rap

 

They really do think they are above the law

[JonCris]

Also the most effective way to crush this evil will be to go after their client. To be accused of slander & blackening the names of innocent people will cause them problems in the media

[MARTIN3030]

Yes lets hope she comes back.I have left her some messages.

[MARTIN3030]

Good news.I have managed to contact the OP,and hopefully they will be here very soon to update.I will let them expand on the situation as it stands.

[thekat1979]

What a terrible situation!

[SirHumpy]

Boots are VERY careful never to use slanderous terms in the letters they send out UNLESS they have absolute proof. The letter does say something along the lines of "for failure of duties" its vague for a reason - and its in the Boots contracts now about RLP.

 

For gross misconduct they can withhold holiday pay etc - the contract remember that you have been found to have breached - this type of action has stood up in tribunals recently.

 

The cost breakdown usually stands up to scruntiny - but sometimes is changed to what a Judge seems fair.

 

I had a email exchange with the OP at the time and passed on a little inside info that might have helped - I hope it did

[MARTIN3030]

From what I was told its by no means resolved.As I said I will let the OP tell all.