Boots-RLP 16yr old girl £93.17 for testing mousse !

[Button1]

SPF, have you had a reply from Boots yet? Where did you write to? Was it just their customer service department? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to the CE is required.........

 

Chief Executives Office

Boots UK Ltd

Po Box 5300 Nottingham

NG90 1AA

 

I have a name and direct dial contact number for this office if no response.........pm me if you require the details.

[JonCris]

arnt debt collection industries ment to hand the debt back to the origionator if it is in dispute.

 

remind them off this im sure someone can dig up the point in law if needed

 

or i suppose you could charge per letter needed to reply to them...

 

No its alleged that they share it. Furthermore it alleged the more they collect for a client the less RPL's percentage 50/50% reducing to say 40/60% & more is just the beginning.

[Nitrode]

Sorry if I have read mis-read this thread, but why on earth would RLP and co still be chasing you if Boots have cancelled the action?? Are they or have they been communicating with each other??

 

Why can't Boots just call off their dogs and be done with it and let your family have some peace of mind??

[JonCris]

Simples:rolleyes: ..............Because the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing

[JonCris]

Button1 can you please either PM or email or text me with the Boots contact name & tel number asap

[Button1]

Hi JC,

 

I have sent you an email with the details.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Just a quick update, not a lot happening. Spoken on telephone a few times to profit protection manager who is getting increasingly annoyed that RLP aren't responding to his requests for a confirmation letter removing my daughters data and that I'm still receiving debt collection letters (he didn't even realise that RLP pass on to DCA's) Won't be speaking via telephone anymore, further letter writing I think.

[Tara1]

Hi Sugar Plum Fairy,

 

Although i wasnt in exactly the same situation as you. When RLP said that they were keeping my details on file i wrote to them with a copy of the letter from TK Maxx exonerating me and asked that they remove my details from their database or i would raise a complaint with the information commissioners office.

 

It would mean going out of your way when Boots and RLP should sort this out, but every little helps plus the sooner these people are off your back the sooner you can get back to normal.

[JonCris]

Just a quick update, not a lot happening. Spoken on telephone a few times to profit protection manager who is getting increasingly annoyed that RLP aren't responding to his requests for a confirmation letter removing my daughters data and that I'm still receiving debt collection letters (he didn't even realise that RLP pass on to DCA's) Won't be speaking via telephone anymore, further letter writing I think.

 

 

SPF Boots should have looked into their practices BEFORE employing them saying they didn't know ain't good enough. It would help if you could have them admit in writing their lack of knowledge & then let me have a copy with you details redacted of course;)

[JonCris]

Tara & SPF the problem is that even though they state they will or have removed the data from their system it can be already out there in the ether of the World Wide Web, therefore it's important that it be established who had access to their data base & what use they have also made of it

 

A problem some of us hope to address in the not to distant future

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Waiting for some sort of confirmation that Boots use an RLP/Cireco database when employing staff, of course they wouldn't want to admit to it but does look like the only dealings they have with them are to do with civil recovery. I will point out also that they don't keep cctv evidence either.

[JonCris]

edit

Edited December 9, 2009 by JonCris
Duplicated

[JonCris]

Alleged founder of the concept of civil recovery

Centre for Retail Research, Nottingham UK

 

Conferences

BCSC SCM 2010

https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=150206&sessionid=1&key=8AFDFC9C63891E76D2FA30338B1AF525&sourcepage=register

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Alleged founder of the concept of civil recovery

 

Was he not a previous director of RLP too?

[JonCris]

Dunno was he;)

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

At last, letter received from RLP confirming that details have been removed from their database. Certainly not the end of the matter though.

[emmarev]

Whilst I think know Boots have various signs in their makeup section asking you to use the testers (I guess kids may well not always be looking out for these,they are just being kids), I don't think mousse comes into the same category does it? Why would you want to try out hair mousse,unless we are talking about the coloured stuff that puts colour in your hair? Are Boots/Stores REALLY expected to have signs for every single type of product displayed around the store though?

 

E.g. I may want to find out what food tastes like in a Supermarket-but is the Store expected to have a sign saying "please do not try the food before you buy. Or-please do not open the packets"-a lot of this is common sense.

 

The common sense thing to do would have been to let her pay,and tell her not to come in again,if they wanted to. I think a lot of the blame on these threads needs to be placed firmly on the shoulders of highly incompetant Security Guards,who,if they were any good at catching real shoplifters would not be wasting time getting involved in these trivial incidents,but Security guards are actually employed to deter, by standing around the shopfloor,not sitting on their lazy backsides the office on the cameras,trying to do a job they clearly have not been trained to do. Many better security companies will not even allow their Guards to make arrests unless they have had additional training.

 

In shops like Boot, FYI, the Guards have arrest targets per week due to the high amounts of loss the store suffers. So they have to 'sit on their lazy backsides in the CCTV office' rather than deter or else they get sacked. And 'additional training' is worthless, you can sit someone down and tell them the theory of arrest but actually doing it is another thing altogether and many guards lack the practical training, I agree but not all are the same so please don't tar them all with the same brush. If this girl used hair mousse and then bought a different can, it is still theft as they cant resell the item and she did technically walk out with it in her hair so it is theft. HOWEVER, while 93 quid is extortionate, I have to say that Guards ARE NOT ALLOWED to allow accused people pay for items they have been caught with. I've never agreed with this but they are just NOT ALLOWED unfortunately. If it was me, I'd have given her a banning letter from Boots and left it at that, dependent on the girls attitude throughout the detainment.

 

But I do agree as long as it's not a blanket statement disparaging all Retail Guards, that there are far too many out there who think they are coppers and they give the rest a bad name. I should know, I've worked with a few of them.

[shanty]

Contract companies dont have arrest targets because the losses are high.

Companies have arrest targets because some bright spark decided it was a way of measuring if the staff are doing their jobs properly,in order to keep the Boots contract.They are in effect saying,"if they can catch x number of people then they must be good at their job"

 

Unfortunately if you say,"You must catch three people a week",you only make people have to prove that on paper,but either someone can spot 3 people a week stealing or they can't.

 

If they can't ,or three people don't steal,you are forcing the staff to make it up .You shouldn't be part of that.find a decent company.

Arrest targets are immoral and unethical.

Edited January 6, 2010 by shanty

[Zamzara]

I have to say that Guards ARE NOT ALLOWED to allow accused people pay for items they have been caught with. I've never agreed with this but they are just NOT ALLOWED unfortunately. If it was me, I'd have given her a banning letter from Boots and left it at that, dependent on the girls attitude throughout the detainment.

 

It is not necessarily theft as it is widespread custom and practice to test this kind of product in shops. It depends on the individual facts of the case. In any event, on another thread a customer who has taken action against a shop for a 70p loss has widely been denounced as petulant and ridiculous.

 

Also, while paying for the item does not remove the criminal offence (if there is one), if civil recovery for security costs is being claimed, the shop cannot aggrevate its loss and must mitigate it.

[babybear39]

I am scared, very scared. I have a 17 year old daughter that regularly shops in Cardiff and Boots in particular and we've both tested products where there were no testers available

[JonCris]

I am scared, very scared. I have a 17 year old daughter that regularly shops in Cardiff and Boots in particular and we've both tested products where there were no testers available

 

Then tell her not to. In fact if you can avoid Boots at all then do so.

 

The sooner retailers like Boots find that their behaviour & that of their agents is losing them custom the better

[Huff&Puff]

The sooner retailers like Boots find that their behaviour & that of their agents is losing them custom the better

 

I agree. All the more so now that they have a new boss:

 

Former HBOS banker appointed as Boots chief executive | Business | guardian.co.uk

[babybear39]

Bloody typical of this country