Former TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager - available for questions !/ reviewed 09.2015

[old bill]

Guys,

 

Very sorry, I haven't been around here for aaaaaages.

 

Refund fraud used to cost tk's millions each year. For some reason people used to buy branded product from tk's, and bring back any old tat, having removed the price ticket and attached it to the tat.

 

Sometimes the store would notice at the time of refund, and refuse it, sometimes they wouldn't, and loss prevention would notice, or a manager would notice that it wasn't a brand that tk's did (like f&f is a tesco only brand)

 

Tk's will always require 2 'offences' to be present - so when you bring back your dodgy old item with the hugo boss ticket attached, and loss prevention notices, then that's 'one offence'. They wait for another one, to stop people claiming it was a mistake (or it actually being a genuine mistake).

 

Finding offences is simple. You bring back an item, and refund it. LP simply look up the original receipt details on the system, and look at the purchase footage. Does the blue shirt you brought back, match the item you purchased on camera?

 

If it doesn't, then the investigation begins - burning footage, exhibiting items etc.

 

If they never ever come back, the case is simply filed.

 

If they come back, the same process is done again - refund and sale cctv pulled, and matched up - do the garments refunded match those purchased.

 

Cards used to be flagged, and it doesn't matter if people used false names / addresses, as once the police were involved, they simply asked the bank for addresses.

 

Can I ask which buffoon formulated the policy I have highlighted in bold text, Maxxer? I'm not blaming you, but someone within TK Maxx has got a funny idea of how the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice system works.

 

As regards the taking of photos of alleged offenders, personally, it is a practice that I would not advocate, given the number of alleged "shoplifters" who have been wrongly accused. Remember that the ICO has the power to fine those who breach DPA up to £500,000.

 

As regards references in this thread to human rights, the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) confers certain rights and protections on us through the Human Rights Act 1998. They are in place to stop abuses and excesses of power by the State, whether at local, regional or national level and arms of the State, e.g. Customs, Police. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, contains a "catch all" provision that makes any act performed by a public authority (including a commercial entity or individual carrying out a public function on behalf of a public authority) that is incompatible with a person's Convention rights unlawful. So, where some bone-headed bailiff decides to be a tit whilst attempting to enforce Council Tax arrears or a decriminalised PCN or magistrates court fine and breaches one of your Convention rights, you can hold the bailiff, bailiff company and public authority to account under the HRA.

 

The Human Rights Act 1998 is likely to prove to be a valuable and powerful weapon against maladministration and malpractice as the ConDem government enacts increasingly more illogical and crackpot legislation that reveals the extent of the corruption that runs through them like a stick of seaside rock

[CAGMan69]

Dear all

 

I have read the contents of this entire thread and found the contents very useful in relation to situation I have stupidly found myself in with regards to TK. Maxx

 

My question i guess is directed to "oldbill" and around any specific commentary/advice around CCTV footage. The questions being:

 

1) under the DPA how long realistically would a retailer retain CCTV footage?

2) How is such CCTV footage viewed in police investigations and/or possible criminal action as I have seen conflicting commentary around its strength in cases?

 

Thank you for any advice that may be forthcoming

[old bill]

Dear all

 

I have read the contents of this entire thread and found the contents very useful in relation to situation I have stupidly found myself in with regards to TK. Maxx

 

My question i guess is directed to "oldbill" and around any specific commentary/advice around CCTV footage. The questions being:

 

1) under the DPA how long realistically would a retailer retain CCTV footage?

2) How is such CCTV footage viewed in police investigations and/or possible criminal action as I have seen conflicting commentary around its strength in cases?

 

Thank you for any advice that may be forthcoming

 

Hi CAGMan69,

 

I'm responding to an email alert relating to your post.

 

Your questions, which I am happy to answer, relate to CCTV footage of alleged criminal acts and I will answer these as follows -

 

Unless any legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings have been intimated, most CCTV footage is held for approximately 30 days, then deleted. The guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner's Office, which are based on the Data Protection Act 1998, say that data should not be kept for longer than is necessary. The onus falls on the Data Controller to show why any data has been kept for a substantial period of time and the justification behind it. Notwithstanding, if a criminal act is committed and captured on CCTV, then the footage must be preserved as it then becomes evidence. Such footage must be preserved in its original form - unedited, no obscuring of faces or any other forming of manipulation of the images thereon - and secured. This is to prevent any tampering.

When police officers view CCTV footage, they are looking for evidence that proves the offence the suspect has been alleged to have committed. With each criminal offence, there are "points to prove" and each of these points must be supported by evidence, otherwise there is no offence. Unfortunately, there is far too much in the way of retail security "thinking" someone has committed an offence and, when the CCTV footage is viewed, they have about as much hope of proving an offence has been committed as next-door's cat has of winning "The Voice". Or, as an ex-colleague of mine in the police once said, "That evidence is about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest." Put simply, if you do not have credible evidence, you cannot proceed. Anyone who thinks they can is going to be in for a nasty shock when their "case" falls to pieces and they get landed with a hefty legal bill, costs and compensation.

[maxxer]

And now the answer in relation to Tk Maxx CCTV:

 

Footage is kept on the hard drive for 14 days. It used to be a lot longer, and after I left their employment, it was changed.

 

Footage of an incident that involves an arrest is burnt to DVD, and is kept for 6 years. I was always told this is because rlp have 6 years to take someone to court, that's why it's kept so long.

 

After 6 years, it's put in a secure waste bin, and sent for shredding.

[Sidewinder]

I was always told this is because rlp have 6 years to take someone to court, that's why it's kept so long.

 

Which should of course have been "TK Maxx have 6 years to take someone to court...". RLP cannot take anybody to court. Period.

[maxxer]

indeed - its tk maxx that take to court, not rlp as sidewinder has said.

 

 

We were always told that tk's / rlp take as many as they can to court. I don't believe this for one second. Does anyone have any FOI requests to see if rlp / tk / any other retailer has actually taken any ??

[rebel11]

I don't think you can send an FOI to a private company.

 

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/act

 

indeed - its tk maxx that take to court, not rlp as sidewinder has said.

 

 

We were always told that tk's / rlp take as many as they can to court. I don't believe this for one second. Does anyone have any FOI requests to see if rlp / tk / any other retailer has actually taken any ??

[ScarletPimpernel]

I don't think you can send an FOI to a private company.

 

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/act

 

Quite correct - FOIs only apply to public bodies.

 

I have lost count of the number of times we have reiterated on these forums that RLP cannot bring court action as they have no standing. I am not sure why so many regular contributors continue to think they can.

[Grotesque]

indeed - its tk maxx that take to court, not rlp as sidewinder has said.

 

 

We were always told that tk's / rlp take as many as they can to court. I don't believe this for one second. Does anyone have any FOI requests to see if rlp / tk / any other retailer has actually taken any ??

 

I think- BS though it would be- they would claim this to be commercially confidential.

[renegadeimp]

You cant request a FOI for a private company.

[Grotesque]

Yes that has already been established... some time ago. I was of course referring to the nature of the information and the potential for acquiring it, rather than the method of doing so.

[renegadeimp]

I see what you mean, but i bet there will be no information. Im willing to bet that the stores that RLP claim to represent know nothing about what RLP are doing.

[Grotesque]

Totally agree. I guess that means that the RLP carries on lying to people purely because "we" cannot 'prove' otherwise?

 

Mind you, would most of these supposedly 'respectable' stores wish to be publicly associated with RLP in the first place-!

[renegadeimp]

Well, the stores know about all the failed court cases, especially the oxford one, but Jackie has probably told a few fibs to them. She even says that the judge had no clue what he was doing in the oxford case, and inferred she knew better. Thats even on her companies website.

[Grotesque]

Yeah just read that. Think that stuff about ACPO is still there too (unless I was looking at a cached page or something, had to google it / her).

[fafa]

Can I ask if it has happened before that some one does shoplifting and not been stopped in tkmaxx, and after they look at the footage and realize that and chase the shoplifter through its credit card or police somehow?

[fafa]

There is a camera always were the fitting rooms are, this is placed in front of all fitting rooms, does this camera see inside the fitting rooms? is it allowed for tkmaxx to install cameras to see inside the fitting rooms?

[renegadeimp]

I think you're going too far into conspiracy mode now. The cameras are outside so they can see what you enter and exit the room with.

[old bill]

There is a camera always were the fitting rooms are, this is placed in front of all fitting rooms, does this camera see inside the fitting rooms? is it allowed for tkmaxx to install cameras to see inside the fitting rooms?

 

It would be illegal to install them as well as record with them under anti-voyeurism legislation. Also, if customers realised such a thing was going on, I have no doubt TKMaxx would suffer substantial loss of revenue as a consequence.

 

Turning to some other points, although RLP has an in-house solicitor, RLP is not a legal practice as such, albeit that the in-house solicitor is subject the jurisdiction and supervision of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Retailers who use Civil Recovery are 100% vicariously-liable and, indeed, complicit in anything a CR operator does in their name. Indeed, it follows that retailers who go down the CR route may well find themselves facing legal action from those they pursue due to the poor standard of training and discipline of retail security and corporate paranoia.

[NeedHelp123!]

Hello, a friend of mine working for superdrug has been accused of theft. As far as my friend is aware they don't have any proof to confirm or deny that they have stolen money as there are not any cctv cameras around. My friend categorically states he did not take any money, but I do semi-question his story. My question is this, what are the chances that superdrug would have got covert cctv installed in the area if they suspectes someone of stealing from them? Is it an easy process for a company to go down?

[old bill]

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published guidelines for employers as to their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the use of CCTV including covert cameras. An employer would have to be able to justify the use of covert cameras, e.g. a high level of pilferage (theft by employees), before installing and using them. If an employer were to install and use them in an arbitrary fashion, then they may find it difficult to explain to the ICO and a court may have something to say about the manner in which evidence of an alleged offence has been obtained. Notwithstanding, it may also amount to a serious breach of trust and confidence on the part of the employer.

[NeedHelp123!]

What counts as a high level of pilferage? Do they need permission from the police?

[renegadeimp]

Nobody really knows. If they released the info, then theyd have to change or or shop lifters would take items just under that value. Not sure where maxxer went but he hasnt been around here for 3 months now.

[old bill]

I see what you mean, but i bet there will be no information. Im willing to bet that the stores that RLP claim to represent know nothing about what RLP are doing.

 

If they do, then they are complicit in RLP's questionable actions. When RLP tried to extort, sorry, extract money from a B & Q customer whom B & Q's security staff alleged had been shoplifting, an allegation B & Q subsequently withdrew after police involvement, RLP made a number of allegations including that the customer had acted in violent manner towards B & Q staff. Both B & Q and the police confirmed to the customer that no allegation of such conduct had been made by B & Q and B & Q's CCTV footage confirmed no such conduct had taken place. Not surprisingly, B & Q had nothing further to do with RLP after that.

 

I can't say I blame B & Q for dropping RLP like the proverbial hot potato and all credit to B & Q for doing so. The last thing a company like B & Q needs is a civil recovery operator making false allegations against their customers, allegedly on their behalf.

[old bill]

What counts as a high level of pilferage? Do they need permission from the police?

 

Large quantities of low value goods or attractive (high value) items going missing on a regular basis.

 

And, no, the staff don't need permission from the police to purloin it.

 

Strictly speaking, an employer does not need permission from the police to install covert cameras where there has been pilferage. In some cases, the police will assist the employer in siting the cameras. On the other hand, if an employer intends to install them permanently, then employees must be told they are in use and ICO Guidelines complied with.