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

[old bill]

Fully agree. I worked in the retail trade before I joined the police force.

 

 

You do need to physically witness a theft taking place.

All too often, poorly-trained, ill-disciplined and, in some cases, inept and incompetent retail security staff cock-up spectacularly and land the retailer with a writ for wrongful arrest, unlawful detention, assault, battery and other civil torts and criminal acts.

 

 

In my experience, if the evidence isn't blindingly obvious and the retail security operative has stopped someone because they "think" the person's been shoplifting, the OP is correct that detentions by retail security may not only be unlawful, but illegal also.

[old bill]

I agree. A customer who is falsely arrested by store staff would be very foolish to allow themselves to be led into some dodgy back room, out of sight from independent witnesses. They might be mistreated or have property planted upon them, or worse.

 

Strange as this might sound, AH, I have dealt with such cases when I was in the police force. I won't post what I and other police officers said to retailers and their security staff in such cases as it is not fit to be posted. Use your imagination as to what was said.

 

youve accidentally cut off the quote there, to make it look different than what was actually written and meant... oops !

 

If you think people who are shopping want to become 'independant witnesses', look how many people drive by when you next see a car accident, or a fight on the street. People these days have a 'dont want to get involved' attitude.

 

Its a safety thing as well for security - refuse to come back in, and most likely, you are going to be restrained and dragged back in. sec 3 crim law act. By refusing to coe back, I'm forming the opinion you are going to try to escape my custody. In my time, I have used force lots of times. Never ever have I been interviewed, arrested, charged etc. Nor challanged in court for my use of force. You'd think that a defence solicitor would jump upon a chance to introdue unlawful force into their clients case if they could. Nobody has though, which makes me think taking back to a holding room is totally acceptable.

 

A person is under no obligation to return to a store and, as a retired policeman, I would say that you have been extremely lucky not to have been found in breach of the law. If a person has done nothing wrong, retail security staff have no right or power to detain or restrain them or require them to return to a store. Bringing retail security staff under stricter control than at present is, IMCJ, long-overdue.

 

I'm not prolific, but I know how I'd like them to deal with it.

 

Simply put, I'd like them to be legally required to call the Police every time, no exceptions. I accept there are some good security guards out there, but the bad ones are really bad. That type might be less inclined to get involved in some of the more disturbing allegations that we see cropping up. I can't help noticing that whenever disabled people are being forced to get out of their wheelchairs because a shop assistant forgot to remove a tag, or mentally unwell, elderly people are being detained in small rooms without access to their medication, nobody ever mentions the Police being present or even called.

 

I agree with you 100%. It would put a stop to a lot of civil recovery [problem]s.

 

That's really poor. And the predictable result is that some strong, aggressive guards exceed their authority and infringe people's civil liberties, and other more cautious guards don't feel sure of how and when it's safe to challenge someone. An unsatisfactory situation for all concerned.

It's also common to find that the security staff are employed through a contractor or subsidiary company, so the High Street brand name can distance itself when something goes wrong and the writs start flying.

 

High Street brands are vicariously-liable for the actions of hired thugs, sorry, security personnel, they hire through another company, whilst they are working on their premises for their benefit. They're also liable for HSAW infringements by them.

[old bill]

It doesn't sound strange at all, Old Bill. Some idiot grabs a passing hausfrau and drags her into the manager's office, makes her turn out her pockets and handbag and realises he's made a mistake. She's recovering her nerve now, and talking about calling the Police or a solicitor. Idiot realises he's looking at wrongful arrest, assault and/or disciplinary action. Easiest thing in the world to pick up a lipstick or whatever's handy, and drop it in her bag.

 

My very firm advice to any innocent person who is stopped in a shop is to firstly ask loud & clear "are you arresting me?". If the answer is not a loud and clear "Yes" then walk away. If they do say that they are arresting you, then tell them you will wait peaceably for the police to arrive.

 

Stay within a few paces of where you were stopped, sit down if you can (it may be an hour before an officer arrives). Keep your bags and pockets secure, do not allow anyone to search you or examine your property. If you have a mobile phone, call a calm, reliable friend or relative and ask them to come to support you. Also call the Police and check that an officer is on the way, and also that they understand you deny the allegation completely. Ask a passing shop employee to call the duty manager, and when they arrive tell them that you will be making a complaint about the security guard's false accusation. Ask them to provide contact details of their head office.

 

If you have paper, start keeping a diary - the exact time and place you were stopped, what words were said, the name of the security guard etc. Ask nearby witnesses if they would mind being contacted by the Police to give statements, and if they will leave you a phone number for that purpose. If you don't have paper, use text or voicemail messages to record contemporaneous details.

 

You may be upset and angry, but stay calm and measured in your conduct - no swearing or shouting. Keep your head held high, try to make eye-contact with passers-by - shake your head in disbelief, roll your eyes, tell them you've been falsely arrested - you have nothing to be ashamed of and you are deserving of support and sympathy. The Police officer will arrive soon, and you will be proven to be innocent.

 

Okay as long as the security officer and store manager aren't complete numpties or the security officer isn't a Rent-A-Thug.

 

 

When I was in the police force, if we found an alleged shoplifter was, in fact, innocent, we would obtain the name of the security officer and manager and give them to the innocent shopper with advice to sue them and the store involved.

 

 

The reaction we would get from the security officer and manager included having the marital status of our parents questioned at the time of our birth and being compared to a certain part of the female anatomy.

 

 

If there was clear evidence of assault, battery and/or unlawful detention, then it was the security officer and manager who went for a ride to the police station.

 

 

What retail managers and security staff don't seem to realise that if two of them are present when an innocent person is illegally detained or their bags/person searched - and it does go on - they can both be accused of and be proceeded against for being an accessory to or of aiding and abetting an offence.

Edited May 12, 2012 by old bill

[old bill]

Just to add - for those people saying tk's have targets:

 

The STORE has an arrest target, NOT each individual investigator.

 

Each week, the store submits their arrests to head office, and a spreadsheet is produced. Each district, and region is graded against its year target, either 'red or green'.

 

That is a very dangerous practice. It leads to indiscriminate and, in some cases, unlawful arrests. Whatever has possessed TK Maxx'x senior management to adopt such a practice and who was the clown who suggested it to them?

[old bill]

It sounds to me that RLP may have gotten it badly wrong. If the legal system of another country does not recognise Civil Recovery or Civil Recovery is illegal, as you say, there isn't a cat in hell's chance of a claim succeeding.

 

I can't see HMCTS wearing the sending of summonses to other countries. The cost alone would not justify it. If RLP are not being given the correct legal advice, it could result in tears before bedtime.

 

Personally, I feel RLP is taking one hell of a risk trying to do what they have said and it could come back on them.

[old bill]

You and I are thinking along similar lines. On the other hand, it might be worth letting RLP try it and then get crucified by the British courts at the request of foreign governments. What they are advocating could well amount to the signing of Civil Recovery's death warrant in the UK.

[old bill]

I very much doubt it. There is, however, nothing to prevent a foreign country's Interior or Justice Ministry asking the British Government to take action or exclude persons from entering a particular country.

 

 

It would need to be checked whether or not an EU national (including Brits) can be excluded from countries that are EU member states.

[old bill]

Don't the police have targets (ahem, I mean 'detection rates').........

 

Just because a store has a target, doesn't mean the lp team will risk their jobs over some silly arrest.

 

It was made quite clear to loss prevention staff - if you don't have the elements of proof to make an arrest, then don't. If you did falsely arrest someone, then, again, it was made clear that disciplinary action would be taken, up to and including dismissal. I did see one lad sacked for a false arrest.

 

There are many security out there that I wouldn't trust to breathe correctly, let alone arrest someone. On the other hand, I know a lot of very very good people, who know their law, and know what they are doing.

 

There are 'bad eggs' in every job that's done. I've met some officers who simply can't be bothered with dealing with people, and simply want an easy shift. This was becoming more and more aparent as the police cuts came in last year - almost although their supervisors were telling them to bin the job asap.

 

The over riding chorus from people in here seems to be - 'let the police deal with / handle the suspected thieves'. I'm more than happy to do that, as long as the police: arrive within 3 hours of being called, actually deal with the incident rather than trying to get rid of it as soon as possible, and are active at deterring the offences in the frst place. Security would never have to go 'hands on' if the police reacted quickly to situations. Some boroughs in the met don't carry the town link radios for their towns - so a simple 'word in the ear to leave town' from an officer when 'johnny druggie' is spotted by a shop acting sus, turns into johnny druggie stealing from 10 shops, till he goes into one with security, and gets caught. Now the officers called, have to deal with 10 thefts, from 10 shops, rather than none....

 

I've worked in some small towns, for tk's, where if you shout up an issue, the police are right there. They also stop people on behalf of the shops - so no security being 'thuggish' etc. And you know what, it works.

 

Ps: our lads used to write their own statements and do their own evidence packs. How many security do you know that can do that ?

 

Where some muppet of a "business consultant" has put their oar in, yes, police officers have "arrest targets", but the main strategy, in policing, is to prevent crime from happening in the first place. An increasing number of police officers are voicing concerns about the way the British police service is being run and the direction in which it is going.

[old bill]

Sorry for the delay in responding:

 

When I left tk's, there were a few different systems operating, with different recorders, and so different record times. I'm lead to believe now they are all on one system in the stores, and it records 30 days.

 

If there was an incident (ie you were stopped for theft etc), then the loss prevention will of burnt off 2 copies of all the relevent footage, one for the police, one for the store / rlp.

 

The store copy remained in store unless rlp requested it. They got binned after 6 years.

 

And a copy for the alleged shoplifter, which they are entitled to see and receive.

 

I'm also told that last month, all the cctv posters were changed in the stores, to include the audio wording. Seems like its actually a smaller font from what I've heard, and includes something about them only recording audio in exceptional circumstances.

 

Stores are still recording audio at till points, all the time. Confirmed by my friend who still works in a london store. Naughty tk's, signage says one thing, systems do the other.

 

If that's the case, any audio recording could be ruled inadmissible by a court. TK aren't just being "naughty", they are showing complete contempt for the law and customers.

[old bill]

And a copy for the alleged shoplifter, which they are entitled to see and receive.

 

Sorry, thats for the police to disclose to their brief, if and when they want one, not the shop. The shop is there to assist the prosecution, not the defence !.

 

Im very surprised a police officer would even say that.

 

They could be entitled to their footage as a data subject under dpa, but I'm sure the company would be entitled to refuse as its being used in current legal proceedings. (im paraphrasing here, I cant remember the exact bit of the dpa off the top of my head).

 

I have to take account of the fact that you have not, in all probability, worked in law enforcement or the legal profession

 

Any person accused of a criminal offence is entitled to see all and any evidence that exists against him or her in order to prepare their defence.

 

 

There are also the Disclosure Requirements of the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 (as amended). If the police are involved and arrest, then, yes, PACE applies, in which case, the prosecution has to comply with this and CPR 2011 (as amended).

 

 

Under those circumstances, the police would have have to disclose the evidence to the alleged shoplifter's solicitor.

 

However, if the police attend and decide NFA (No Further Action) because security have got it wrong or there is insufficient evidence to prove an offence, then, no, under normal circumstances, the alleged shoplifter would not, as a rule, be entitled to demand a copy of CCTV footage.

 

Nothwithstanding, if, under the circumstances, security get it wrong or the retailer has jumped to the wrong conclusion, the alleged shoplifter can require the retailer to provide a copy of the CCTV footage under the Disclosure Requirements of Civil Procedures Rules 1998 if they then decide to pursue civil proceedings against the retailer for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention and other other civil torts capable of proof against the retailer.

 

 

The same would apply in the case of attempted civil recovery by the retailer. The Civil Procedures Rules would kick in and force the retailer to disclose any evidence they were relying on, in the same way as the alleged shoplifter would be obliged to disclose any evidence they were relying on.

 

The part of the Data Protection Act 1998 you refer to is Section 35. However, if a retailer was being proceeded against under civil litigation, I doubt very much whether Section 35 would provide much protection.

 

What the retailer would need to worry about is if the alleged shoplifter served a notice under Section 7 of the Act on the retailer. Under that provision, the retailer has no choice but to comply.

 

Retailers may feel they hold all the cards. The reality is that the public are a lot more savvy and better-informed about their rights than they used to be and are not afraid to defend those rights. Retailers who dismiss this do so at their peril.

 

You are mistaken. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUESTS_AND_LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS.ashx

 

Thank you for that, AH. I didn't notice what you had posted until I had posted my last post. Brilliant bit of research which bears out what I have said perfectly.

 

:hail:

[old bill]

There is no specified time limit for a citizen's arrest, only the requirement that the person is expeditiously transferred to police custody. Calling the police and awaiting their arrival would be lawful in my view.

 

However this again raises the question of exactly how an angry and distressed shopper is to be held for several hours. Some stores attempt to search, question and detain suspected shoplifters in back rooms, where mistreatment and planting of evidence is more easily concealed (I'm not saying it happens very often, but it certainly happens).

 

As discussed in previous topics, my firm advice to anyone challenged with a citizen's arrest would be to calmly wait in a public area of the store until police arrive. Refuse any suggestion of 'accompanying' staff to an out-of-sight area, or of being searched, questioned or otherwise interfered with. Resist passively, or if you have the capacity to use force effectively then do so to prevent the staff physically dragging you out of public sight. This would be lawful as a defence against assault.

 

I fully endorse what you say, AH. As regards the time taken for police to transfer an alleged offender to custody, it is usually "as soon as is practicable". Obviously, if a person is likely to harm themselves or others, this will warrant transfer to custody or a Place of Safety, whichever is the more appropriate, as a matter of priority.

 

I have, myself, witnessed retail security snatching bags out of shoppers' hands and rifling through them WITHOUT CONSENT, using the old chestnut "Common Law Right of Search" - I never found such a right when in the police force and have yet to find the existence of such a right since retiring.

 

What a lot of retailers do not seem to either appreciate or realise is that having a third party present does not, in any way, legitimise the actions of security staff conducting illegal searches or assaults on shoppers. It, actually, makes the third party a potential witness to the unlawful/illegal acts and, if criminal, a potential accessory to an offence, as I was forced to tell one Co-operative manager one day, much to the delight of the shopper he and another Co-op employee had, as it turned out, illegally pounced on and searched his bags. The look on his face was a picture and I couldn't help succumbing to my ex-copper's sense of humour by pointing him in the direction of a nearby chemist shop to purchase Loperamide tablets.

 

 

 

Note: Loperamide is the generic name for Imodium. And we all know what Imodium is used for, don't we boys and girls? Lol!

[old bill]

Normally, a shout of "Burglary in Progress. Intruder On" would meet with a pretty rapid response by several mobile units. So, the problem of being kept waiting hours for the police to arrive and take away a burglar you have caught in your house, in reality, is not a situation that is going to arise. However, I have to agree with AH that it would be for a court to decide whether it is reasonable and lawful to detain a person for a long period of time before handing them into the custody of the police.

[old bill]

You have some very strange idea about the law, Maxxer. The legal training police officers do during their initial training is equivalent to degree level. The questions in the Law Exam papers are drawn from Bar Exams and marked by barristers. That is the sort of standard police officers have to meet. There is now talk of a specific degree in Policing that would incorporate Law as a pre-requisite to applying to join the police service.

 

If a retail customer is wrongfully arrested and detained by incompetent retail security and pursue civil proceedings against the retailer, the Civil Procedures Rules will apply. This will mean the retailer has to disclose all and any evidence they have. The retailer cannot refuse in order to prevent or frustrate proceedings. It also means that the retailer could have any evidence they have withheld disallowed if they attempt to produce it in court and runs a very real risk of incurring the wrath of the court, especially if there appears to be or is an intention to mislead the court, which courts take very seriously.

 

Is a wrongfully arrested/detained customer allowed to demand a copy of the CCTV footage? Yes they are. Can the retailer redact faces? No, the retailer cannot do that as it could then be reasonably argued that the retailer had edited it. Any footage that is used for evidential purposes must be raw and unedited footage. This was clearly illustrated in a case I was involved with on another site I post on when it was shown CCTV footage had been edited. The CPS were forced to concede "No Case to Answer" and the alleged complainant is now facing an investigation and possible prosecution for Perverting the Course of Justice, as well as Making A False Report and Wasteful Employment of Police.

 

Having worked in the retail industry before I joined the police force, I am familiar with most of the rip-offs retailers pull on the unsuspecting public. If truth be told, the police view shoplifting as a low priority and it is, quite frankly, a pain in the arse having to deal with shoplifters. The general view taken is that there are matters with far higher priorities and more pressing need to be dealt with than someone who has attempted to walk out of a shop having not paid for something worth 65p retail, as happened in one case and which a Crown Court judge threw out with a scathing attack on the prosecution and the retailer involved. The retail industry is its own worst enemy by cutting back on staff and becoming over-reliant on electronic security equipment that has a history of reliability that is, quite frankly, questionable. There is no better deterrent than a human presence. The retail industry lost the moral high ground on shoplifting long ago with rip-offs of consumers being publicly-exposed by OFT and local Trading Standards Departments. Also, hard-working people are not going to pay Income Tax and other taxes for retailers to go into court with low-value cases and expect to take priority over more serious cases, like assaults, burglaries and sexual offences, which often leave their victims traumatised, often for life. That is tantamount to subsidising the retail industry. That is not what taxation is for. The retail industry needs to get its own house in order first before it starts trying to reclaim the moral high ground and shouting loudly about retail crime, otherwise words like "pot", "kettle" and "black" are going to be levelled at the industry and with some considerable justification.

[old bill]

Hi UB,

 

The figures for shoplifting are more like -

 

Organised Crime Gangs = 90%

Staff (Pilferage) = 9%

Others (Shrinkage) = 1%

 

It is reasonable for a retailer to temporarily detain someone who has committed an indictable offence, but many alleged shoplifting cases are, in fact, over-zealous, ill-disciplined or incompetent behaviour by retail security brought about by malfunctions of electronic point of sale (EPOS) equipment and unreliable security devices, as well as inadequately-trained or bored CCTV operators trying to create some action.

 

However, I have to agree with AH about the detention of persons by retailers and the right of the person detained to use reasonable force against retail security/retail staff where use of such force is justified.

[old bill]

Absolutely, a court is entitled to the unedited footage, as is the defendant or their solicitor. What I am talking about, is when there is NO court case yet, and the person complaining is simply asking for footage. Their request wouldnt be made under any cpr rules, nor any court order, it would be made under DPA, which is the only law they would be able to use to 'demand' their footage. In that case, the faces of other people, who werent the data subject, would be pixellated. It would be a crime for the shop to show other faces etc, as they, as data subjects, have not consented.

 

IF there was any court action (civil or criminal) going, then by all means, unedited, un redacted footage is required.

 

Pixellating faces on CCTV footage is going to bring up the argument of editing of footage. In my honest opinion, any retailer who pixelates faces on CCTV footage in the belief they are doing so in compliance with the DPA is going to run the risk of being accused of fabrication of evidence, tampering with evidence, etc.. If the person is requesting the footage in order to assess whether civil litigation or informal resolution, e.g. mediation, is appropriate, then my gut-feeling is that the retailer is doing themselves no favours by pixellating faces on the CCTV footage. Ask yourself this question - Would I ask a lawyer, doing commercial law, on a matter of criminal law and/or criminal evidence? Of course you wouldn't. All too often, commercial lawyers tell companies they are doing nothing wrong, only for the company to find out later, when it is too late, that they would have been better consulting a lawyer who was competent in the area of law they required advice on.

[old bill]

This is a rare visit to the CAG forums for me. I am posting because this is an important issue.

 

The retail industry is its own worst enemy. It has abused and misused the law and the police service under the misguided belief it has preferential call on the police and the courts. It has no more preference than anyone else and the industry does need to shed its ingrained corporate arrogance that it should receive preferential consideration.

 

Having been a serving police officer, the retailer in your case should not have detained you for such a prolonged period of time. Four hours would, I suspect, be considered unacceptable by a court. It should have been obvious to the retail security staff that the police were not interested. To be honest, unless high-value items are involved or the suspect is part of an organised shoplifting gang, the police regard shoplifting as a low priority and a pain in the backside. They have more important things to do and offences, like assaults, robberies and sexual offences, take a far higher priority.

 

If a relatively small sum of money was involved and the retailer did not suffer any loss, they would have done better to kick your backside out of the shop and ban you. That would have been a better and more pragmatic course of action to take.

 

The retail industry has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds in police and court time and the attitude the police and courts now take to shoplifting, is, quite frankly, a direct consequence of the retail industry's attitude over the years. The saying "As you sow, so shall you reap" comes to mind.

 

The retail industry needs to get its own house in order and stop ripping off the consumer rather than shout loudly from the rooftops. Another saying "People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind.

 

I'm more than happy to do that, as long as the police: arrive within 3 hours of being called, actually deal with the incident rather than trying to get rid of it as soon as possible, and are active at deterring the offences in the frst place. Security would never have to go 'hands on' if the police reacted quickly to situations.

 

Hi, What if a shopper was held in the holding room for nearly 4 hours and the police didn't show even though they were called, the individual was then told to go home and the police would be in touch (refund fraud). What happens next ? What is the bit about 3 hours ??? This happened to me (no excuse I know but I am otherwise an upstanding member of the community with some recent depression and got myself in a pickle, please don't judge me, it was 4 hours of hell and torturing myself)

[old bill]

If a relatively small amount of money was involved or the retailer suffered no loss whatsoever, the police aren't exactly going to bust a gut, are they? It costs the taxpayer at least £2,000 to take someone before a magistrates court and at least £10,000 to take them before a Crown Court. Would any reasonable person tolerate a retailer taking someone to court, at taxpayer's expense, for a piddling amount of money? Of course they wouldn't, especially if the retailer suffered no loss. If the police take no action, you might get a bullying letter from RLP or similar. If you do, come back onto this thread and caggers will help you deal with that. RLP, all too often, sail very close to the wind, legally, and I am just waiting for them to cross the line and take a legal hammering they either take a long time to recover from, if at all.

[old bill]

If you are suffering from depression, that is relevant. Your post indicates that the behaviour you engaged in is out of character for you. The police and a court would be obliged to take that into account. Have you consulted you GP about your depression? If not, do so as soon as possible. This will give you some valuable ammunition to fire at the likes of RLP should they try to extort money from you.

 

The answer is quite clear in that if TKMaxx has suffered no loss and has acted in a disproportionate manner, which it would appear they have, both they and RLP are going to have a difficult job trying to justify making their fatuous demands for "compensation". The law provides justice for those who have suffered genuine loss as the result of the actions of another. It does not allow those who have suffered loss as the result of their own disproportionate actions to be unjustifiably enriched. As said in an earlier post, any reasonable person would consider kicking your backside out of the shop and banning you to be proportionate. By their actions in your case, TKMaxx has, in my honest opinion, done any case they think they may think they have no favours.

[old bill]

Thank you for revealing that. From what you have said, IMHO, TKMaxx and RLP would be very hard-pushed to put together a case that would stand up in a court of law. The fact you suffer from PTSD and PND and are on medication for this is quite compelling. If TKMaxx and/or RLP try to make an issue out of what happened, come back onto this thread and we'll help you deal with it.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.