..... Was listening to R4 on way to work and there has been complaint about the civil recovery system used by shops.
Quote "my daughter received a bill from civil recovery firm for £120 ish because she stole a £7 lipgloss"
Eh?
So the police don't have any interest in helping shops combat theft, but the shops shouldn't try and get it back and provide a deterrant the police should be doing instead.
Apparantely it's "preying on the poorer people in society"
No it isn't, it's preying on the scumbags who nick stuff and therefore break the law!!!!
So basically all a shop can do is let people take what they want and give people an option of paying or not. The honest ones have to pay more because they are honest.
I normally support the police/OFT (I think that's who made the report I may he wrong) but this is downright wrong.
I think the woman who was asked for £100 because her one year old picked up a drink and carried out of the shop had a good case.
I think the point being made is that, when challenged, these peopl enever proceed to court, they jsut drop the ting.
this gives the impression they're 'trying it on' really.
not that I condone shoplifting but if they have good eveidence they can take it to court if they don't they shouldn;t just try and scare money out of people.
If the shops have a case to make it should be taken to court. I listened to this and the civil recovery folks sounded like unregulated bailiffs to me. Charging a man £1200 against a till discrepancy of £7, for which he lost his job, is grossly unjust.
First situation of the kid taking the drink, sorry the kid is your responsibility and there is no excuse, it's your problem. Maybe actually keeping an eye on them might be a good thing?
The bloke who was fired lost a tribunal case for dismissal IIRC. No one gets sacked for one £7 till discrepancy, you'd get taken to the cleaners as an employer. There must be many more occurances of irregularities fir him to lose his job, and the £1200 recovery would probably be fair.
should definitely go to court, it's not the job of a largely unregulated for profit industry to hand out justice
Remember that these cases won't go to court as the police won't even attend theft incidents in shops now. So shops have no choice but to try and get some cash back.
It got to the point where I worked where we were told just to try and get the stock back ad there was too much risk involved in catching the thief and the police won't come even if you do catch them so there's no point.
Remember also that a £7 lipgloss stolen, with normal markup would probably mean you'd have to sell 2 more at least to be back even financially.
So if you're happy paying significantly more for stuff just because no-one will uphold the law of the land then that's ok I suppose.
the shop's could go for a private prosecution.
robdob - the shop's already include the cost of security and 'losses' (to either staff or punters) in their costs and I can't see them dropping their prices just 'cos they've wangled a £120 out of some bloke who wouldn't stand up to them can you?
I thought this was entirely seperate to any criminal proceedings, not an alternative.
I.e.
shoplifter caught by shopkeeper
arrested by police (EDIT - should be - they always are where I work, maybe not everywhere)
'dealt with' (which is a different debate) via the criminal justice system
and in addition, if he so chooses, shopkeeper persues civil action to recover costs
I don't think the retailer has to choose between involving the police OR going down the civil recovery route - he can do both. And it's not something the police would have any influence on either.
I tell you what, try working in retail for 12 years like I did, eventually as someone in charge of loss prevention then cone and say that.
Yes there is a budget for loss, but stopping all shops ability to either recover losses or provide deterrants means that prices will inevitably push prices up. Civil recovery was brought in because the police completely deserted retail, giving them some help.
Look at it this way, if someone burgled your house and the police were not interested but someone said, hey, I can get the money back you paid for it, plus your expenses for time and effort sorting it out, and additionally it'll stop them doing it again, you'd jump at the chance.
What reasons do they give for not sending anyone when you've caught someone red handed?
(Genuinely interested robdob. If you're saying that's what happens where you've worked then I'll believe you. Where I work, that wouldn't happen, although where I work is a fairly small town).
I thought most retail stock-losses were 'back of the shop' rather than from shoplifters ???
I think the woman who was asked for £100 because her one year old picked up a drink and carried out of the shop had a good case.
LOADS of theives use kids as "oh, the kid must have picked it up" excuses, don't be fooled.
I think the police should be called, EVERY time. That way we'd have accurate crime figures and more budget for them.
In all fairness, if that did happen to me, I wouldn't be wanting my money back, I'd just like 15 minutes alone with the scr@tes in a room with a few screwdrivers so I could get my payment back...
I still think it's rubbish...the Police should be doing policing so if people are genuinely shoplifting they should be done...the mum/kid thing, not sure why she didn't offer to pay for the drink as soon as it was noticed - if it was a genuine mistake (which it probably was) and she was honest and open about it then it shouldn't have gone that far.
Something smells a bit funny the fact she has been hit with this bill when it would have been easy enough to clear up if it had been dealt with there and then.
I don't have time for thieves, everyone has to work to afford stuff, so what makes them any different that they think they don't need to pay? Genuine mistakes not included in that last bit as I do believe it isn't intentional all the time.
As for the mark-up and reselling - sorry but that is what retail does...so yes, they may loose £7 on some lipgloss (which didn't cost them £7 to buy in), but the volumes of everything else bought on that day will cover that loss - still doesn't make it acceptable by any means, but unless they sell nothing that day, then they have still made money.
Does sound as though the 'system' now in place needs better standards and ethics though...
I think people are being unfair to the parent of the child that picked up the drink, yes they should have spotted it, but kids can be quick little ****ers.
The lipgloss though, not a necessity is it and they're not stealing to stay alive are they, nail them up!
I worked in a large DIY chain and a medium music/video chain. The music shop was in town and we had 2 officers who I think were available 2/3 days a week for 4/5 hours each day for the whole of Huddersfield. They did the best job they could to deter thieves and were in constant contact with shopsvia a radio system. Never heard of any convictions coming from that though. The DIY store was just out ofthe town centre and the police wanted us to call them but never came out to us straight away. They only came later on in the day or next day to get more details of what happened. We were advised not to apprehend thieves as we weren't trained security personnel and it wasn't safe as most thieves are druggies who could be violent. The thieves knew the "human rights" crap and that we could be accused of assault if trying to physically restrain them so there was no point.
I know the civil recovery was supposed to be in tandem with criminal justice in the courts but the absence of a police presence probably means that civil recovery had been used more and more.
A while back I even think there was a proposal that NO convictions for theft from retail under £80 IIRC. Not sure what happened with that but it makes you see what the attitude to retail theft is and why shops are having to resort to things like civil recovery.
