Citizens Advice has criticised a Nottingham company in a report about businesses which pursue shoplifters for compensation – often without crimes being reported to police.Of course, the reason so many businesses don’t report them is because nothing ever happens to them…
As we can see.
Retail Loss Prevention, a centre for retail research, features in a report out today entitled 'Civil Recovery: Unreasonable Demands?'Which is a direct result of the lack of punishment doled out to these habitual thieves.
The CAB says it has been dealing with increasing cases of clients accused of shoplifting or employee theft who are then pursued for "substantial sums of money" as compensation.
It says: "Criminal charges are rarely brought and often the police aren't even called."
And as a result, it’s rising. But what else are businesses to do?
"We believe the manner in which these requests for payment are made, and the threat of escalating costs and court action may constitute 'deceitful', 'unfair' and 'improper' business practice, as defined by the OFT.If the courts either won’t prosecute, or manifestly fail to issue a proper punishment even after many, many offences, then it’s ludicrous to suggest that the retail industry should find some other way of gaining redress.
"Whilst Citizens Advice doesn't condone crime of any kind and does not underestimate the cost to retailers, we believe that if retailers are dissatisfied with the level of governmental action against retail crime, and seek civil redress, they must do so using means that are transparently fair and proper."
The law is all we have. Forcing people to go outside it to get redress is going to lead to far, far greater problems than this one…
RLP managing director Jackie Lambert said: "Civil law is there for us to take action.And so that’s what they do.
"Shoplifting is the one area of crime that has increased where all other areas are decreasing.
"Sadly in Britain today people in their homes are having to take more security measures because of things happening.
"It is a claim for compensation. If somebody commits a wrongful act you have the right to take out a civil claim to recover the cost that has been incurred."
Can anyone blame them? Certainly not me.
11 comments:
The problem I can see with this is evidence and burden of proof. In a criminal prosecution, the CPS has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's a balance of probabilities. How do we know that the accused is, in fact, guilty of the offence?
Following a successful criminal prosecution with its higher burden of proof, I'd be more than happy to see criminals sued for compensation. Without that, no.
Perhaps we should steal things from the offices of Citizens Advice.
Longrider
You're right - or, in a less imperfect world - you would be right. But what are the retailers to do? The police won't act. Moreover, I suspect the compensation orders of the court following a criminal conviction would either be derisory (we're talking British courts here) or a pain in the neck to enforce. There's no doubt that Retail Loss Prevention - in the grand tradition of the system - go completely OTT in many cases but they wouldn't have a business if the police and the courts carried out their "business".
Umbongo - I do understand and sympathise with retailers and entirely take Julia's point here. I also worry about the low burden of proof that sees people chased for damages that they did not cause.
An unexpected consequence of the failure of the police, no?
I heard about this on the Jeremy Vine so yesterday and the first thing that came to mind was that if the justice system actually worked then this whole thing would never have started. However given that it doesn't then it is hardly surprising that this has come about.
Not that either party on the show (Jackie Lambert and someone from the CAB) came across well.
PS: the capatcha was 'cheat'...
You wouldn't mind I suppose if the people enforcing this 'civil remedy' weren't driven by the need to make a profit which can lead to areas of concern as described by the CAB and the 'front line' weren't people similar to civil parking enforcement officers or people with a low IQ or completely lacking in common sense (see following story re 'hoodies'!
"Shoplifting is the one area of crime that has increased where all other areas are decreasing....."
"Shoplifting" is not an offence.
THEFT is.
Call it what it IS, and do not disguise it as some kind of Bagatelle that is LESS than THEFT.
I believe shoplifters now add something like 2% to gross retail costs, which is significant.
Althought it has been traditional to absorb these 'overheads' within our own bills, I see nothing wrong with the principle of passing those costs back to thieves who create them. Many shoplifters can afford to pay but they are simply greedy AND dishonest.
How much sympathy do we owe such a criminal when he complains that his theft hit him in the pocket on the odd occasion he was caught?
How much sympathy do we owe such a criminal when he complains that his theft hit him in the pocket on the odd occasion he was caught?
Hits WHOS pocket?
Most of the bastards are getting their money from the tax payer, in the form of dole, any way.
Ans once again. It is NOT shoplifting it is THEFT.
"An unexpected consequence of the failure of the police, no?"
Yes, most definitely. I wonder if CA would be so blase if we all took Brian's suggestion?
"I heard about this on the Jeremy Vine so yesterday and the first thing that came to mind was that if the justice system actually worked then this whole thing would never have started."
Indeed. Mind you, they did wheel on some sympathetic 'shoplifters' like the woman whose child had eaten something from her trolley to paint the required picture of 'heartless big business'.
"How much sympathy do we owe such a criminal when he complains that his theft hit him in the pocket on the odd occasion he was caught?"
Ah, if only it DID. As von Spreuth suggests, most of them are going to pay any fines directly from someone else's pocket...
It is not the "theft" people complained about but the EXCESSIVE charges made for the recovery of goods "stolen". Is it fair to charge £75 for a bag of sweets worth 65p? No,didn't think so either.
Interesting that these companies hide behind the civil courts.Yet the civil court remedy of rescission is non-existent here ie the victim is put back in the position where they were before something occurred. Therefore, 65p NOT £75 is owed.
Post a Comment