Security loop holes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shifty
    replied
    Originally posted by LPAjh9558
    I agree also...points well made. The reasons that I brought these issues up were because, (1) Not all companies have the same policies regarding dressing room stops, which is unfortunate I think (2) With the company that I worked for previously, once a suspect went into a fitting room, the app was blown regardless of whether or not if all the steps were made up to that point

    Also, with our RLPM, DLPM & sometimes even the LPM it didn't matter that all the steps were still in affect when it came to fitting rooms. I know for a fact that there were a few times when the LPM gave the okay for an app on something like that, and even though everything turned out great guess who would get the reem job when the s**t hit the fan for even making a stop....Not the LPM but us, the LPA's

    This had always been probably the biggest topic that we didn't agree on. It's unfortunate to because we lost several apps when suspects went inside the fitting rooms
    Hmm... I disagree with that sort of practice, as most theft in clothing stores happens in the fitting rooms, so you're basically turning a blind eye to the biggest area of your external losses.

    I suppose this could be because fitting room cases can be tricky and the risk of making a bad stop is higher (because it requires 2 investigators and more steps), the company would rather avoid the liability and take the hit.

    I hope this company would take more agressive prevention efforts in the fitting rooms, such as employing fitting room attendants and using locked and isolated fitting rooms.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPAjh9558
    replied
    Originally posted by shifty
    That's why most LP programs have "steps" that have to be observed to make an arrest, the first 2 being "Approach" and "Selection". That's how you know it was something that didn't already belong to them.



    Because you observe the subject enter the fitting room with, let's say 4 items, which you observed them previously select and then you observe the subject exit with only 2 items in their hands and put them back on the floor. You inspect the fitting room area (while your partner maintains observation of the subject) and find no merchandise in there. That means the subject has 2 items concealed.



    You don't. But you still maintained continuity, so you know the subject has 2 items on him. If they exit and not make an attempt to pay, you can arrest them.



    This is why fitting rooms are not a safe zone for thieves.
    Many of my arrests were fitting room cases and have stood up in court (in Canada).
    I agree also...points well made. The reasons that I brought these issues up were because, (1) Not all companies have the same policies regarding dressing room stops, which is unfortunate I think (2) With the company that I worked for previously, once a suspect went into a fitting room, the app was blown regardless of whether or not if all the steps were made up to that point

    Also, with our RLPM, DLPM & sometimes even the LPM it didn't matter that all the steps were still in affect when it came to fitting rooms. I know for a fact that there were a few times when the LPM gave the okay for an app on something like that, and even though everything turned out great guess who would get the reem job when the s**t hit the fan for even making a stop....Not the LPM but us, the LPA's

    This had always been probably the biggest topic that we didn't agree on. It's unfortunate to because we lost several apps when suspects went inside the fitting rooms

    Leave a comment:


  • darkenna
    replied
    Welcome aboard, shifty, and well said.

    Fitting room cases need to be handled very carefully, and with much professionalism towards any other customers that may be around. I have read more bad stops that occurred in fitting rooms than anywhere else in the store; but the majority of the largest stops I've seen (all but 2, in fact, of all the apprehensions over $1500 that I've either been involved in or oversaw) were also fitting room concealments. If you follow your steps--and your company policies--there's no reason why fitting rooms need to be a sink hole for merchandise.

    Oh, and on a side note, I too have never had a fitting room apprehension not stand up (US, Mass & NH primarily), and that's with several hundred to the credit.

    Leave a comment:


  • shifty
    replied
    Originally posted by LPAjh9558
    Why does the idea of dressing rooms being a safe zone for shoplifters seem like a "myth" to you?

    How do you know if what the person had when they went in, wasn't something that already belonged to them?
    That's why most LP programs have "steps" that have to be observed to make an arrest, the first 2 being "Approach" and "Selection". That's how you know it was something that didn't already belong to them.

    Originally posted by LPAjh9558
    How do you if the merchandise was and/or has been concealed?
    Because you observe the subject enter the fitting room with, let's say 4 items, which you observed them previously select and then you observe the subject exit with only 2 items in their hands and put them back on the floor. You inspect the fitting room area (while your partner maintains observation of the subject) and find no merchandise in there. That means the subject has 2 items concealed.

    Originally posted by LPAjh9558
    How do you know where the merchandise was concealed?
    You don't. But you still maintained continuity, so you know the subject has 2 items on him. If they exit and not make an attempt to pay, you can arrest them.



    This is why fitting rooms are not a safe zone for thieves.
    Many of my arrests were fitting room cases and have stood up in court (in Canada).

    Leave a comment:


  • LPAjh9558
    replied
    One problem unlicenced Loss Prevention Officers (Inhouse) have over this side of the pond is that they're not allowed to arrest the perp until they've gone passed the point of payment.
    But by that time they have gone out of the door and we are not insured and not allowed to go after them once they leave the premises.
    That's how it was (is) with where I worked at. Basically, you have to wait until the suspect(s) have passed all points of payment. Vary rarely would a stop be made before then unless there was an immediate danger that presented itself to other customers. And even then, once they had passed all purchase points it would still get confusing.....

    We could still stop someone outside but only if he/she hadn't made it past the "curb" as we called it. Which is where the cutoff is between store and city property.

    Agreed - loss of continuity is why I cringe when I hear these things happen. Our fitting rooms are self locking now nationally as it cost a fortune to get them all biometric locks (each boutique has 6 - 12 fitting rooms)
    We did have the idea being tossed around as to whether or not if "locking" the dressing rooms would be something of concern. The main arguement against this was that by doing it, and only allowing that department to have the key/code, would cost the store more business than was worth the effort. Losing merchandise to dressing room theft was right up there as one of the top categories for shrinkage. We would find literally tons of tags and/or clothes that were switched for new ones...grrrr!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ewfr 'Gomulee
    replied
    One problem unlicenced Loss Prevention Officers (Inhouse) have over this side of the pond is that they're not allowed to arrest the perp until they've gone passed the point of payment.
    But by that time they have gone out of the door and we are not insured and not allowed to go after them once they leave the premises.

    Usually Loss Prevention Officers, Inhouse, do not have other Licenced Collegues to back them up and other Store Guards are usually quite difficult to call out because sometimes they could be busy and they are also bound by the strict rules on catching a perp.

    It is suggested that we move the alarms by the door further into the store and make a pathway to them so that people cannot dodge going through them, technically when the door alarms go off the perp has gone past the point of payment and is then arrestable but that still means being close to the doors and the door alarms just to have a chance at catching them before they leg it off up the road.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Agreed - loss of continuity is why I cringe when I hear these things happen. Our fitting rooms are self locking now nationally as it cost a fortune to get them all biometric locks (each boutique has 6 - 12 fitting rooms) but when someone will spent $5k US in 1 item, it is petty cash to spend a few hundred. We recoup this just with 1 dress (around $4k US) each year so it was worth it for each store to bear the cost.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPAjh9558
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy
    That's a myth.

    When I worked LP, most of my apprehensions involved fitting room thefts.
    Why does the idea of dressing rooms being a safe zone for shoplifters seem like a "myth" to you?

    How do you know if what the person had when they went in, wasn't something that already belonged to them?
    How do you if the merchandise was and/or has been concealed?
    How do you know where the merchandise was concealed?

    These were just 3 of the things that we had to consider when working a case and the fitting rooms were used for the theft.....
    With the place that I worked at, once the individual(s) went inside, no apprehension was to be made. I don't know about other retail company policies, but at this place dressing rooms were definitely a safe zone for the thiefs to go to...

    Wish things were different as we lost numerous apprehensions because of this issue

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    I had these issues with volume sales retailers and made sure the fitting rooms were bare as much as possible. Mesh over their ceilings, lights were shapes with no points of concealment. But from my experience, the fitting rooms in places such as Kmart or similar are usually manned by a very young team member who has more interest in discussing Idol and could only be employed for 8 from 12 hours of store opening. When you reduce the risk of concealment of tags, find staff suitable to cover the fitting rooms and above all, ensure that you examine every component of the your risk control in these areas. You can do everything possible to educate staff and reduce the risk but it will not eliminate customers (and staff) from theft.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericjones80
    replied
    Paul, I worked in retail before and in most stores, the associate is supposed to put everything in the dressing room for the person. This reduces a lot of shoplifting. I know where you're coming from though.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulPasciak
    Loophole #1: The dressing room being a safe zone for shoplifters.
    That's a myth.

    When I worked LP, most of my apprehensions involved fitting room thefts.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    Paul, welcome to retail LOL.

    Yes the agressors know all they do is have to put on a performance and then claim "the LPO hit me or the security guard made me do this because of what he was doing to me" and with liability such an expense in business, many companies will just pay up and shut up. I live in Australia so we have not had nowhere near these issues like the USA, but it will only be a matter of time before it becomes an alarming trend.

    Reality: You will not stop every dishonest person but you can make a dent into their opportunities without arresting people - just make sure you get the help of the eyes of other staff to contact you when something is not right.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulPasciak
    started a topic Security loop holes.

    Security loop holes.

    It seems like the loop holes in store security creates a never ending game of cat and mouse.
    Loophole #1: The dressing room being a safe zone for shoplifters.
    Loophold #2: Seemingly widespread fear of being sued by innocent targets.

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...