Hi,

I am in trouble. Today, i have returned two items to TKmaxx with the swapped tags. (middle age crises) Thereturned items bought from TKmax earlier, but i din't like them but miss the time for the return. Today I have noticed that the cashier took my details. I know that i went red in the face, as i cannot lie.

Reading the forum, i seen that i should expect the knock on the door from police.

What shall i do?

shall i go the shop and admit that i did something very stupid?

Please help

Thank you

hi, i don't understand swapped tags? price tags?

reading round the forum, you'll see TK maxx use a company called RLP... and if you read round the forum more, you will see the general advice is to ignore all letters from RLP, else send them a one liner if you want.. have a search for TX maxx and RLP

if TK maxx wanted to take it further they would have called the police in the store. the police are very unlikely to call at your home, that is if TK maxx even called the police which again is very unlikely they have

anyway, from what i understand from your post, there was not even a crime! the cashier just rectified things and prevented the crime for you (i guess)

if you feel midlife crisis is effecting you then please go see your GP as they will be able to provide help with that.

if TK maxx wanted to take it further they would have called the police in the store. the police are very unlikely to call at your home, that is if TK maxx even called the police which again is very unlikely they have

 

anyway, from what i understand from your post, there was not even a crime! the cashier just rectified things and prevented the crime for you (i guess)

Bad advice : "you guess", but you guess wrong.

TK Maxx may decide to take no action, but might refer the matter to the police. For shoplifting (which this wasn't) they are more likely to call the police at the time than for refund fraud, as catching the offender red-handed makes for an easier prosecution.

Why would this not be "fraud by false representation"?.

Are you aware that for the offence of fraud by false representation to be made out it isn't necessary for it to actually succeed? The cashier "rectifying things" doesn't stop the offence being made out.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

S2 Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

The OP might have got away without the police being involved.

Equally, they might later be asked to attend a police station / be arrested : only time will tell.

I agree that if the OP feel they are suffering mental health issues : they should seek help from their GP.

Shall i call to TKMaxx and ask for the manager and admit fraud and pay it about £30?

What shall i do?

What shall i do?

What did you do?

Did you swap price tickets (to get a refund for more than the goods were worth)?

Did you swap "tags" on items (or use receipts for good purchased more recently - if so could they tell from the different stock codes that the items had been swapped)?

Would you have made a gain if you had succeeded? Were TKMax actually exposed to any risk of loss if you had succeeded? (as if you didn't intend to make an unlawful gain or expose TKMax to a risk of loss, then it can't be "fraud by false representation"....

the prices of the items are about the same, the older one might be a bit cheaper (by £5). I don't know about coding - its top for top and shorts for shorts. about they same price

i have swapped similar items, the older for the newer. the price about the same, maybe £5 difference

the prices of the items are about the same, the older one might be a bit cheaper (by £5). I don't know about coding - its top for top and shorts for shorts. about they same price

I still don't have a clear picture of what you did.

If you were given the refund, it may be that the cashier was taking your name & address as a matter of routine, rather than due to suspicion.....

i worry what if the item, because it is older might have been discounted and now cost less, then it would be i have gained some ££, and hence fraud representation

and it was not the typical "regular" cashier, she looks more like "Harrods girl" (polished look), can it be that they have some RLP field day?

bazzas. as usual, my reply to you is in blue

Bad advice : "you guess", but you guess wrong.

 

TK Maxx may decide to take no action, but might refer the matter to the police.

If they decided to take no action, why would they refer the matter to the police?

 

Why would this not be "fraud by false representation"?.

I have not said that it isn't.

 

Are you aware that for the offence of fraud by false representation to be made out it isn't necessary for it to actually succeed?

It is self explanatory, so yes, am aware!

 

The cashier "rectifying things" doesn't stop the offence being made out.

The cashier rectifying things stops the offence of theft.

On a technicality of fraud by false representation which i guess TK Maxx would be highly unlikely to proceed with. A cashier asked for grumpy bears details. There was no manager. THere were no security. Also appears that there were no questions asked concerning swapped tags. It me be very well that store policy dictates customer detail is needed for refund.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

 

 

The OP might have got away with it.

Equally, they might later be asked to attend a police station / be arrested : only time will tell.

The onus is on them to prove that there is fraud by misrepresentation and as the OP said cashier took details and nothing else, no questions, it does seem highly unlikely that there would be further aciton.

I agree that if the OP feel they are suffering mental health issues : they should seek help from their GP.

The OP has not mentioned any mental health issues. The OP mentioned a midlife crisis which is completely different from that of a mental health issue.

grumpy bear - my opinion earlier still stands! i do not believe it is 'bad advice' as Bazza states. bazza simply brings the technicality of fraud by misrepresentation.

bazza has mentioned good advice, as i have myself (despite bazza saying my advice is bad)

all i can add to this thread is - i still believe it highly unlikely TK Mazz would pursue this further since it would take them a lot of effort and time in proving their case. other reasons why i believe they would not pursue this further is - the cashier did not ask you any questions, no manager, no security, only a cashier who could very well have taken your address as it is sometimes shops policy to record address of refunds.

bazzas. as usual, my reply to you is in blue

..

 

grumpy bear - my opinion earlier still stands! i do not believe it is 'bad advice' as Bazza states. bazza simply brings the technicality of fraud by misrepresentation.

 

bazza has mentioned good advice, as i have myself (despite bazza saying my advice is bad)

 

all i can add to this thread is - i still believe it highly unlikely TK Mazz would pursue this further since it would take them a lot of effort and time in proving their case. other reasons why i believe they would not pursue this further is - the cashier did not ask you any questions, no manager, no security, only a cashier who could very well have taken your address as it is sometimes shops policy to record address of refunds.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436327-Refund-fraud-mistaken-return-tk-maxx-what-happens-after-police-interview

Shows that TKMaxx do sometimes involve the police for fraud by false representation over refunds, and the first the suspect might know about it is later, once the store have let the police review the CCTV.

Googling "tk maxx refund fraud" also shows both where people have defended such allegations, and where fraudsters have been successfully prosecuted.

So, it isn't merely a technicality, and they do pursue it.

As for

bazza simply brings the technicality of fraud by misrepresentation

Can you point to the statute that deals with "fraud by misrepresentation"?

I referred to (and gave the statute for) "fraud by false representation" : if you are going to be critical of my postings, you might wish to refer to offences actually on the statute books, not one's you have just made up ......

As for me noting:

TK Maxx may decide to take no action, but might refer the matter to the police.

If they decided to take no action, why would they refer the matter to the police?.

Oh dear. Did you fail to read or fail to comprehend?

TK Maxx may decide to take no action.

If they decided (instead) that they weren't going to take no action they then might refer the matter to the police.

I can only hope me explaining what already was obvious helps those who struggled with it first time around ......

OP: it still isn't clear to me exactly what swapping you did, and you might be "in the clear". I just wouldn't be falsely reassured by p3t3r's nonsense, unless they can reference their opinion in the way I've done, to reassure you of the basis of my comments.

Was this definitely the first and only time you have done such?

('Maxxer' is a CAG'ger who has stated they used to work in retail security for TKMaxx, and has previously stated that the firm's policy was only to take action on a second or subsequent episode, in order to avoid people being penalised for (or able to claim) "honest mistake").

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436327-Refund-fraud-mistaken-return-tk-maxx-what-happens-after-police-interview&p=4657940#post4657940

Would it be worth asking 'Maxxer' if it had to be 2 separate events, or if "2 items in one occurrence" meets TKMaxx's conditions?

pers I'd sit back and wait to see if anything happens

it might not

then come back here.

dx

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436327-Refund-fraud-mistaken-return-tk-maxx-what-happens-after-police-interview

No. That thread shows nothing of the sort. Nowhere in that link does it say police had been involved for fraud by false representation.

 

Shows that TKMaxx do sometimes involve the police for fraud by false representation over refunds, and the first the suspect might know about it is later, once the store have let the police review the CCTV.

Again: No. That thread shows nothing of the sort. Nowhere in that link does it say police had been involved for fraud by false representation.

 

Googling "tk maxx refund fraud" also shows both where people have defended such allegations, and where fraudsters have been successfully prosecuted.

Maybe you would care to google it yourself and provide a link? But please make it a relevant link to show your claim unlike the previously link that shows nothing.

 

 

So, it isn't merely a technicality, and they do pursue it.

Sorry, but, that is just your opinion as it is my opinion that it would not be pursued against OP.

 

As for

 

 

Can you point to the statute that deals with "fraud by misrepresentation"?

I referred to (and gave the statute for) "fraud by false representation" : if you are going to be critical of my postings, you might wish to refer to offences actually on the statute books, not one's you have just made up ......

Firstly, I am not critical of your postings. You may care to note the fact that I have said in a previous post within this thread that you have given - and I quote "good advice" = that in itself shows I am not critical of you.

As for pointing to the statute that deals with 'fraud by misrepresentation' here- fraud by misrepresentation

 

As for me noting:

 

Oh dear. Did you fail to read or fail to comprehend?

TK Maxx may decide to take no action.

If they decided (instead) that they weren't going to take no action they then might refer the matter to the police.

That is a bad way of explaining it, but I do understand. Your original way of explaining it was and i quote: "TK Maxx may decide to take no action, but might refer the matter to the police."

and I couldn't understand why they would refer the matter to the police if they decided not to take action. It is not that I failed to read, or failed to comprehend, it was the fact that I didn't understand your original sentence as it was nonsensical, but now understand your second attempt at explaining it to me above.

I can only hope me explaining what already was obvious helps those who struggled with it first time around ......

As I already said, I struggled with it the first time round because it was nonsensical! You then changed this to the above.... which btw is totally different from your original.

 

OP: it still isn't clear to me exactly what swapping you did, and you might be "in the clear". I just wouldn't be falsely reassured by p3t3r's nonsense, unless they can reference their opinion in the way I've done, to reassure you of the basis of my comments.

But as I have said above, you have not referenced your opinion. You have provided me with a link (above) to reference your opinion, but nowhere within your linked resource is there anything that says your opinion is correct. actually, there is nothing in your linked resource that even mentions the OP dealt with police, neither does it mention the subject.

I refer you to your comment to me earlier which is, and i quote: "Oh dear. Did you fail to read or fail to comprehend?"

 

 

Was this definitely the first and only time you have done such?

('Maxxer' is a CAG'ger who has stated they used to work in retail security for TKMaxx, and has previously stated that the firm's policy was only to take action on a second or subsequent episode, in order to avoid people being penalised for (or able to claim) "honest mistake").

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436327-Refund-fraud-mistaken-return-tk-maxx-what-happens-after-police-interview&p=4657940#post4657940

 

Would it be worth asking 'Maxxer' if it had to be 2 separate events, or if "2 items in one occurrence" meets TKMaxx's conditions?

it is 2 separate events. that information is shown in the link you kindly provided earlier, I take it (as you said to me) that you either failed to read the thread or comprehend it.

 

Look, I don't wish to sound rude. But, I feel your posts in this thread as well as at least 3 other threads are just condescending, rude and arrogant. Just look at this thread for example of that...

In one thread, a thread where I am asking advice for myself, your attitude toward me within that thread (similar to this thread) was just criticism, - even to an extent that a member of CAG site team said to you, quote: Unless you've anything new to add I think you've made your point quite clearly Bazza. and it is my guess that you were told that in response to your criticisms of me and imo your one sided responses within the thread.

I will not bother to look through the 3 threads I can remember off the top of my head where you have made personal attacks against me. Examples of your personal attacks can be seen in this thread alone.

....

Now, to other matters. I request you don't bother to help me within the 2 threads I have asking for help. Previously I have been polite with you and thanked you etc, infact, on some occasion you have provided me with excellent advice. I thank you for that again! But, mostly, your interaction with me is personal attacks and I am not here for that.

Well done. I now intend to block you on t'internet. You will be the second person within 17 years. In ending our conversation, I will simply refer you to the case law of Arkell vs. Pressdram

grumpy bear... there is difference of opinion! i strongly believe that they would not proceed with a claim of fraud by misrepresentation against yourself.

bazza believes it is a possibility.

to backup my opinion that you will not be prosecuted, please see Bazzas link (the link bazza claims that says TKMaxx do prosecute) - in that link you will see that they infact do not prosecute on provision that this is your first offence with them. you will also see in that link that they would highly likely prosecute if it was not your first offence.

based upon Bazzas 'evidence', this shows that you will not be prosecuted.... as per my opinion. and against the opinion of bazzas.

I'm in agreement with dx here. Stop worrying, sit back and wait

grumpy bear... there is difference of opinion! i strongly believe that they would not proceed with a claim of fraud by misrepresentation against yourself.

bazza believes it is a possibility.

 

to backup my opinion that you will not be prosecuted, please see Bazzas link (the link bazza claims that says TKMaxx do prosecute) - in that link you will see that they infact do not prosecute on provision that this is your first offence with them. you will also see in that link that they would highly likely prosecute if it was not your first offence.

 

based upon Bazzas 'evidence', this shows that you will not be prosecuted.... as per my opinion. and against the opinion of bazzas.

Yet more waffle.

To encapsulate why it is waffle, while keeping it relevant to the OP:

1) maxxer's comment is on "TKMaxx require 2 examples, so the suspect can't claim 'honest mistake'" : I was asking if this could be 2 items in one occurrence (as the OP has described) or had to be 2 separate occurrences (which is why I asked the OP if this was the first and only occurrence)

2) the concept p3t3r wants you to Google is "fraud by misrepresentation". I reiterate that there is no such criminal offence in the UK. There is the concept of "misrepresentation" in civil (contract) law: but that is hardly relevant here. If you do follow his 'lmgtfy' link : you'll get a whole load of irrelevant links.

Little wonder he has wasted over 400 hours of "research" on one of his other threads, if that is the quality of his research.

3) TKMaxx don't "prosecute", as p3t3r has stated they do, as that it the CPS's role, not TKMaxx.

I haven't said they "prosecute", but that they might "take action" or contact the police.

If contacted the police investigate ; if they feel an offence has been committed they pass a file to the CPS, who make a decision on prosecution.

(Before the 'red herring' gets raised :is theoretically possible for an organisation like TKMaxx to bring a private prosecution: it happens so rarely as

a) it can be "taken over" by the DPP and discontinued

b) it brings it own risks of costs if unsuccessful.

So TKMaxx follow the much more common path of reporting suspected crime to the police)

As for me raising

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/showthread.php?436327-Refund-fraud-mistaken-return-tk-maxx-what-happens-after-police-interview

No. That thread shows nothing of the sort. Nowhere in that link does it say police had been involved for fraud by false representation.

Hello? Clue is in the title!

"What happens after police interview" - the police were involved. "Refund fraud": the OP's own words of what was alleged.

Reading the thread "the allegation was 'fraud'" : had this been pursued as fraud by refund fraud the alleged offence would thus have been "fraud by false representation".

So p3t3r, what were the police involved for if not interviewing under caution / investigating an allegation of fraud by false representation?

To try to argue that the police weren't involved to investigate an allegation of fraud by false representation suggests p3t3r is "not entirely grounded in reality" (and I'm trying to keep it civil).

OP: I'm still unsure if you "have exposed TKMaxx to risk of loss", and if they might follow-up on this.

I've nowhere said they they WILL involve the police (though p3t3r seems to think I'm saying that), just that I don't feel it is certain they won't

"Wait & see"; seems to be the consensus

Yet more waffle.

Yet more personal attacks. If anyone waffling, it is yourself, eg: personal attacks, your claim that your links support your argument when it does not (infact, your link supported my argument lol)

 

To encapsulate why it is waffle, while keeping it relevant to the OP:

1) maxxer's comment is on "TKMaxx require 2 examples, so the suspect can't claim 'honest mistake'" : I was asking if this could be 2 items in one occurrence (as the OP has described) or had to be 2 separate occurrences (which is why I asked the OP if this was the first and only occurrence)The thread shows upon 2 or more separate occasions.

2) the concept p3t3r wants you to Google is "fraud by misrepresentation" I do not want anyone to google that. Yet again you twist words . I reiterate that there is no such criminal offence in the UK. There is the concept of "misrepresentation" in civil (contract) law: but that is hardly relevant here. If you do follow his 'lmgtfy' link : you'll get a whole load of irrelevant links.No. If you follow that link, you will find only the ONE link and not a whole load of irrelevant links. Incidentally, you asked me to provide you with that link. From reading your latest 'waffle' it seems that you didn't even bother to follow the link as you assumed wrongly it contains many links, it conainted only the one, the one link you specifically asked me to provide you.

Little wonder he has wasted over 400 hours of "research" on one of his other threads, if that is the quality of his research.

Another personal attack. You can't help yourself I really am perplexed by your attitude towards me.

As for the quality of my research, you obviously did not research the link you asked from me because had you have clicked the link you would have seen only one relevant link that you asked for. you AUTOMATICALLY assume it was a general lmgtfy. (sighs) And you question quality of my research lol

3) TKMaxx don't "prosecute", as p3t3r has stated they do, as that it the CPS's role, not TKMaxx. I was not aware that I did say they would prosecute. Anyway, if I had said that, it is obvious they TKMaxx are not prosecuting and it is CPS role. But that is you just being pedantic just to have another personal attack at me. A reasonable person would have realised what I was saying without picking holes and being pedantic.

I haven't said they "prosecute", but that they might "take action" or contact the police.

If contacted the police investigate ; if they feel an offence has been committed they pass a file to the CPS, who make a decision on prosecution.

(Before the 'red herring' gets raised :is theoretically possible for an organisation like TKMaxx to bring a private prosecution: it happens so rarely as

a) it can be "taken over" by the DPP and discontinued

b) it brings it own risks of costs if unsuccessful.

So TKMaxx follow the much more common path of reporting suspected crime to the police)

Your personal attacks against me in other threads has now overspilled here.

Again, I will save you the embarrassment of referring / quoting your continued personal attacks in the other 3 threads. I had thought that after CAG site team member spoke with you in one thread that you would stop. But you didn't. And it has overspilled here.

And after pointing out your many personal attacks, you continue in the same course of action.

Any future personal attacks you choose to make against me, or negative comments will be ignored since it is absolutely pointless debating with someone like yourself - eg, personal attacks, providing links as evidence but no evidence, twisting words and just a general attempt at childish taunting to go along with your personal attacks against me in this thread and others.

To reiterate: It will be easier for myself and others if I just ignore you from now on. It is pointless trying to reason with you since your personal attacks just continue. #perplexed

You will not receive a reply from me whatever you say, in any thread, on provision I remember your name. I still haven't yet worked out how to block you. cya.

No. If you follow that link, you will find only the ONE link and not a whole load of irrelevant links. Incidentally, you asked me to provide you with that link. From reading your latest 'waffle' it seems that you didn't even bother to follow the link as you assumed wrongly it contains many links, it conainted only the one, the one link you specifically asked me to provide you.

The link you provided was a lmgtfy link

"Let me google that for you" (no doubt in an attempt to look clever.......)

The clue is in the name (again!).

It googles for you.

Google : creating a list of links.

You can argue it creates one link. I state it creates a list of links, since it is Google.

Most people will be able to make their mind up based on the fact it is Google.

Some people might want to check it is a list of links, or confirming is a list of links irrelevant to the OP by clicking on it.

The link p3t3r provided is

http://bfy.tw/gdf

It googles for "fraud by misrepresentation statute".

It doesn't give a result for a statute making "fraud by misrepresentation" a crime, as the offence is (as I've stated, and linked to the statute) "fraud by false representation".

As for

You will not receive a reply from me whatever you say, in any thread, on provision I remember your name. I still haven't yet worked out how to block you. cya.

Suits me. Won't stop me highlighting if you've given bad advice (stating why & remaining within the site rules).

"On provision I remember your name" : oh dear.

This from the poster who

Can't remember to stay off the phone to Voda, wasting hours (Voda thread)

Can't remember UK law won't let him claim exemplary damages for his claim, after being advised (Voda thread)

Can't remember what LiP guides he used to create his (risible) N1, within a day (Voda thread)

Can't remember to take his only key piece of evidence into court with him leading to £40,000 losses (repossession thread)

I'm kind of hoping he's just trolling threads : it would mean he has marginally more recall and grasp of the law and its processes than if he's not winding us up!

grumpy bear - as i said before, difference of opinion. not much more i can say in this thread, so this will be my last post.

do as others suggest and just sit back, dont worry about it.

sorry your thread has turned into a part slanging match.

The link you provided was a lmgtfy link

"Let me google that for you" (no doubt in an attempt to look clever.......)

 

The clue is in the name (again!).

It googles for you.

Google : creating a list of links.

 

You can argue it creates one link. I state it creates a list of links, since it is Google.

Most people will be able to make their mind up based on the fact it is Google.

Some people might want to check it is a list of links, or confining is a list of links irrelevant to the OP by clicking on it.

 

The link p3t3r provided is

http://bfy.tw/gdf

It googles for "fraud by misrepresentation statute".

It doesn't give a result for a statute making "fraud by misrepresentation" a crime, as the offence is (as I've stated, and linked to the statute) "fraud by false representation".

grumpy bear - you can believe what you like. but take the last post and check the link, you will see last post to be untrue.

it returns one result, a direct result to the relevant statue law in which the poster asked me to produce.

follow the other 3 advicce you have, sit back, dont worry about it.

my advice = highly unlikely they will prosecute and no evidence has signified that they will, despite some poster being adamant that they have provided evidence to their claim, when in fact they haven't.

not much more i can say here grumpy bear... I am sorry your thread has turned out into a personal slanging match.

Guys can we keep the personal stuff off the thread please? I suggest you continue your debate by PM so we can continue to advise Grumpy Bear? They haven't said much lately.

HB

The link you provided was a lmgtfy link

"Let me google that for you" (no doubt in an attempt to look clever.......)

 

The clue is in the name (again!).

It googles for you.

Google : creating a list of links.

 

You can argue it creates one link. I state it creates a list of links, since it is Google.

Most people will be able to make their mind up based on the fact it is Google.

Some people might want to check it is a list of links, or confirming is a list of links irrelevant to the OP by clicking on it.

 

The link p3t3r provided is

http://bfy.tw/gdf

It googles for "fraud by misrepresentation statute".

It doesn't give a result for a statute making "fraud by misrepresentation" a crime, as the offence is (as I've stated, and linked to the statute) "fraud by false representation".

 

Hmm, an oddity.

Clicking on that link (logged in, on the device I've been using) : gives me a list of irrelevant links (to the civil law concept of fraudulent misrepresentation)

Clicking on the link from a different device (unlogged in) takes me to the statute for "fraud by false representation"

I wonder if this is from caching (I had googled "fraud by misrepresentation statute" earlier, but not using the "I feel lucky" (single result) option).

None the less:

"Fraud .... MISrepresentation" : not a crime, civil (contract law) issue.

"Fraud by false representation" : crime, criminal law, statute as I linked to and quoted in post #3.

The distinction between "Misrepresentation" and "false representation" makes the difference. One is a civil matter, the other becomes criminal, but the acts and intent have to be shown for a prosecution to succeed, hence me quoting the relevant section and asking since "were TKMaxx exposed to a risk of loss".

Grumpy.Bear, I got your PM and I am replying here.

While you acknowledge that what you did is wrong but from what you have posted above, you have done this before. If so, stop. It is fraud.

As this is the first time they have taken your details, I suspect that they have done either:

a) this is a new procedure brought in...or

b) They have recognised you from CCTV from an earlier time.

If b then they may be getting evidence together to make a complaint to the police although personally, I doubt it. I suspect a.

If there was to be any action, security would have been called and you taken to the security room where you would have been asked questions, issued with a banning notice and given a RLP factsheet.

As none of this was done, I suspect you 'may' have gotten away with it-this time.

Having said all that, as this is a new situation for us, the best advice I can give is the same as DX and renegadeimp. Sit back and wait. If anything is going to happen, you should know within the next few weeks.