Hello,

so the story goes like this:

My girlfriend walked into a TK Maxx and swapped a price tag on a pair of shoes. On the till the lady there called the manager who explained to her that this tag is wrong and provided the correct price. The lady on the till wrote something down and my girlfriend played naive and paid for the shoes the actual price and walked out of the store. Note that she paid with her visa registered in another country (not a UK bank) since she is just visiting here.

I have already read all the threads regarding similar issues but in most of them, people are getting caught when actually swapping the tags.

So my questions are: Could the police be called in after reviewing the CCTV records, considering she paid for the full price? Does it make any difference that her visa card was not from a UK bank?

Thank you.

If she paid the full price for the shoes at the till then there is nothing to be concerned about. I would have thought had there been any issue with the Visa card not from a UK bank, it would have been raised at the time of purchase and the card rejected.

So you have nothing to worry about.

Hi and welcome to CAG

I have moved your post to the RLP forum. This is purely administrative and you need do nothing excerpt post here.

As she paid the full price for the shoes, no crime was committed. The police will take no action as they were not called at the time. It is doubtful that there would be continuous CCTV coverage of this incident as otherwise she would have been stopped on exit. With shoplifters, there has to be 100% continuous coverage of the incident from taking the goods, swapping the tags, walking around the store and going through the tills. If any element is missing, this CCTV cannot be used as evidence.

I would say that she forget about it and move on but she needs to accept that any form of theft/fraud is unacceptable.

Thank you both.

Oh, I don't think she will even consider it again. I don't know what got into her, but she suffers from anxiety issues lately and this one got her bad.

Anyways, following that, my concern on the visa card is that would the police bother to contact a bank of another country to get her details?

And, regarding the CCTV, the manager knew exactly the hour of the incident, thus it would be easy for him to go back the following day and check the footage right? Now, let's say that this did happen, could he then call the police on the base of attempted fraud?

I can't see anyone, let alone the manager pouring over CCTV to spot the tag swap as there would be no benefit of doing so. TKMaxx security are employed by a different company to TKMaxx and it is they who would look over the CCTV. For there to be 100% CCTV coverage, the security staff would have spotted her and followed her around the store by camera and floor staff. It is evident that this did not happen as she paid and left the store with no one stopping her.

The manager is untrained in CCTV coverage so he would ask the security staff to do so. In theory, they could involve the police but as mentioned they would need the 100% coverage.As she paid the full price, no actual crime was committed. The fraud aspect is a possibility but the police have far more important things to worry about than this case.

I think you should really think about the now rather than the maybe's. You're not psychic, neither are we but based on our experience in helping, this has never happened before so is unlikely to happen now.

Thank you for your time

If she paid the full price for the shoes at the till then there is nothing to be concerned about.

Hi and welcome to CAG

As she paid the full price for the shoes, no crime was committed.

 

.......

With shoplifters, there has to be 100% continuous coverage of the incident from taking the goods, swapping the tags, walking around the store and going through the tills. If any element is missing, this CCTV cannot be used as evidence.

Both (technically) wrong, IMO.

There was a crime (likely) committed, and later paying full price for the shoes doesn't mean the unsuccessful attempt to get them cheaper wasn't a crime.

The offence was fraud by false representation, which doesn't have to be successful for the offence to be made out.

Highlighting SCONE (Seen, Concealed item, Observed continuously, No effort to pay, prior to Exiting the store) isn't relevant, as the offence wasn't shoplifting, but instead fraud by false representation.

CCTV showing the price tickets being swapped, and either CCTV or a statement from the member of staff showing the effort to pay the lesser price, would suffice as evdience. Continuous observation wouldn't be required.

However, I agree that if the police weren't called at the time, it is unlikely they'd go back through the CCTV and then pass it to the police. They could, but it seems unlikely.

Thank you, but you got me more worried.

Does anyone know any occasions that the store called the police afterwards? Would the police even bother? How many days do you think it would take?

As I noted, I think it unlikely they'll go back through CCTV.

I just wanted to clarify the factual basis regarding if a crime had been committed.

Don't worry about it. Nothing will happen. Get on with your lives.

Both (technically) wrong, IMO.

 

There was a crime (likely) committed, and later paying full price for the shoes doesn't mean the unsuccessful attempt to get them cheaper wasn't a crime.

The offence was fraud by false representation, which doesn't have to be successful for the offence to be made out.

 

Highlighting SCONE (Seen, Concealed item, Observed continuously, No effort to pay, prior to Exiting the store) isn't relevant, as the offence wasn't shoplifting, but instead fraud by false representation.

 

CCTV showing the price tickets being swapped, and either CCTV or a statement from the member of staff showing the effort to pay the lesser price, would suffice as evdience. Continuous observation wouldn't be required.

 

However, I agree that if the police weren't called at the time, it is unlikely they'd go back through the CCTV and then pass it to the police. They could, but it seems unlikely.

So in theory if l see something that is either wrongly labeled or dumped by a member of staff or customer in the wrong place and l want to buy it at the lower, correct IMO as thats what the lable says, then l am committing fraud. If so l best go to the police niw as several times l have successfully argued that if its lable says a lower price they should give me it for that price. As far as l would be concerned its the staffs fault if something is in wrong place or labled wrong.

So in theory if l see something that is either wrongly labeled or dumped by a member of staff or customer in the wrong place and l want to buy it at the lower, correct IMO as thats what the lable says, then l am committing fraud. If so l best go to the police niw as several times l have successfully argued that if its lable says a lower price they should give me it for that price. As far as l would be concerned its the staffs fault if something is in wrong place or labled wrong.

You misunderstand the law, both as to:

a) fraud by false representation, and

b) contract law as applied to price labels.

a) Looking at the fraud first : the OP's girlfriend deliberately swapped the price labels, with dishonest intent.

You picking up an item that was in the 'wrong bin' or mispriced and taking it to the till isn't dishonest (provided you didn't know its pricing to be false).

b) Looking at "what if the price tag is wrong"?. The price tag has been held to be 'an invitation to treat'.

It invites you to go to a till and make an offer to buy the item at that price. If the store then accepts that offer (given the other components of a contract [consideration, intent to create contractual relationship] seem likely) then the contract is formed.

http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd.

(n.b. : site adds spaces in the URL : it is shown correctly in the quoted text shown if you 'reply with quote....'

So, at the till the store can say "Mispriced, we won't sell it at that price" provided they haven't already taken your payment.

Often, though, in the name of good customer service, stores will honour mispricing. It is just that (unless they have already accepted payment), they don't have to.

There is another possibility, too.

When faced with someone who makes drama laden statements such as:

best go to the police niw as several times l have successfully argued that if its lable says a lower price they should give me it for that price

They might be agreeing just so they don't have to argue with someone who doesn't know the law and is going to create drama where none exists ......

I can't see anyone, let alone the manager pouring over CCTV to spot the tag swap as there would be no benefit of doing so. TKMaxx security are employed by a different company to TKMaxx and it is they who would look over the CCTV. For there to be 100% CCTV coverage, the security staff would have spotted her and followed her around the store by camera and floor staff. It is evident that this did not happen as she paid and left the store with no one stopping her.

 

The manager is untrained in CCTV coverage so he would ask the security staff to do so. In theory, they could involve the police but as mentioned they would need the 100% coverage.As she paid the full price, no actual crime was committed. The fraud aspect is a possibility but the police have far more important things to worry about than this case.

 

I think you should really think about the now rather than the maybe's. You're not psychic, neither are we but based on our experience in helping, this has never happened before so is unlikely to happen now.

Tk maxx security are not employed by a different company. They are in house employees of tk maxx. Thus, not needing an SIA Badge.

However, the process they have followed is called 'ticket query' and means the cashier noticed the ticket swap.

The log you saw them fill in is so loss prevention can look back in the till cameras to see who it was, save an image, and when they come in next time, to watch their actions in the store.

There will be no looking back on the cctv to try to get an offence, others are correct in saying there is no offence of fraud unless the wrong price was paid, and someone was defrauded.

I used to work in tk maxx and still have lots of friends who still do ...

 

There will be no looking back on the cctv to try to get an offence,

...........

 

I used to work in tk maxx and still have lots of friends who still do ...

The "no looking back" should reassure the OP

others are correct in saying there is no offence of fraud unless the wrong price was paid, and someone was defrauded.

Incorrect. It becomes fraud by false representation the moment the dishonest and false representation is made, provided there is intent to

a) create a gain for the fraudster, or

b) create a loss for another, or

c) expose another to risk of loss.

It doesn't matter if the false representation succeeds or not.

The CPS guidance notes:

The breadth of conduct to which Section 2 applies is much wider than the old Theft Act deception offences because no gain or loss need actually be made. It is the Defendant's ultimate intention that matters.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a07

The "no looking back" should reassure the OP

 

 

 

Incorrect. It becomes fraud by false representation the moment the dishonest and false representation is made, provided there is intent to

a) create a gain for the fraudster, or

b) create a loss for another, or

c) expose another to risk of loss.

 

It doesn't matter if the false representation succeeds or not.

The CPS guidance notes:

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a07

You are absolutely correct, I was referring to tk maxx policy when I said 'no offence'.

In my current role, they would be getting lifted all day long.

Yes, I was familiar with the law regarding fraud by false representation and that's why I started the thread in the first place. Nonetheless, it's indeed really reassuring that someone who worked there suggests they will not move forward with this.

Again, thank you all.