A couple of days ago,

I walked into asda with the intention of taking 2 chewing gums from a 45p packet and I did,

I also stuck it down my trousers.

The security guard caught me and took me to a room and made me sign a letter saying I'm banned from asda,

but told me that's the end of it and nothing else will happen.

Today I got a letter from dwf saying I have to pay £125 as some civil matter and it's nothing to do with any legal action asda had taken or may take.

Do I actually have to pay this as I was promised nothing else would happen and paying dwf doesn't seem right as the matter is between me and asda over a 5 minute interaction.

I know I am in the wrong but I'm just wondering do I have to pay this before I do. I'm 16 living in Brent, London.

In short no you do not need to pay this at all! But others will be along to advise how to deal with this

totally ignore them.

No you don't have to pay, ignore them.

Stop thieving, a criminal record at your age, or a spell in a YOI isn't what you want.

totally ignore them.

If you don't mind me asking, could you explain why I don't have to pay them? I don't really understand what the payment is for in the first place.

exactly and neither do they

but its sort of ambulance chasing...

they write to people that have been detected shoplifting

claiming that because the store had to detect you

process you in a room etc

it took the staff away from their normal day to day tasks

however its totally bogus as the security staff and the CCTV etc etc was already there and paid for by normal day to day business

it wasn't especially put in to detect you...

lots of threads here on DWF and RLP

use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

DWF RLP and read

the other factor here is your age

you are under 18 and shouldnt of been detained on your own?

Good spot dx.

Your a minor, you should of had an appropriate adult present.

Anything you have signed is null and void.

You cant form a contract with someone under 18 without parental consent and guarantee

I will ignore this letter but I am worried what if they never stop sending letters or debt collectors come and hassle my mum?

I don't want to cause problems with asda but I really just think £125 for 2 gum worth 10p and signing a paper not deserving of the fee.

there is no FEE...

and DCA's ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

I will ignore this letter but I am worried what if they never stop sending letters or debt collectors come and hassle my mum?.

IGNORE ALL of their silly little letters, ''IF'' they attempt at harassing your mum, which they won't, then that is a different ball game, and would breach the DPA, and also open them up to other serious complaints, so I seriously doubt they'll pursue this.

Debt collectors are absolutely powerless, completely toothless, they cannot do a single thing in your case, if they write, laugh as you tear it up and throw it in the bin.

contracts can be foremed with minors but cannot be enforced via the courts.

Every time you go into a shop and buy somehting that is a contract, there is offer and acceptance from both parties.

If you bought a cream cake and it was off you are entitled to a refund or another cake, just because you are 16 doesnt mean the law doesnt apply.

What you cant do is sue the shopkeeper if they dotn refund or replace, you have to get an adult to do that "ex-parte" ( on behalf of) you.

in this instance DWF cant sue you and in any case have no "locus standi" and no cause for action as the security costs are not reclaimable and even if they were DWF arent an interested party, it is between you and the shop.

Last thing, you are at the beginning of your life, dont screw it up for the sake of 45p.

It isnt big or clever to steal other peoples property.

You might think it trivial but it all adds up to over £2 billion a year and that would mean cheaper everything if no-one stole

contracts can be foremed with minors but cannot be enforced via the courts.

 

 

Every time you go into a shop and buy somehting that is a contract, there is offer and acceptance from both parties.

 

 

If you bought a cream cake and it was off you are entitled to a refund or another cake, just because you are 16 doesnt mean the law doesnt apply.

 

 

What you cant do is sue the shopkeeper if they dotn refund or replace, you have to get an adult to do that "ex-parte" ( on behalf of) you.

 

in this instance DWF cant sue you and in any case have no "locus standi" and no cause for action as the security costs are not reclaimable and even if they were DWF arent an interested party, it is between you and the shop.

 

Last thing, you are at the beginning of your life, dont screw it up for the sake of 45p.

 

 

It isnt big or clever to steal other peoples property.

 

 

You might think it trivial but it all adds up to over £2 billion a year and that would mean cheaper everything if no-one stole

This is why Latin has no place in 2017.

Erics brother.

It has been accepted from the year dot that kids can buy things from shops, yes technically it I a form of contract but it was established eons ago that a meeting of the minds had taken place.

Now stick a child in a closed room with a big fat hairy store detective forcing a child to give their address and see how far that gets in court....

Sometimes people who can open the jar are smarter than the people that work out the volume of the jar

you stated that you cant form a contract if you are under 18 and then decide that once this blithe statement has been shown to be untrue

you not only change your tune but then add asides that are not brought up in the thread, not relevant and not disputed.

As for Latin, unfortunately the courts use it a lot, that is why solicitors and the rest of the legal profession are held in esteem, people think it is all beyoned them because of the fancy dress and fancy words.

If however you are taking the mickey out of my placing of a bracket in the wrong place I wouild like to point out that my posts are full of spelling mistakes because my multiple sclerosis makes typing an almost impossible task and that is why I have the time to sit at a cmputer rather than working for a living.

As for opening jars, I wish I still could but that is nothing to do with mental capacity or acuity

Opening jars is a metaphor

And as for changing my tune...

Not so.

My reply was tailored to the situation that the child was placed in.

You brought the sweet shop analogy into the discussion.

Minors (under 18’s) can form binding contracts, for “necessaries”.

These are items (or employment or apprenticeship) required by the individual or intended to advance their well-being or prospects.

Any alleged ‘contract’ with dwf would likely fall outside of being a “neccessary’.

That's y my response is tailored bazza!!!

I refer to jar and opening again!!!; lol

you stated that you cant form a contract if you are under 18 and then decide that once this blithe statement has been shown to be untrue

you not only change your tune but then add asides that are not brought up in the thread, not relevant and not disputed.

 

As for Latin, unfortunately the courts use it a lot, that is why solicitors and the rest of the legal profession are held in esteem, people think it is all beyoned them because of the fancy dress and fancy words.

 

 

If however you are taking the mickey out of my placing of a bracket in the wrong place I wouild like to point out that my posts are full of spelling mistakes because my multiple sclerosis makes typing an almost impossible task and that is why I have the time to sit at a cmputer rather than working for a living.

 

 

As for opening jars, I wish I still could but that is nothing to do with mental capacity or acuity

I was referring to the fact that you got the Latin wrong, rather than any typographical error.

Minors (under 18’s) can form binding contracts, for “necessaries”.

These are items (or employment or apprenticeship) required by the individual or intended to advance their well-being or prospects.

 

Any alleged ‘contract’ with dwf would likely fall outside of being a “neccessary’.

I don't know if this makes a difference but the contract was with asda to not go back to asda for 6 months, that's how they got my address, dwf want payment for security fees as some social thing. What does this mean for me?

nothing its total BS

read my post 6 above already told ya..

I don't know if this makes a difference but the contract was with asda to not go back to asda for 6 months, that's how they got my address,

Not really.

Asda can ban you from their stores for as long as they like, if they want, and don't need your agreement to do so.

A signed piece of paper isn't needed (but just allows them to show that you had been told you were banned if you tried to claim otherwise).

dwf want payment for security fees as some social thing. What does this mean for me?

Nothing. See dx's replies.

Remove 'Social' and enter the word 'Profit'.....that is all it is.