Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Make sure the WS is sent 14 days before the hearing. You can e-mail the court theirs.  In the subject line put the case number, the names of the parties and "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt". Send Simple Simon his by 2nd class post - all VCS are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • The outlet is in Camden Town and was set up in 2006, a year after my husband established the business, in addition to selling at exhibitions, online, shows, events, and having licensing agreements in some places overseas.  The only thing I have stopped doing since I got ill is the physical stuff, which I’m working on. The business has not changed name or anything like that either. I’m not sure where the original contract with Camden is but the management must still have it. My husband died in Jan 2017, and until Sept 2018, I would take the stock in every week; after that I was sending it in by post. I went in now and then when possible to re-do the display but that was about it. No one had access to any files until 2020. Moved house in 2020 thought would have to pull it all, Covid had just hit as well. The person in question said he would be interested in taking over and paying the rent etc. so I said I would let him sell the pictures for nothing as long as he would ‘keep it warm’ for me.  Obviously, everywhere was closed for lockdown. During this time I was working out how to go forward.  In May 2022 I told him I couldn’t  give anything away for free anymore, and put in place the wholesale agreement.  I’ve disregarded any discrepancies from before this date. I sent over the jpgs electronically, so I’ve still got them too. He hasn’t got any original files like .psds negatives or memory cards etc, I’ve got proof of all ownership/copyright. A co-op is whereby a small number of neighbours work on a rotational basis so they each of them can have time off, that way everyone doesn’t need to be there at the same time, he had never been an employee of mine.  The only reason I allowed him to have the files in the first place as I didn’t want to lose that side of the business.  It’s a good, constant source of income. However, the rent was becoming crippling as I believed there was something fishy going on well before this as there’s so much cash dealt with there, and I couldn’t go in regularly in person, and I’m sure sales weren’t being recorded properly and cash was being pocketed. My husband was too busy to be doing any stock control properly, he wasn't really into paperwork, and the guy who was ‘helping’ me after my husband's death, was making things very difficult for me to implement a solid stock control system by refusing to co-operate on simple things like using email etc. which I thought was a smokescreen, so I severed ties with him just before I made the agreement in question. I sent about 100 images, jpg files, sent via We Transfer. I’ve got the confirmation of which files were sent with dates. I will have to go through closed bank accounts and previous tax returns to get a proper estimate.   Before I made this agreement, I was selling retail there, this is a wholesale agreement so I’ll have to do some calculations but it is definitely in the thousands.  I haven’t got his his home address, and I don't think he's got any sizeable assets. I’m also worried that he might send the files overseas and start selling them there. I know he’s not stupid enough to sell them online. He knows for sure how serious this is, but he’s been chancing it and thinks I’m stupid, if not soft and stupid. I don’t know if this would work but I am thinking that when he does contact me, I tell him we need to talk, tell him I know what he’s been up to, and strongly urge him not to order any more prints from wherever he is having them printed because it will make things much worse for him if he does. Then when I do tell him about the gravity of the situation, maybe a few days later, I think it will scare him into complying because the consequences definitely trump the few quid he thinks he is saving by getting his own printing done. Tell him an amount that I want back for lost revenue, and make it clear that if he doesn’t destroy the files and if I find out he is still doing it at any point down the line, I will seek prosecution for copyright infringement and fraud, which I will. I don’t know how I can enforce any of this without involving the courts though. I will be able to tell, though, and he will know this. And the only reason I am doing this now rather than before, is that I couldn’t prove anything until now.  It was screamingly obvious from the beginning though, as he wasn’t ordering enough from me to pay the rent, let alone make a profit. If I decided to come down like him lie a ton of bricks straight away, how would I go about a cease and desist, would I have to get one from the court? And what do I do about the stock he currently holds? It has also occurred to me that he might file for bankruptcy or similar if things get heavy, where would that leave me? I could put the feelers out for a brand-new person to take it on, obviously without giving them access to files, that is an option. But that comes with its own set of issues. Also, would there be any implications for me, if I kept quiet for now? Let him order again from me as if nothing has happened, as it will be any day and I want to get all my ducks in a row first ideally….   Thanks again
    • I’ve also just realised their online website they’ve got 12 photographs of my vehicle, including close ups of the inside?? Not sure why that’s relevant.  The time stamp on the first photo is 13:57, the PCN incident time is 14:12. 
    • I’m tempted to send a letter to the company outlining the reasons why I think their PCN is illegitimate. I guess will technically be an appeal.  Their documentation states they won’t discuss over phone, I also don’t want them to have my email address.    re signage on entrance, having looked at land registry, the whole road is private, and when you turn into the road off the highway, there is a sign on the lamppost about 20m in, again not noticeable and on the other side of the road.  I feel like I am in a difficult position with this, I understand that I may have a good chance of not having to pay, but at the same token the stress this is already causing me makes me feel like it’s not worth the £60!
    • Well done with the photo. Of course the signage is insufficient.  PPM are not interested in competent management of a car park, they are interested in catching drivers out so they can issue their PCNs. For a start, according to their trade associations' Codes of Practice, they are supposed to have signage at the entrance. Any e-mail reply from the company and whether they will/won't/can/can't get the invoice cancelled?    
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

RLP - 17 year old girl given £137.50 notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5655 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have a big shock tonight, my daughter (17) admitted being fined for shoplifting. She says she placed an item in her bag and went to pay for some but got caught by the security guard (she never actually left the shop).

 

She was taken in a back room with another member of staff, detials taken etc, she gave the item back and I've just found out she was fined £137.50 and has set up a payment scheme.

 

Is this acceptable? I'm not condoning what she's done, I am livid, disappointed and very upset with her but just not sure if the situation has been dealt with in the correct way.

 

Any advice would be great.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Conniff,

No she's not been to court, she said the security guard was gentle but explained he could'nt let it go obviously. I read her letter yesterday from retial prevention?, looks as though she's been fined already by the company and not paid so now this is a debt collection. Why do they think us parents are so blind we'll never find out, I suspect she's created a bigger penalty for not paying up in the first place, I can't believe she's done it, all for a packet of makeup wipes for college!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a fine, it's extortion.

 

If I'm wrong about this I'm sure someone will correct me but as far as I am aware, private security firms do not have the power to impose fines. This strikes me as a case of "pay us to not call the police".

 

If your daughter has no previous history with the police it is likely that they would hahave dealt with this by way of caution or a fixed penalty of £80.

 

There is also the issue that she didn't leave the shop. In a criminal court they would struggle to prove any offence but might JUST get away with a charge of intent to commit the offence but even that is unlikely.

 

Can you tell us who the security firm are and which store they were operating in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with this

 

There is also the issue that she didn't leave the shop. In a criminal court they would struggle to prove any offence but might JUST get away with a charge of intent to commit the offence but even that is unlikely.

 

Not strictly true. The offence is complete as she has concealed the item. leaving the store is purely for the practicalities of a prosecution. The mens rea and actus reas are present therefore the offence is complete

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite amusing how kids don't realise that we used to be that age at one time.

 

You have a couple of choices. If she is at college, are you financing her or does she have her own money. If she has her own money, then at 17 this could be a nice early lesson in right and wrong and you get her to pay, but it must be her own money or it will be pointless.

 

You can write and ask for a breakdown of how they arrived at that amount, and challenge it. It will be a long road though as other threads have shown, they don't give up easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a couple of choices. If she is at college, are you financing her or does she have her own money. If she has her own money, then at 17 this could be a nice early lesson in right and wrong and you get her to pay, but it must be her own money or it will be pointless.

 

I agree with that Conniff. My parents never bailed me out when I was in trouble (metaphorically speaking of course. I was never in trouble with the Police) but the question of whether the fine is lawful or not still stands.

 

Taking on board Crash3903's comments, the intent probably was there but I still think it unlikely that this could be proven in court. It could be that the OPs daughter absent mindedly put the wipes in her bag without thinking about what she was doing. It would be interesting to see any CCTV footage of the "offence" as her manner in "concealing" the goods would perhaps demonstrate her intentions. Most shoplifters have a good look around them to make sure they aren't being watched before they nick stuff.

 

Question again for the OP. Has your daughter admitted that she intended to steal the item?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strictly true. The offence is complete as she has concealed the item. leaving the store is purely for the practicalities of a prosecution. The mens rea and actus reas are present therefore the offence is complete

 

The actus reus may be, but until she had left the store, and even then not necessarily, I doubt the mens rea could be proven so easily unless they was video evidence of girl looking guiltily around, shiftily slipping item in her bag and legging it down the street. I exaggerate, but you get my drift.

 

WE know, because OP has told us, that she did intend to steal, but short of a confession or above-mentioned evidence, I'd say the mens rea is far from obvious, unless of course, the security guard saw her behaving in all the described suspicious manners and what not.

 

Leaving the above aside for one moment, I think we are back to an issue that has been discussed before though, ie does this private company have the right to fine someone without having gone to court and/or obtained a conviction? Answers on a postcard, please.

 

These people have made themselves prosecution, judge, jury and executioner, and I think there is a risk that this will become such accepted practice that our rights will become more and more eroded through acceptance than they already are. As far as I am concerned, whether the girl was in the right or in the wrong, 2 wrongs don't do a right, and their wrong is far worse in that it masquerades as a right. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm wrong about this I'm sure someone will correct me but as far as I am aware, private security firms do not have the power to impose fines. This strikes me as a case of "pay us to not call the police".
Only courts and authorsied bodies can impose fines/penalties, and shops are not one of them. You are right - it would be hard to prove that this was intentionally blackmailing in principle, but you could ask them to prove that it was not a case of "pay up or we will call the police."

 

As it stands an alleged crime has been committed, and therefore they are guilty of not reporting it. As such your daughter can be deemed to have gotten away with it, thus escaping the proper legal penalties, and therefore the store are guilty of aiding and abetting her in this.

 

As the crime was not reported, and therefore she was not prosecuted, then surely the crime is not legally recognised as having taken place. As such what are they basing their decisions on when imposing the fine for a crime that has yet to be proven? Are they not, in fact, conspiring to conceal a crime?

 

Either way they are in the wrong, and it might pay to challenge the fine in court...I know this all sounds convoluted, but somewhere in among all this the store is guilty of a bigger crime than your daughter...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WE know, because OP has told us, that she did intend to steal, but short of a confession or above-mentioned evidence, I'd say the mens rea is far from obvious, unless of course, the security guard saw her behaving in all the described suspicious manners and what not

 

Based on this then the men rea is present - Even without this supporting comment it is there as she has concealed the item to avoid capture and the guard has seen her do that so his evidence would be sufficient if it were to be accepted

 

I do agree though that this is highly unusual and it should be explored further as to what has gone on. Can the OP confirm either way of the Police were called?

Link to post
Share on other sites

She stole, she got caught. the SO would not have detained her unless he had the evidence to do so. In any case as crash says the theft was complete as soon as she concealed. Lesson learnt I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

PI Guy lives in Croydon...does Bookie know about this?

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She stole, she got caught. the SO would not have detained her unless he had the evidence to do so. In any case as crash says the theft was complete as soon as she concealed. Lesson learnt I think

 

Lesson learnt? Well I hope so for her sake but for a private security firm to extort money from her unlawfully is a very strange way of teaching it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's Bookie and why would he or she be interested?
LOL - she is going to give you such a slap..."Aaaah'm Bookie...it's maaah moooney...don't you know who aaah am?"

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, whether she deliberately stole something or not, this action of fining her by the store/security company amounts to extortion (blackmail), which is a criminal offense under section 21 of the theft act 1968.

 

21 Blackmail

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

Teaching her a lesson is not on the cards here. I'd suggest going to the shop and talking to them letting them know thatwhat they are doing is illegal and you will be obliged to take it to the police. That should be enough to get them to drop everything. If it's not, go to the police. Blackmail is a much more serious crime than shoplifting, and even if she does get reported for it, she is most likely to just get a caution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tr03bor - it is up to the parents to punish the child for her actions. Retail Loss Prevention are not the police, nor are they judges - the point is that they have no legal authority to dish out fines. There have been many threads about them and their bullish attitude to the law; they make interesting reading if only for the legal points on the power of citizens' arrest.

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they caught her before leaving the store, then security should have treated it as a case of lesson learned or called the police. Forget the banks, this one is a flagrant breach of the Bill of Rights.

 

[...]all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;[...]

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that RLP issued 'demands' on behalf of shops - not a fine but simply :

 

We are going to privately prosecute you for the time and costs we have incurred because you shoplifted / defrauded us money / drove off without paying for fuel etc - here is an offer of an out of court settlement, pay it if you want, otherwise see you in court.

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't do this, since as I understand it the fine from a private prosecution still goes to the court rather than the prosecutor. In any case, if they weren't dealing with a serial offender, the police would likely turn up, give a stern telling off and take an offer of payment if goods were actually taken.

 

If you are ever approached by a security company saying they'll drop the charges in return for payment, ask them to put it in writing and report it to the police as a blackmail attempt.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...