Civil Recovery

[rakmaninoff]

I got caught shoplifting with my girlfriend in a wilkinson's store, who have taken action and are demanding civil recovery, and I'm just looking for advice. I accept guilt etc. It's our first offence, we are both 18 and we have no records.

 

Anyway, so between us we stole around 15 pounds of stuff, damaged one item that we put back because we could not steal. My girlfriend went to the checkout to buy another item, and I got caught as I was leaving the store with the stolen goods in my bag. The police came, issued an £80 fine each, which we have subsequently both responded to and paid. He said we got off lucky. The guy working at wilkinsons, a bit of an idiot, said that we are likely to recieve civil recovery in the region of £500 each.

 

The civil recovery letters came and they are both identical.

£12.94 Total value of goods (£25.93) - recovered goods (£12.94)

£82.50 Staff/magement time

£24.75 Administration costs

£30.25 Security and Surveillance

 

£150.49 total

 

They said if we pay within 21 days they will accept on an entirely ''without prejudice'' basis our client would be prepared to accept £122.99 each.

 

Now, I have two main points.

Firstly, and I think this is the more solid fraction of our defence, it seems we have been double charged, as a couple. Obviously, I have no idea of their staff/administration/security costs and though most likely exagerated, I can't argue that these costs have NOT been halved. However, the thing that pointed this out to me was the fact that they have failed to half the cost in goods and we KNOW that we stole £25.93, of which £12.94 was recoverable.

Secondly, I'm just generally skeptical of the extent of the costs. As I understand it, this is not a punishment, we have HAD our punishment (ie. the 80 pound fine) and this is simply a cost recovery. There were 3 staff members involved in dealing with the 2 of us for approximately 45 minutes. I don't imagine they get paid in the region of 50-80 quid an hour.

 

Tommorow, I'm visiting the local civil advice bureau for some help, but I was just wondering if anyone on the website could give me the lowdown on what actually happens. I noticed in another thread on the topic there were some useful replies. My particular fear is that the CAB may not be able to recommend what is actually my best course of action.

 

Finally, the direct question I would like to ask. I have a read here and there that they don't actually take anyone to court ever, or that they do but it's only multi-thousand pound theives. I want to know, what will happen if we just completely ignore the letters?

 

Thanks a lot for reading, ***

[letsmakeamark]

You shouldnt be asking the last question on this forum.

[rakmaninoff]

Ok but do you have any other information over than a smart one-liner?

[letsmakeamark]

Guess beggars cant be choosers. I would contact civil recovery and make them a affordable weekly offer and stick to it.

[Hammy1962]

Amazing isn't it, folks come on here, guilty of shoplifting & in this case criminal damage as well, trying to wriggle out of their just desserts.

 

Hammy

[JonCris]

Amazing isn't it, folks come on here, guilty of shoplifting & in this case criminal damage as well, trying to wriggle out of their just desserts.

 

Hammy

 

Consumers often think that they have committed an offence but when the precise facts are determined it often transpires that no offence has been committed. Its just that because they have been accused they assume the security guard must be correct, after all they wouldn't make false accusation unsubstantiated by the true facts would they, well! would they?

[Hammy1962]

Well, I'm no lawyer but, quote "Anyway, so between us we stole around 15 pounds of stuff, damaged one item that we put back because we could not steal. My girlfriend went to the checkout to buy another item, and I got caught as I was leaving the store with the stolen goods in my bag." Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

 

Unless of course he was interviewed by the SFO!!!!!!!!!

 

Hammy

[JonCris]

Well, I'm no lawyer but, quote "Anyway, so between us we stole around 15 pounds of stuff, damaged one item that we put back because we could not steal. My girlfriend went to the checkout to buy another item, and I got caught as I was leaving the store with the stolen goods in my bag." Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Unless of course he was interviewed by the SFO!!!!!!!!!

 

Hammy

 

I'm saying don't assume that those who come here & 'admit' theft haven't actually committed theft they just think they have because they've been accused of it

[Zamzara]

Amazing isn't it, folks come on here, guilty of shoplifting & in this case criminal damage as well, trying to wriggle out of their just desserts.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I would pay for the actual items stolen or damaged. The rest is bunk.

[Hammy1962]

I'm saying don't assume that those who come here & 'admit' theft haven't actually committed theft they just think they have because they've been accused of it

 

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That planet you are on in the outer limits must be further away from Earth than even I thought.

 

Hammy

[JonCris]

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That planet you are on in the outer limits must be further away from Earth than even I thought.

 

Hammy

 

Clearly you have little knowledge of what actually goes on the world of CR perhaps you do

 

When accused people often admit the offence thinking they must have committed because it otherwise why are they being told that they did. However when they get a chance to explain the events in detail its often found that no offence took place

 

AND its you who is living on another planet if you think otherwise You judge people before knowing the full facts

[Hammy1962]

Few orders in the wrong words there I think. Or are you Yoda, that would explain the planet thing.

 

Hammy

[totallyinnocent]

Considering all the help JonCris is giving people it isn't helpful to go into the odd typo that people make. Its the substance of what they do and say that is important.

 

From Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935) comes "...Through-out the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt ... "

 

That is to say you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Luckily (in this instance) we get the above principle underwritten by Article 6.2 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Edited September 11, 2010 by totallyinnocent
removed New labour slur

[Hammy1962]

Everybody makes typo's, yes, but those last couple of posts just didn't make sense, not in English anyway.

 

I'll treat the New Labour slur with the contempt it deserves.

 

Of course shopkeepers, large and small, have a fundemental right to retain stock and not have some thieving scroat nick it just because they think they have better title to it.

 

The Human Rights Act eh, that will be the same Act that gives offenders more rights than their victims is it.

 

Hammy

Edited September 11, 2010 by Hammy1962

[totallyinnocent]

You should read the link in my post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?265495-security-guard-rules&p=3123369&viewfull=1#post3123369.

 

The person in question accused of stealing a chocolate bar was an off-duty police officer, not a "thieving little scoat" as you so put it.

[JonCris]

Everybody makes typo's, yes, but those last couple of posts just didn't make sense, not in English anyway.

 

I'll treat the New Labour slur with the contempt it deserves.

 

Of course shopkeepers, large and small, have a fundemental right to retain stock and not have some thieving scroat nick it just because they think they have better title to it.

 

The Human Rights Act eh, that will be the same Act that gives offenders more rights than their victims is it.

 

Hammy

 

 

What you doing here? your not helping anyone that's fer sure.

 

Employed by the 'thieving security/cr industry are we

[car2403]

It would, perhaps, be better if we put the egos away and actually helped the OP. Anything further off topic will likely be removed and placed somewhere more appropriate.

[car2403]

Ahem...

 

It would, perhaps, be better if we put the egos away and actually helped the OP. Anything further off topic will likely be removed and placed somewhere more appropriate.

[totallyinnocent]

Ok but do you have any other information over than a smart one-liner?

 

rakmaninoff did you get resolution to this yet?

 

What did the CAB advise?

[totallyinnocent]

Now, I have two main points.

Firstly, and I think this is the more solid fraction of our defence, it seems we have been double charged, as a couple. Obviously, I have no idea of their staff/administration/security costs and though most likely exagerated, I can't argue that these costs have NOT been halved. However, the thing that pointed this out to me was the fact that they have failed to half the cost in goods and we KNOW that we stole £25.93, of which £12.94 was recoverable.

Did you offer to pay for the damaged goods at the store? If you owe anything to the store is is the cost of the damaged goods only.

Secondly, I'm just generally skeptical of the extent of the costs. As I understand it, this is not a punishment, we have HAD our punishment (ie. the 80 pound fine) and this is simply a cost recovery. There were 3 staff members involved in dealing with the 2 of us for approximately 45 minutes. I don't imagine they get paid in the region of 50-80 quid an hour.

Costs like this are totally wrong and have been argued about elsewhere.

You are not guilty in the eyes of the law either. Even though you paid the £80. See this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?274886-FPN-s-(Fixed-Penalty-Notices)-are-NOT-an-admission-of-guilt.

They could chase you for the debt of the cost of the damaged goods but not if they hadn't tried the simple approach first of asking you to pay in the store. Did the police note anything about that? Did you say you wouldn't pay for the damaged item at the time? I wouldn't do anything to pay this extortionate amount without going through wilkinson's customer complaints first.

 

You didn't mention how wilkinson's security staff treated you when they caught you, did they "interview" you, or did they just hold you till the police came? Did they make you sign anything?

[rakmaninoff]

Well they asked us about it but knew the details for they saw us on camera. Let me clarify that I am going to be a student at one of the best universities in the world, I am not an idiot or a ''scroat''. Let me also clarify that the law has deemed the punishment for my offence as an £80 fine. The civil recovery is not a fine nor a punishment but a recovery of costs to the company. Don't bring in the right-ring idiocy of no sympathy for criminals, it's just boring and medieval. Society has (albeit clumsily) decided that the 80 quid fine is justice.

 

They did make us sign some documents accepting guilt etc. I don't know the law well, I don't know what my rights are and I don't know what I can get away with not paying. And no they didn't ask us to pay for the damaged items in store.

 

I have rang the CAB and the woman was delightfully helpful, taking details of what had happenned and saying they would contact me back in the future. As it turns out, they send me a letter with no personal use of my name or anything etc, simply just a document containing legal jargon I don't fully understand.

[JonCris]

Please note an £80 FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) is NOT an admission of guilt (the CoA says so) AND does NOT impugn your character & you can therefore have any admission you made to the store challenged as having been made under duress

[JonCris]

FPN's (Fixed Penalty Notices) are NOT an admission of guilt

 

(Free) Ad

vice for those employed in civil recovery:- read the following

 

Regina v Hamer

[2010] WLR (D) 235

 

CA:

Thomas LJ, Treacy, Saunders JJ:

17 August 2010

 

A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Divison) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant had assaulted the complainant taxi driver after an evening out. The defendant pleaded self defence. He had no previous convictions or cautions, but had received a fixed penalty notice under s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for a minor public disorder matter, two months after the instant offence. After discussion between counsel and the judge regarding whether a good character direction should be given, the judge ruled that the jury should be told about the defendant’s penalty notice, but directed the jury that they might think it fairer to disregard it and treat him as of good character, and he gave the defendant a full good character direction. The defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in admitting the fixed penalty notice, since it was not a criminal conviction and involved no admission of guilt.

THOMAS LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the fixed penalty notice scheme was a method of dealing with low level crime without the need to prove the offence and commission of it by the person to whom it was issued. It involved no admission of guilt, nor did it create a criminal record. The scheme went no further than that. If the notice was accepted, payment of the penalty provided that no further action could be taken. The notice was distinct from a caution, where commission of a crime was acknowledged. Its issue was not a form of justice, as justice normally included guilt. It was not a conviction, admission of guilt, any proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the persons character. It therefore followed that it was not admissible as an admission of an offence or of bad character in the sense of impugning the defendant’s character. It might be that in some cases the Crown might wish to adduce evidence regarding matters in respect of which the notice had been issued. Counsel for the Crown had not wished the issue of the notice to go before the jury, and it was only at the insistence of the judge that it had done. It was unfair to mention the notice without an attempt to call evidence regarding the circumstances of it. The notice was entirely irrelevant and ought to have been kept from the jury. However, since the defendant had no plausible explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant, in all the circumstances the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe.

 

Appearances:

James McCrindell (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Simon Gladwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrow) for the Crown.

[letsmakeamark]

Looks like this one has gone stone cold.

[JonCris]

No it hasn't letsmakeamark:wink: