Tesco has won £1.50 in compensation from an unemployed shopper

[citizenB]

 

The UK's biggest supermarket has won £1.50 from an unemployed man who spilt a bottle of milk in a store.

 

 

 

Prosecutor Julie Sullivan said: "He was told to return the milk he was holding and leave the store and he threw it at the floor in temper.

 

"He was verbally abusive and escorted off the premises. One pound fifty pence compensation is requested for the milk."

 

Price was interviewed by police and told them he had thrown it towards the store manager saying "catch it" and that it had accidentally spilled on the floor.

 

Price was told to pay £1.50 compensation to Tesco, fined £75, ordered to pay £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs. The money will be deducted from his benefits at £10 a fortnight.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/every-little-helps-supermarket-giant-5461757

[dx100uk]

incredible!!

 

 

dx

[citizenB]

I would like to know what the "altercation" was. Why was he asked to leave the store in the first place.

[SabreSheep]

Wow, so glad my tax money is being used to help tesco get back £1.50

[BazzaS]

Wow, so glad my tax money is being used to help tesco get back £1.50

 

I'd suggest the £1.50 compensation was incidental.

The criminal offence was "criminal damage" : what level of criminal damage do you feel shouldn't be open to prosecution (bearing in mind we don't know if he was offered a FPN or caution or not, and if he was if he declined them)

[SabreSheep]

Actually you raise a valid point.

 

It still was criminal damage.

[Old Cogger]

Nothing criminal in their Prices paid and charged??????

[citizenB]

I don't understand why they have taken action for this incident, when they farm out shoplifting to RLP?

 

Isn't shoplifting a criminal offence ?

[BazzaS]

I don't understand why they have taken action for this incident, when they farm out shoplifting to RLP?

 

Isn't shoplifting a criminal offence ?

 

It is, but RLP don't take criminal action for shoplifting, they take (or, used to take!) civil action for tort.

[caro]

It doesn't actually mention shoplifting.

[citizenB]

It doesn't actually mention shoplifting.

 

Nope, indeed it doesn't.. my question was.. why take action for £1.50's worth of criminal damage, when they don't issue claims in their own right for those who are caught shoplifting for higher amounts

[caro]

Ah I see your point. The article focuses on the £1.50 but not on what led to the event. Maybe they were making a point about behaviour towards staff. It's not up to telco to decide on criminal proceedings but it's a great headline for the paper.

[Hammy1962]

Mrs Hamster use to work for Tesco. It is unbelievable how rude and obstructive members of the public are.

 

Luckily she got out.

 

We don't know the rest of the story, the £1.50 is for the damaged milk.

 

It matters not one jot whether the perpetrator was employed or unemployed.

 

H

[BazzaS]

Consider 2 different headlines :

"Man becomes abusive in store, commits criminal damage, fined £75 and £105 costs"

 

"Tesco, the multi-million pound store, get £1.50 compensation from unemployed man for damaged milk"

 

I suggest both aren't untruthful, but neither headline tells the whole story!

[andydd]

Bit of a non -story, the headline implies that it was a civil claim for £1.50, but no it was a criminal case and as well as fines/costs an extra £1.50 was added to cover the cost of the cornflakes, this is nothing new and one wonders why this story was picked up by the country's media ?

[silverfox1961]

I agree, this is a non story. It's bad enough in the news with all the politics at the moment but this is just silly.

 

It is not a civil claim but a criminal case and the magistrate has ordered the 'offender' to pay for the 'damage'

 

I do wonder whether RLP will get involved or not as the store security are quick to get them involved as well as any criminal action

[ericsbrother]

criminal damage assessed at £1.50. If he broke a window at your house and it was assessed at £50 the police wouldnt prosecute. Burglary isnt burglary if the loss is less than £200.

I have no problem with the prosecution of someone who was most likely causing a brach of the peace, threatening behaviour etc but dislike the inconsistency with which prosecution guidelines are administered. However, newspapers generally dont get the point of the whys and wherefores so you end up questioning the veracity of the event in its totality.

[samjohnson19]

that ridiculous £1.50, not worth it, don't understand judges.

[obiter dictum]

Price was told to pay £1.50 compensation to Tesco, fined £75, ordered to pay £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs. The money will be deducted from his benefits at £10 a fortnight.

 

Not wishing to change the subject but::

 

When an individual is fined by the magistrate, it is normal to do an income and expenditure on ability to pay. In this case deducted direct out of his state benefits

 

So why do the magistrates not do this all the time to people on benefits??

 

The next step by default for non payment is Bailiffs which only compound the problem as to inability to pay

 

Just a thought, now back to original topic of conversation

[BazzaS]

that ridiculous £1.50, not worth it, don't understand judges.

 

See above. The £1.50 was incidental to the main criminal case : anti-social behavior. Don't be misled by the headline.

 

Consider 2 different headlines :

"Man becomes abusive in store, commits criminal damage, fined £75 and £105 costs"

 

"Tesco, the multi-million pound store, get £1.50 compensation from unemployed man for damaged milk"

 

I suggest both aren't untruthful, but neither headline tells the whole story!

[spalding78]

that ridiculous £1.50, not worth it, don't understand judges.

Nor, apparantly, anything you read in this thread or the websites it links to.