RLP Civil Recovery
Options
Comments
-
Precisely. That's exactly what we are doing to help people fighting these arbitrary demands. :cool:Refuse to pay and put them to proof that I owed that amount.0 -
ceedoubleu wrote: »What a big guy, insulting a vulnerable 14 year old. I trust that you feel really good about yourself.
You are only 14, blimey bit young to have a daughter!
And Madam I did not insult you or your daughter, I merely questioned your actions. I believe all the mud slinging has come from you.0 -
phlogeston wrote: »You are only 14, blimey bit young to have a daughter!
And Madam I did not insult you or your daughter, I merely questioned your actions. I believe all the mud slinging has come from you.
I'm getting away from this forum, I don't need the attentions of a weird stalker, go and find somebody else.0 -
If the people deny they commit the "offences ",in cases where the Police haven't been called,any honest person would demand the police be called to prove their innocence.
In this case it seems apparent that the child has not committed an 'offence' (a criminal matter in which the police should be involved), but a civil tort. One for which the shop do not have to prove guilt to the criminal standard. The police are not interested in civil matters, so there would be no reason for them to be called.
The girl has (unknowingly) rendered someone else's property unusable. One can sue a child for a tort, there is no need to sue the parents (but stand to be corrected if someone can point me to the relevant case law/legislation).
If someone destroyed your property, albeit accidently, would you expect them to pay for it? Depending on the circumstances, I am sure many of you would - for example consider if you have been involved in a car accident!
That is not to condone Boots who have potentially:
unlawfully detained a minor,
collected information relating to a minor (may fall foul of the DPA),
made defamatory comments,
or the collection agency who have,
collected information relating to a minor (may fall foul of the DPA),
attempted to impose a 'fine' (administrative charge),
harrassed a minor.0 -
ceedoubleu wrote: »I'm getting away from this forum, I don't need the attentions of a weird stalker, go and find somebody else.
:rotfl:
See, there you go again with the insults.0 -
sarahg1969 wrote: »There is no law that suggests that you cannot open post that has been delivered to your address. Don't worry!
It is only an offence to open another person’s mail for fraudulent purposes.
Sarah is more than right in her advice.The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head. Terry Pratchett
http.thisisnotalink.cöm0 -
phlogeston wrote: »In this case it seems apparent that the child has not committed an 'offence' (a criminal matter in which the police should be involved), but a civil tort. One for which the shop do not have to prove guilt to the criminal standard. The police are not interested in civil matters, so there would be no reason for them to be called.
The girl has (unknowingly) rendered someone else's property unusable. One can sue a child for a tort, there is no need to sue the parents (but stand to be corrected if someone can point me to the relevant case law/legislation).
If someone destroyed your property, albeit accidently, would you expect them to pay for it? Depending on the circumstances, I am sure many of you would - for example consider if you have been involved in a car accident!
That is not to condone Boots who have potentially:
unlawfully detained a minor,
collected information relating to a minor (may fall foul of the DPA),
made defamatory comments,
or the collection agency who have,
collected information relating to a minor (may fall foul of the DPA),
attempted to impose a 'fine' (administrative charge),
harrassed a minor.
I think I have already made it clear how I feel about what happened to that young girl,but ignorance of the law is no defence it is said.Testers in Boots have "tester" written on them,btw.I believe there are signs in place pointing this out,so could be argued it was not unknowingly.Surely ,the offence is Criminal Damage.0 -
Not to start an arguement but it is actually a criminal offence to open mail not addressed to you punishable by fines and custodial sentences, nor was any advice on child raising given.
xx
total and utter lies.
Interfering with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84
Triable Summarily (Magistrates court)
6 Months and or a fine (Max)
A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.
A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, opens a postal packet which they know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly.
If you work for the Post service you could commit other offences under Section 83 triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) and get a sentence of 2 years and or a fine.
Someone in your care is excuse enough in law.The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head. Terry Pratchett
http.thisisnotalink.cöm0 -
OP had your DD told you about the incidence in Boots before you received the letter?
What concerns me more than anything is a 14 year old being questioned by an adult and made to hand over personal details without them fully understanding what their rights are and what they are supposed to have done. They wouldn't know they could demand the police or to be released as it would not be reasonable detainment if the shop had no intention of calling the police.
As any female who regularly buys make up from self service shelves will tell you the displays are a mess and it's hard to find testers as there are often loads of open products and they rarely put tester stickers on them. If as an adult I don't know what is the tester, and often assume if it's open it's the tester, then a more inexperienced youngster could easily make a mistake.
Shops have to take responsibilty for the state of their displays. Shops are notoriously understaffed as you can never find anyone to ask. Teens are treated as lepers by many shops who want their money but not their presence.
~Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.~:)
0 -
Agree entirely,apart from the bit about testers.Make up arrives at the shops already labelled "testers",it's probably so hard to find because it's been used up-by kids.
I suspect the root cause of these issues is that either Boots is pushing the contract company to issue more Civil Recovery notices,for monetary reasons, to reach targets,and/or the contractor is pushing its staff to do this, and is probably causing mistakes to be made.The contractor will be saying-if you arrest someone-there is no reason for you not to issue a civil recovery notice-not allowing for discretion.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.5K Life & Family
- 248.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards