Pub meal that wasn't right didn't eat it. Then they phoned police

phlogeston

Idiophreak wrote: »

Trouble is, mean pub landlord (or anyone, for that matter) is having a go at you, the last thing you want to do is hand over your name and address, isn't it...

I don't disagree. However, it completely removes any possibility of police involvement. It shows there is no dishonesty, so no possibility of falling foul of the Theft Act. It makes any problem a civil matter.

hums60

phlogeston wrote: »

I don't disagree. However, it completely removes any possibility of police involvement. It shows there is no dishonesty, so no possibility of falling foul of the Theft Act. It makes any problem a civil matter.

How is there any dishonesty

They didn't like what was provided so refused to have it

How can they fall foul of the theft act if nothing was stolen

It's like walking into currys and buying a tv
The guy brings it out the back and you say it's all bashed in i don't want it
Do you then have to leave your name and number then ?
Do you get accused of theft then ?
I think not !

MORPH3US

Wasn't it once the "rule" that if you didn't like a meal / think it was worth the money that you could refuse to pay. Then if the police were called, as long as you could prove you had the money on you to have paid for that meal, then you couldn't be arrested for it? Or something like that...

phlogeston

hums60 wrote: »

How is there any dishonesty

Read my post again. You seem to confusing the words I have written with some other words in your head.

phlogeston

MORPH3US wrote: »

Wasn't it once the "rule" that if you didn't like a meal / think it was worth the money that you could refuse to pay. Then if the police were called, as long as you could prove you had the money on you to have paid for that meal, then you couldn't be arrested for it? Or something like that...

No.

People are confusing criminal and civil law.

If you refuse to pay for a meal, but leave your name and address, the establishment has the option to sue for the cost of the meal. It is a civil matter. They have no power to stop you from leaving. Your INTENTION is to pay if a civil court finds against you.

If you walk out without paying and without leaving a name and address, there is a question of whether or not you had any INTENTION of paying.
The police are not in a postion to determine whether or not the meal was OK. There is a possibility you will be questioned/arrested/charged with an offence.

TO AVOID the hassle of police involvement, leave your name and address.

hums60

phlogeston wrote: »

Read my post again. You seem to confusing the words I have written with some other words in your head.

I am not confused

You said "it shows there is no dishonesty"

Meaning if they left their name and number it shows there is no dishonesty

But what is dishonest about not having anything from them and not leaving your name and number

If they had eat it and were disputing that it wasn't any good
Then yes leave your name and number

But they didn't eat it so why would they think that they would have to leave there name and number

hums60

phlogeston wrote: »

No.

People are confusing criminal and civil law.

If you refuse to pay for a meal, but leave your name and address, the establishment has the option to sue for the cost of the meal. It is a civil matter. They have no power to stop you from leaving. Your INTENTION is to pay if a civil court finds against you.

If you walk out without paying and without leaving a name and address, there is a question of whether or not you had any INTENTION of paying.
The police are not in a postion to determine whether or not the meal was OK. There is a possibility you will be questioned/arrested/charged with an offence.

TO AVOID the hassle of police involvement, leave your name and address.

This surely only applies when someone has a meal and then refuses to pay
They did not
They had nothing from them so wasn't refusing to pay for a meal because they didn't have a meal !
And why would someone pay for nothing ?

Idiophreak

phlogeston wrote: »

If you walk out without paying and without leaving a name and address, there is a question of whether or not you had any INTENTION of paying.

If you speak to the manager and say "I'm not paying for this, I'm leaving now" - I don't see how you can question someone's intentions?

Surely, if you leave your address, they could just throw it away anyway to show your "dishonesty"?

phlogeston

hums60 wrote: »

I am not confused

You said "it shows there is no dishonesty"

Meaning if they left their name and number it shows there is no dishonesty

But what is dishonest about not having anything from them and not leaving your name and number

If they had eat it and were disputing that it wasn't any good
Then yes leave your name and number

But they didn't eat it so why would they think that they would have to leave there name and number

READ THE OP'S POST - THE POLICE DID TURN UP AND INTERVIEW THEM.

I suspect a statement was made by the pub that some of the meal was eaten.

I merely stated they could avoid any police involvement by leaving a name and address.

hums60

phlogeston wrote: »

READ THE OP'S POST - THE POLICE DID TURN UP AND INTERVIEW THEM.

I merely stated they could avoid any police involvement by leaving a name and address.

What you talking about i am the OP
I am fully aware the police turned up
My point is how is not leaving your name and number thought to be dishonest
How could in any way shape or form could they be trying to be dishonest
What are they going to gain from going into a pub siting there for half an hour not eating anything and then walking out ?