Is this legal?

pendulum

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The problem is when someone with a genuine condition meets an uneducated specimen like you. Who bays for vengeance (it’s certainly not justice) as soon as things don't go her way

1. Genuine condition? How do you know?
2. I'm educated to degree level (1st).
3. I am indeed a fine specimen... of a man, so try not to call me a "her" again. :rolleyes:

adouglasmhor wrote: »

£130 for an hour of a security guard and a shopkeeper’s time, I must be in the wrong job.

What about the electricity to keep the security cameras and recorders running 24/7.
It may have taken an hour of a security guards time to deal with her, but that security guard had to be paid for the whole day in order to catch her! You never know when a thief's going to strike so you have to have them guarding all the time, that's expensive.
What about the cost of installing the security cameras in the first place to catch people like her?

Deterring and catching thieves costs a lot of money. When a thief is caught red handed removing a product from a store without paying I say good luck to the company if they try to claw some of those costs back. Otherwise the genuine customers end up paying with higher prices.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

And you may have missed it while you were foaming at the mouth but it's an ADULT with a mental health issue in this story not a child.

Maybe you missed it when I said earlier "In this case the woman walked out of the shop without paying for an item." :rolleyes: I did not call the OP's daughter a child, my statement that "every kid has autism these days" was a separate comment after I had moved on from talking about the OPs daughter.

adouglasmhor

pendulum wrote: »

1. Genuine condition? How do you know?
2. I'm educated to degree level (1st).
3. I am indeed a fine specimen... of a man, so try not to call me a "her" again. :rolleyes:


What about the electricity to keep the security cameras and recorders running 24/7.
It may have taken an hour of a security guards time to deal with her, but that security guard had to be paid for the whole day in order to catch her! You never know when a thief's going to strike so you have to have them guarding all the time, that's expensive.
What about the cost of installing the security cameras in the first place to catch people like her?

Deterring and catching thieves costs a lot of money. When a thief is caught red handed removing a product from a store without paying I say good luck to the company if they try to claw some of those costs back. Otherwise the genuine customers end up paying with higher prices.


Maybe you missed it when I said earlier "In this case the woman walked out of the shop without paying for an item." :rolleyes: I did not call the OP's daughter a child, my statement that "every kid has autism these days" was a separate comment after I had moved on from talking about the OPs daughter.

The costs of having security cameras etc Electricity for a camera for a day can't be more than about £2 Can't be set against one person and that's akin to saying they have the heating on so anyone who walks into a shop and just browses should be charged for getting warmed up.

Ok so you are educated just ignorant then.

Genuine condition, maybe I don't know but as a civilised person not a ranting specimen like you I give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, not just jump to conclusions.

Esqui

pendulum wrote: »

Autism... learning difficulties... depression... all excuses to shoplift? That seems to be what you're saying.

Nonono, I was merely saying that some posters here were talking as if the OP's daughter was severely mentally incapable (e.g. locking her up for her own safety) rather than whatever the problem may actually be.

The problem is when some little !!!!!! goes on the nick, gets found out, and then uses his "autism" as an excuse... its easy to hide behind a "condition" to excuse your bad or criminal behaviour...

It's no excuse really. Given the experience with my ex, I know too well how people use that as an excuse. ("Kill my parents? It was a joke, sorry, I'm autistic, I thought you were serious")

BexInLondon

pendulum wrote: »

2. I'm educated to degree level (1st).

Oooh congratulations. The University of the Daily Mail was it? Or was your degree perhaps in some sort of pure science (like maths) which requires no real understanding of how people work? I suppose in any case that even a good education is no insurance against bigotry, after all Nick Griffin went to Cambridge.

I get the underlying points you're making about seeing it from a shop's point of view but you really do argue exceptionally badly, and you have communicated your views in such offensive terms that it's unlikely that any reasonable person will agree with you for risk of tarring themselves with your little bigoted brush.

OP - I do hope this is sorted out, and that at the very least you manage to get some sort of support in dealing with this sort of situation in future.

MORPH3US

Esqui wrote: »

Nonono, I was merely saying that some posters here were talking as if the OP's daughter was severely mentally incapable (e.g. locking her up for her own safety) rather than whatever the problem may actually be.

Can you advise where anyone said she should be locked away (excluding Pendulum)?

Thanks :beer:

Esqui

Hmm...might have been a little general there, sorry.

pendulum

I said she should be locked up and treated, not just locked up. Seems the obvious solution to me if her mental health issues are so bad that they are causing her to commit crime.

On the other hand, if her mental health issues are not as bad as that and they are not causing her to commit crime, then she should be held accountable for her actions and treated the same as everyone else.

Politically incorrect summary: She's either a nutter or she isn't, she can't have it both ways.

adouglasmhor

But if she did not intent to permanantly deprive the shop of the shampoo their was no intent to commit crime and she commited no crime.

Your post just shows you understand nothing of the issue.

Crazy_Jamie

pendulum wrote: »

Even if there is not enough proof to convict for theft, it doesn't mean the shop aren't entitled to recover their costs. In this case the woman walked out of the shop without paying for an item and this negligent act by her necessitated the response of security guards and a great deal of time by the manager. Time is money and if they are trying to invoice her for that then good luck to them.

Your stance, whilst no doubt pushed forward with a fair amount of zeal and backed up with 'principles', unfortunately has no grounding in the law. Pushing the criminal aspect aside for one moment, the civil action is in the tort of conversion. In other words, she has taken something that isn't hers. In terms of damages, the principle is that damages for tort put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred.

The underlined bit is important in considering damages here. The store employ security staff and a manager on a delay basis. Had the tort not occurred they would still have been employed and would still have been paid. So the store cannot recover damages for the wages. That is certain. You can get into arguments about the value of the work that the manager would have done had the incident not occurred, but even if such work can be quantified in terms of value, such damage would no doubt be far too remote to be recoverable. The recovery of the installation costs for the security cameras and the electricity is also not recoverable because this incident is not the reason why those things were installed/used. The chain of causation is backward; you cannot claim that costs were incurred as a result of an incident that happened in the future when that specific incident was not predicted. Had the incident not happened the cameras would still have been purchased, and would still have been run, so this is no recoverably loss.

Which leaves us with the cost of the shampoo, which if recovered intact is nothing, and if damaged is £3. And no store or person in their right mind would commence proceedings solely on the basis of a £3 loss.

In essence, ranting about the shop recovering costs for lost wages, electricity, and whatever else such an imagination can crop up with, may sound great in principle to someone entrenched in the same camp, but unfortunately has no grounding in law either way. So again, the debate on how such a person should be treated by society at large can ramble on, but your position on the law is evidently misguided.

pendulum

If you can read I have only ever said "Good luck to them" for trying to recover their costs. I realise their legal position seems rather weak on the face of it, if they were to try to enforce the fee which they have requested.

There may be more we do not know, though. The fee could be for stuff stolen by her on a previous day for all we know, or maybe she damaged or stole more than this single £3 item. I don't think a store as large as TK Maxx would send out a request for payment without any legal grounding at all.