De vere - naughty naughty!

Crazy_Jamie

ShaneUK wrote: »

I am sorry, but I agree - it is theft. The OP didnt give permission for her card to be debited, but De Vere took from it. If someone takes a sum of money away from you without your permission, wouldn't you class it as theft? (And if you don't, please PM me your account number and sort code, and I will take X amount from you as I can't get it from someone else.....)

No, because it isn't theft. This is not a matter of opinion; it is just a matter of reading the law. For a start De Vere the company cannot be guilty of theft- it has to be the saleswoman. So let's look at that. The definition of theft is 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it' (Theft Act 1968; go and read it if you need to). So here are the elements of the offence:

1. Dishonestly
2. Appropriating
3. Property belonging to another
4. With the intention of permanently depriving them of it

All of those elements need to be present for a person to be guilty of theft. In this case the saleswoman clearly appropriated property from the OP with the intention of permanently depriving her of it. But did she do so dishonestly? No, she didn't. She made an error of judgment, which whilst striking was not dishonest. Therefore she cannot be guilty of theft.

jimbms wrote:

To take funds from an account other than the one authorised without permission is theft. There are very few occasions it is followed up by the police but when rported it nearly always results in a refund. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...roundup-26.htm

Wrong. Read the definition above.

What you're talking about is the tort of conversion, which is the civil counterpart of theft. That is what the Ombudsman in your link deals with, and is what you're getting mixed up with. And De Vere are most certainly liable under that (vicariously for the actions of their employee), as it is a strict liability tort.

Summary: Theft is a criminal offence requiring dishonesty. The tort of conversion is a civil offence that is strict liability. The saleswoman is not guilty of the former as she did not take the money dishonestly. De Vere are liable under the latter because the money was taken without permission. But no one in this scenario is criminally liable for theft.

ellissa

Wow, I hadn't expected my post to get so many replies! Thank you. So, to answer/comment on what you have all said...

I don't think compensation is really necessary, I haven't suffered in any way. To be fair, although we don't have joint bank accounts our money is shared so by taking it from my card instead of his it still came from the same pot, so to speak.

Barnabee...the reason we had to wait until Monday is because the booking was attached to an event (party night) at the hotel and so the booking was done through the events office based in the actual hotel and they work 9-5 M-F. My hubby did phone the hotel on the Friday night as soon as he could but was told to call back Monday to speak to the relevant events assistant.

Gemmy... I agree she's only human and therefore she got the names and other details wrong but she even read them back to us and spelt them as in T for tango, R for Romeo etc!

As for whether it's theft... I don't know because I'm not an expert. At the end of the day WE (as a couple, although seperately IYSWIM) wanted to make the booking from our money and she still made that happen however what I'm cross with is that she took the money from my card without permission. Ok, so it was my husband who made the other booking but what worries me is that it could have been anybody... I've got a common surname! She didn't check with me. It's not like hubby even suggested to try my card nor did she ask him first, she did it without consulting either of us. I'd still been cross if she had done it with his permission but more so because she had no permission whatsoever.

I just feel I should inform the hotel manager that there is a 'training need' with this lady. Not for compensation, like I said I've not been hurt or mistreated but just 1) to stop her getting into future strife 2) to reassure myself that any Tom !!!!!! or Harry will not be able to get my money if I continue to book with De Vere!

Am I being unreasonable?!
Ells x

Crazy_Jamie

ellissa wrote: »

Am I being unreasonable?!
Ells x

I wouldn't say so. I actually think that's a more than reasonable stance to take. Plenty of people would be beating the compensation drum, but in reality apart from a little bit of frustration you haven't suffered any real loss from this. I think alerting the management of the company to the error is a perfectly appropriate step to take. At the end of the day this was a pretty striking error of judgment, and both the woman herself and the management of the company need to ensure that it doesn't happen again.