JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

Googlewhacker

aliasojo wrote: »

Good faith? He acted irresponsibly by passing something over without a second thought.

I think it's awful that JJB say the situation is closed as far as they are concerned.

The employee should be reprimanded at the very least, it might make him use his common sense next time.

It's digusting the way JJB have acted over this whole situation.

A slighty warning on what should have been done yes but not a disciplinary

Crazy_Jamie

edgex wrote: »

they took NO steps whatsoever

No positive steps (which is the duty under the test mentioned in the BBC article), but what would you expect them to do? Announce that there is an iPod behind the counter and ask if anyone has lost one? That would be more negligent than doing nothing. Hence why I said that reasonable steps is part of the overall test, but by no means a significant part in the circumstances.

As I said, given the specific circumstances JJB would have to be grossly negligent to be found civilly liable for this. And I just cannot see that being proven in Court. Yes, I agree that they should have taken more details from the woman. But how many people walk up to the counter of a store and ask if someone has handed in an iPhone or iPod? The answer is generally no one, unless they have genuinely lost that item. The CCTV shows that the woman was present when the item was found, but how are staff meant to know that? There is certainly an argument to say that the staff were negligent here. But grossly negligent? That's a much higher standard.

edgex wrote:

& how the f*ck can you mistake a £150 ipod for an iphone?
they look nothing alike whatsoever
you could even phone the iphone to find it

You are I may have no difficulty distinguishing the two, but there are an awful lot of people out there who would not know or appreciate the difference. To suggest otherwise shows staggering ignorance. There are plenty of people who are not tech savvy in the slightest.

aliasojo wrote:

Good faith? He acted irresponsibly by passing something over without a second thought.

A person can still act irresponsibly but in good faith. I don't think there is a suggestion that the staff member acted in anything other than good faith here.

aliasojo

I've just googled the definition of good faith.

Somewhat ironically I got this......

legal definition of good faith: honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others

'scuse me whilst I roll on the floor....:D

Imo, the employee didn't give a toss one way or another, he just handed the thing over with no thought at all, there was no intention to behave 'fairly', there was nothing other than a simple unquestioned handover.

I'm no legal eagle though, so what do I know, I'm just an average joe who seems to have more decency than the people involved in this and that includes the Police.

edgex

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

No positive steps (which is the duty under the test mentioned in the BBC article), but what would you expect them to do? Announce that there is an iPod behind the counter and ask if anyone has lost one? That would be more negligent than doing nothing. Hence why I said that reasonable steps is part of the overall test, but by no means a significant part in the circumstances.

As I said, given the specific circumstances JJB would have to be grossly negligent to be found civilly liable for this. And I just cannot see that being proven in Court. Yes, I agree that they should have taken more details from the woman. But how many people walk up to the counter of a store and ask if someone has handed in an iPhone or iPod? The answer is generally no one, unless they have genuinely lost that item. The CCTV shows that the woman was present when the item was found, but how are staff meant to know that? There is certainly an argument to say that the staff were negligent here. But grossly negligent? That's a much higher standard.
You are I may have no difficulty distinguishing the two, but there are an awful lot of people out there who would not know or appreciate the difference. To suggest otherwise shows staggering ignorance. There are plenty of people who are not tech savvy in the slightest.

A person can still act irresponsibly but in good faith. I don't think there is a suggestion that the staff member acted in anything other than good faith here.

from the OP:

The manager said they'd found it, but it had already been claimed.

My son asked how this could happen so the manager looked at the shop cctv tape. This shows a staff member bringing the ipod to the pay area and saying to the manager "Someone's left an ipod here." The manager says "OK, just put it in lost property".

There's a woman standing paying for her purchase via credit card next to him listening to this.

The woman leaves the store, returns two minutes later and says to the manager "Has anyone handed in an iphone?" (Not ipod) .

The manager says, "Do you mean ipod?". The woman hesitates, then says "Yes, I meant ipod".

The manager sends a staff member for it, and the woman takes it and leaves quickly.

also, from that conversation, there is a member of staff & the manager who know that its an ipod, not an iphone

they have 'somewhere' that is labelled as lost property. that indicates they have some sort of procedure



so:

1) they should not have discussed the lost property in a 'public' area
2) they should have followed whatever the JJB lost property procedure is
3) anyone claiming the lost property should have been asked a couple of questions about it



that the store manager:
told the woman that there was an ipod in lost property (on her return visit)
didnt ask for any details about the item before having it bought out

is a major failing on their part

qetu1357

dctetsco wrote: »

zaksmum,

1. You can make a 'third party report' to police, but they will need it substantiating by the victim before they can progress it. If the victim is under 17 they will need an appropriate adult to be present when giving their report. Make sure they *know* you are reporting it as an adult on behalf of a minor.

2. The cctv in the store may not be available after a specific period of time so I would suggest the victim is available for the report asap.

3. The Theft Act 1986 or The Fraud Act 2006 may apply here, but I believe there is a good case for an investigation to take place. Please do not take no for an answer at the Police station.

4. The Police will be able to submit a request for the alleged offender's details providing their investigation supports a crime having taken place.

5. When you report the circumstances, make sure you make a note of the 'incident log number' or whatever that particular force call their process. Give this to the people who are going to make a statement.

6. Good luck with your quest and I hope that whilst it is a learning experience for the loser of the item, it turns out to be a slightly more positive one than thus far.

7. Whilst it could be argued that the store has/has not done anything legally wrong, I personally would suggest that their 'release of found property' process could be a little tighter on the burden of proof of ownership!

dctetsco.

I would love to see JJB's Lost Property Policy.

I suspect that they haven't complied with it in this case.

Crazy_Jamie

aliasojo wrote: »

Imo, the employee didn't give a toss one way or another, he just handed the thing over with no thought at all, there was no intention to behave 'fairly', there was nothing other than a simple unquestioned handover.

So are you suggesting that the employee handed over the iPod without genuinely believing that the woman was the owner?

edgex wrote:

is a major failing on their part

Don't get me wrong; I agree there are failings here. That much is clear. But I am approaching this from the legal test in the event of a civil action against JJB. That test contains a very high threshold for negligence in the circumstances, and one that I do not think has been reached on the facts.

aliasojo

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

So are you suggesting that the employee handed over the iPod without genuinely believing that the woman was the owner?

Don't get me wrong; I agree there are failings here. That much is clear. But I am approaching this from the legal test in the event of a civil action against JJB. That test contains a very high threshold for negligence in the circumstances, and one that I do not think has been reached on the facts.

No. I'm suggesting he didn't behave fairly. To behave fairly one would have to behave 'in a fair manner, justly or honestly'.

There was nothing fair or just about his behaviour imo. Fair or just would have meant he took some steps to ascertain the woman did actually own the ipod, he did nothing except hand it over. In fact it was worse than doing nothing, simply because of his correction made when the woman asked for the wrong thing. He effectively helped her obtain the thing wrongly.

zaksmum

Thank to all of you. I would certainly not want the staff member to be sacked or disciplined. But he does need some retraining regarding this matter. He didn't seem to realise that the woman he was serving when the ipod was found was the same woman who came back into the shop 2 minutes later to ask if anyone had found an iphone. Even that mistake should have made him think. But he said to her "do you mean an ipod?" and the woman looks startled, hesitates, and says "oh...Yes, I mean an ipod". Wouldn't that have made most people think something was amiss there?

If you dropped your purse or wallet in a shop you wouldn't expect the shop to just hand it over to someone who'd heard the conversation about finding it and tried their luck claiming it, would you? You'd at the very least expect them to make some basic checks.

A company the size of JJB should know better.

[Deleted User]

Oh come on - you're going round in circles here and STILL ignoring the sensible advice from those who know what they are talking about.

For the upteenth time:

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE BY GOING AFTER JJB

Your claim is with the woman who took the phone.

As much as it's terrible that theft has taken place, do you really think that the poor member of staff at JJB deserves what is being said about them on this forum? All they've done is do what most people would do in the same circumstances, which is act in good faith and hand over an item that someone claims has been lost.

If you had lost your iPod and gone to JJB and they'd refused to hand it over because you couldn't prove your identity I bet you'd be on here complaining that they didn't use common sense! It works both ways.

The poor guy/girl was just a member of till staff. What are the chances that someone tries to claim an item that's just been handed in when it's not theirs? Tiny, I bet.

Why are you wasting your time having a go at JJB when numerous people on here who know what they are talking about have told that this is a total waste of time? JJB have not done anything wrong legally. The till staff member might have been a bit hasty and didn't check the identity of the customer, but he's there to serve customers and sell items, not to act as a lost property manager. They might have a lost property policy, but how often is it invoked?

Why don't you spend that time pushing the police to obtain copies of the CCTV so that they can solve a pretty cut-and-shut case of theft?

Freddie_Snowbits

Oh dear, can we not put this to bed.

OP, has the police gone in with the Jack Boots yet? (Freddie doubts it, because Freddie thinks OP is wanting compy from JJB for their cares negligence?) No matter how many others, and me have said this is a police matter!

Deleted_User wrote: »

Why are you wasting your time having a go at JJB when numerous people on here who know what they are talking about have told that this is a total waste of time?

Because the woman has no money and JJB is great big corporate and ready to submit a compy cheque, by return of post!

On the case whether the employee should be disciplined. This morning I arrive at work two minurtes late, due to the bus/car/train being late. Should I be fired from my job?

zaksmum wrote: »

A company the size of JJB should know better.

An eleven year old child pushed around the shops should know better?