JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

Freddie_Snowbits

aliasojo wrote: »

:DI'm just smiling at some of the other imput this morning and I'm chatting along. Is that acceptable?

To you, it is probably acceptable, does it add to the thread.

That's debateable!

aliasojo

Lol Freddie, you've admitted you haven't even read the thing through so I'd say my chatty posts are about as much use as your posts are. :D

You're right though, my chat isn't really helping the OP so I'll try to stop myself from picking people up on their 'helpful' comments.

OP I wish you and yours luck with this. Will you let us know the eventual outcome?

Pollycat

Although I HAVE read the whole of this thread (unlike Freddie_Snowbits who either takes this thread totally off-topic or asks questions that the OP has answered more than once), I can't remember what has been said by JJB about the cctv recording that the OP clearly says shows the ipod being brought to the cash desk by a JJB employee, a woman (later to become the thief) paying and retuning a few minutes later to 'claim' her lost ipod.

This cctv recording is (I would think) is key evidence of theft.

I'd guess that shops record over these on a certain cycle.

Can anyone offer any advice to the OP about getting a copy of this from JJB before it's over-written?
Unless of course, she or her son already have a copy.
Or it's too late.

pulliptears

Freddie, if you are going to troll a thread at least read it so you can do it with some success....

Crazy_Jamie

aliasojo wrote: »

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.

I appreciate you are doing your best with an internet obtained definition, and to be fair you are doing better than many would. However, the reason why I asked whether you believe that the employee did not think that the woman was the owner of the iPod is because that is the crux of the issue of good faith. Whether or not the employee was irresponsible or negligent, if he genuinely believed that the woman was the owner then he has acted in good faith. It is that simple. Whatever criticisms you wish to level at the employee (and I grant you, there are many possible criticisms) the allegation that he didn't act in good faith seems to be unfounded here.

adouglasmhor wrote:

Come on now! Barristers for a petty theft case? Would ordinary Solicitors or Notaries not be more likely?

It depends. If the Defendant entered a guilty plea then I would find it unlikely that a barrister would be involved, unless by some stroke of fortune a barrister was doing the Prosecution List and the Defendant's case popped up, though in that case you can't really attribute the cost of the barrister solely to the Defendant, as s/he would be paid a flat rate for the day and not per case. If the matter proceeded to trial and the Defendant was granted legal aid then it is quite feasible that she could instruct a barrister, though again perhaps unlikely. It depends on the solicitor largely; many would do this case themselves if they had the time. Once again at trial a barrister could be prosecuting depending on whether the regional CPS office instructs barristers on Prosecution trial lists. But once again the barrister would be paid a flat rate in a list that would probably contain a number of trials, not per case.

Deleted_User wrote:

E.g. they had possession, not ownership, but does 'possession' qualify for the purposes of property 'belonging to another' under the statutory definition of theft? I can't remember...nor can I trawl through my notes at this stage!

An interesting point. I'm not entirely sure to be honest. Theft of an item in someone's lawful possession is normally sufficient under statute, so the woman is guilty of an offence either way. In terms of the identity of the victim, that is probably who had the strongest title to the item at the time, which would still be the OP's grandson. So my gut instinct says that the victim is still the OP's grandson. There is absolutely nothing to stop JJB reporting the crime themselves, though. You don't have to be the victim to report a crime.

INT1

CCTV is typically only available for 30 days, if I was zaks mum, you could maybe call in to the store and get JJB to secure it or put it on disk ready for the police to pick up.

lindos90

Im surprised that the staff at JJB are not being more helpful given the cctv evidence, why havent they just allowed then to have a copy of it, out of 'goodwill' if nothing else?

Yes this is a learning experience for the lad, but for those of us who dont have perfect kids, things like this do happen! This is also a money saving site, so it is realisitically money saving to try and get the item returned, before considering buying another (or getting the lad to do lots of chores to save up for a replacement;))

Im sure if an adult had lost say, a handbag in a shop, and that had been given away without checks being done, that there would be more support for persuing things with jjbs responsibility. The fact it was a young lad in this case is just a red herring, their lost property policy should be the same, no matter what the age of the person involved, and reasonable steps should have been taken to make sure before handing the item over, or at least offer alittle help in finding the person who took it (ie providing the cctv, or locating the sale at the till to identify her).

I think you can only request a copy of cctv if you are actually in the cctv tape (under the freedom of infirmation act) so ironically the person who overheard the item had been handed in, and then later went in to 'claim' it, would beable to ask for a copy, but not the OP..crazy!

adouglasmhor

BTW if anyone thinks I was rude about the kid losing his iPod - you should hear what I said to stepson for losing his phone! Mind you he is 31.

lucylucky

Personally I am impressed that the CCTV has the audio capabilities to pick up all the conversations that go on.

Wonder where the mic was?

INT1

lindos90 wrote: »

Im surprised that the staff at JJB are not being more helpful given the cctv evidence, why havent they just allowed then to have a copy of it, out of 'goodwill' if nothing else?
!

As it would be breaking Data protection act.