JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

Freddie_Snowbits

lucylucky wrote: »

But they have been in touch with the boys in blue already (allegedly)

"Son contacted the police"

From the opening gambit, sorry, post.

And the Grandmother can extract statements from witness who saw the video tape, but the police coulld not?

zaksmum wrote: »

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".

DrScotsman

marleyboy wrote: »

YOur quite right, about 1 thing, a woman has committed theft. However this is in NO WAY JJb's fault, as they did not leave the item behind.

For a start, I might be mistaken but I'm not sure you've read my post correctly. You've used up a lot of words trying to disprove the statement "the law holds JJB liable", but that's not what I said. I said that I think the law should hold them liable - an opinion that obviously can't be disproved. "I hope that some of the posters here are correct and you can hold JJB responsible, as I believe from your description of their actions they should be."

Anyway, I'm looking at the thread right now, and it seems some people have raised a reasonable argument pinning JJB at fault. I think just one poster (Crazy Jamie, maybe a couple others to a lesser extent) has actually made an effort to see discern if those legal arguments withstand the tests, and even then says "The issue of whether or not JJB would be liable for giving the iPod to someone else is by no means cut and dry"

Maybe JJB aren't liable, however all you have done is state what you believe to be true and spout analogies, most of which are incomparable. In the bus scenario and the school scenario you haven't described the driver/teacher actually "in possession" of the item. The landlord-laptop scenario is comparable but isn't convincing in the slightest.

And your "good find - enjoy it" scenario doesn't work, and shows your lack of attention to many of the posts in this thread. That sentence is proof that they don't think they're giving it to the owner, and hence proves they haven't taken "reasonable steps" to track down the owner. Assuming the CCTV were to pick that up, a court would indeed very likely find them liable


On another note, I just found this gem by the way.

lindos90 wrote: »

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.

This is completely true and you all know it.

marleyboy

I will await to hear what the Police decide. Its my belief, they will write it on a file and thats it!!

There is NO WAY JJb will be held liable (this I know will be shown to be the case).

My "good find enjoy it" scenario, is just that A SCENARIO, the point of this SCENARIO, is to point out that the store could just have easily said this (as they are NOT responsible for ensuring customers do not leave property behind), if you can show me just 1 clause that categorically states - they have to take "reasonable steps" to track down the owner of the property. I will be more than happy to accept that scenario does not work,

As far as I am aware, JJb or any other store in the UK, cover themselves (so simply) by stating "Customers leave their items unattended at their own risk" Which covers pretty much everything, from the car park to the shop floor. Meaning the assistant behind the counter could just as easily have said "put it back where you found it".

Whether or not your convincing me otherwise is irrelevant (Your NOT), and vice versa. The landlord analogy is pretty much the same scenario in my eyes (however unconvincing YOU find it). I will re-iterate that no court in the land will find JJb liable, but am more than happy to await the result to be proven either right or wrong.

I wish the OP good luck and pray the item is either found or replaced, but this is highly unlikely to be the case, the most that is going to happen, is the police will write a report about some woman stealing an Ipod!!!

JJb wont be made liable, the thief will probably never be caught, (even though a little common sense would be to check the credit card details this woman used before she came back and claimed the item), the only person who's fault this loss really is, seems to be completely omitted from the picture, as ultimately anyone who misplaces or loses an item resumes A responsibility.

Had this been a friends Ipod, do you really think for one second this friend would blame JJb or some strange woman? Is it not more realistic the owner would say "I lent it to YOU, YOU lost it so YOU can replace it"?

DrScotsman

marleyboy wrote: »

I will await to hear what the Police decide. Its my belief, they will write it on a file and thats it!!

There is NO WAY JJb will be held liable (this I know will be shown to be the case).

The police have not much to do with "liability", only "guilt". Unless I'm mistaken the well thought out posts I referred to earlier all referred to torts, not criminal offences. The police not doing anything to JJB doesn't show much.

My "good find enjoy it" scenario, is just that A SCENARIO, the point of this SCENARIO, is to point out that the store could just have easily said this (as they are NOT responsible for ensuring customers do not leave property behind), if you can show me just 1 clause that categorically states - they have to take "reasonable steps" to track down the owner of the property. I will be more than happy to accept that scenario does not work,

I have an apology to make - I have reread your scenario and have realised I am not entirely certain what you are saying, something I should have made sure of before replying.

In your scenario, are you saying
(a) that the JJB employee said to a customer claiming the iPod (whom he believed not to be the owner) "good find - enjoy it", and the customer keeps the iPod, or
(b) that one JJB employee said to the employee who found the iPod "good find - enjoy it", and the latter employee keeps the iPod?

In both of those cases JJB is responsible, but let me make sure we're on the same page before I explain how.

The landlord analogy is pretty much the same scenario in my eyes (however unconvincing YOU find it).

I said the scenario was comparable - that is, I agreed it was a similar enough scenario. However if you take anyone on this thread who thinks JJB are liable and they will most definitely disagree on your take that the landlord isn't. Hence it is unconvincing and a pretty pointless thing to say.

For the rest of your post, once again you seem to have ignored what I've said. I don't believe I've said anywhere that I believe the law as it stands will find JJB liable for zaksmum's situation, despite the fact you continue to try to convince me otherwise. I merely pointed out that your argument is barely an argument when put against the discussions had around page 9, as it is simply an onslaught of analogies as opposed to an actual discussion about the law, and doesn't stand up. Your response continues this.

Sooler

RivChaser wrote: »

This is outrageous - can't believe JJB aren't compensating you the £150 as they were clearly negligent in handing over the ipod without verifiying the person was the genuine owner.

The only negligence is that of the son for losing the darned thing.

Wouldn't think JJB have any legal obligation to take any care of it, but they could improve their procedure by requiring ID for reclaiming stuff as their intent is to "exceed, best practice conditions" - but their response to the OP indicates they've no interest in doing that.

Corporate BS? http://www.jjbcorporate.co.uk/corporateresponsibility.php

pinkshoes

Well, I skimmed through all the bickering, and well done to the OP for staying so calm given how RUDE some of the posts are!

Obviously it's careless for an 11 year old to leave their ipod in a shop, and he'll learn his lesson, but putting that aside, we have:

1. Some despicable disgusting woman who seems to think it's perfectly OK to steal an ipod, knowing full well that it wasn't hers.

2. A large high street shop who didn't even carry out the basics when dealing with lost property, given the women couldn't even get the item description right.

3. A police station who are not carrying out their duty to investigate a THEFT. Knowingly taking someone else's property is THEFT.

I hope you get somewhere with this OP, as otherwise the police and shop are just blatantly condoning theft, which makes them just as bad as the scum of a woman who took it in the first place.

lucylucky

pinkshoes wrote: »

Well, I skimmed through all the bickering, and well done to the OP for staying so calm given how RUDE some of the posts are!

Obviously it's careless for an 11 year old to leave their ipod in a shop, and he'll learn his lesson, but putting that aside, we have:

1. Some despicable disgusting woman who seems to think it's perfectly OK to steal an ipod, knowing full well that it wasn't hers.

2. A large high street shop who didn't even carry out the basics when dealing with lost property, given the women couldn't even get the item description right.

3. A police station who are not carrying out their duty to investigate a THEFT. Knowingly taking someone else's property is THEFT.

I hope you get somewhere with this OP, as otherwise the police and shop are just blatantly condoning theft, which makes them just as bad as the scum of a woman who took it in the first place.

Lets wait and see shall we.:D

lucylucky

zaksmum wrote: »

No my son is home this weekend and will resume dealing with it immediately he returns.

So here we are halfway through the weekend.

Did your son contact the police today? What was their response?

Or when you say he is home "this weekend" did you mean Sunday?

real1314

Saw this thread yesterday - a lot of peopel having a go at an 11 yr old kid for either having an iPod Touch or for not taking care of it, and yet the same people don't seem able to find any venom for a thief.

Anyway, the simple solution is for mum and kid to attend the cop shop, having first got the JJB managers details and requested (in writing) that the video evidence be retained (including the previous half an hour).

Tel the plod that you've got a theft to report, evidence to prove the theft, video of the thief and evidence to link the video to an identity via a credit card transaction.

1 crime, 1 crime that should be readily solveable. Open and shut case. They should take that on as it would boost their figures.

Conversely if it has been reported as a loss followed by theft without all the relevant details, the plod might see it as another unsolveable on their stats.

If they seem reluctant to record / deal with the issue, ask for an inspector. If they refuse, ask for the officers ID and tell them you'll be getting on to your MP and then do so.

real1314

lucylucky wrote: »

So here we are halfway through the weekend.

Did your son contact the police today? What was their response?

Or when you say he is home "this weekend" did you mean Sunday?

I would assume monday is an appropriate day - working week and all that?

Jeez, hold your horses.