iPhone stolen

George_Michael

"We are unable to accept responsibility for what has been the criminal act of a third party"

I wonder what their stance would be if the criminal act of a third party involved a customer verbally or physically assaulting one of their staff.
Would they refuse to help in any legal action against the customer?

keithdc

Legally I'm not convinced you have a case.

However, complaining + naming & shaming + local publicity will get you your cash back!!

I reckon its Co-Op!!!

DCFC79

Markee wrote: »

If the phone was left and someone took it then yeah hands up. But thanks for stating the obvious, very helpful.

The issue here is that the phone was found by another customer and handed in to a member of the supermarkets staff who put it in his pocket and took it home.

Surely this puts an onus on the supermarket as the member of staff abused a position of trust?

i understand what your saying re the staff pocketed it and sold it on but not sure you have a case, maybe take it further and see where it goes.

vax2002

The local paper will run this, .

vax2002

Under supervision ? .. So a customer hands a member of staff "lost property" what is the companies policy for staff handed items of lost property, I say that would leave him under the duty/ direction of his employers.

Valli

George_Michael wrote: »

I wonder what their stance would be if the criminal act of a third party involved a customer verbally or physically assaulting one of their staff.
Would they refuse to help in any legal action against the customer?

As long as the employee was carrying out his role then the supermarket would be vicariously liable.

But it's a separate issue.

The former employee was not employed to retain/remove lost property handed in to him. He wasn't doing his job so the supermarket isn't liable for his actions.

vax2002

Another point.. If he was a third party ? how an employee can be a third party I dont know, why did they sack him if he was not responsible to the store for his actions.
Now they can have one or the other but they can not have both.
The employee committed theft whilst handling lost property, the company will have a policy on lost property, he broke that I would say the supermarket are liable for the actions of an employee failing to carry out his duties as per policy.

Valli

The supermarket doesn't NEED a policy about theft because theft is against the law. No contract of employment specifies laws you must NOT break; some contracts of employment DO require the employee to comply with legislation, for example Official Secrets or Data Protection.

The employee committed theft when he retained the i phone at which point he also broke his contract with his employers. This subsequently led to him losing his job.

Viper_7

Small Claims court.
If he doesn't have any money to cough up directly then request Bailiff action.
They will take his xbox/Cd's whatever that he owns to cover the cost to sell at auction for you to get your money.

vax2002

Disagree, he broke policy and at that point he was STILL employed.
I would fire off a notice before action letter claim to the supermarket followed up by a County Court Claim if they ignore.
If you could just exonerate your employees from blame and liability by claiming they broke contract there would be no need for any health and safety guidelines or public liability insurance as you could just retrospectively claim that they broke contract and you have sacked them, Example sorry the forklift truck driver ran over your Gran, but he was in breech of his contract so hard luck.
He was employed, they will have policy upon his actions, he broke that policy, they sacked him for doing so.
I think that makes them liable for the actions of the employee in causing you loss whilst in the employment of the supermarket.