"Civil recovery" demands from shops

james_joyce

Hi

I am just reading an article in Private Eye about civil recovery demands by shops - mainly supermarkets - from alleged shoplifters and others. Some these are as much as £150. I understand that these payments have little legal basis. Can someone please let me know if this issue has been covered on this website? I can't find any references to it.

Thanks
James

Hintza

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving. Pay the fine and avoid a trip to court (and a criminal record) is the way I read it.

squeaky

civil recovery demands by shops

unholyangel

Personally I can see up and downsides to it.

In the article linked above, it said they'll likely recover a maximum of 0.4% of retail crime....but since citizens advice are providing legal help to them.....it will in effect end up costing the UK more. Especially if - as noted - a large number of the cases were for items under £20.

I've heard previously (although unsure whether its true or not) that shoplifting is one of the more difficult crimes to "prove".

However i dont see this as a deterrent for those who make a living from shoplifting. If anything its encouragement. Get caught, pay a charge and its all fine as opposed to court dates and a possible sentence depending on verdict, previous offence etc.

And while on one hand its useful for some.....it just doesnt make sense. Unless the person has psychological issues, they're most likely stealing because they cant afford it. If they cant afford it, how on earth are they going to afford the fine?

james_joyce

Hi

Obviously I oppose shoplifting. That is not the point here.

The Private Eye article makes particular reference to the mentally ill and also to groups of young people all being told they have to pay when only one of them is accused of theft.

I would suggest in such cases, ie where people are actually innocent or there are mitigating circumstances, that they go and explain this to the magistrates or a jury. Call me old fashioned. (Or as Private Eye might say, "James, you're old fashioned - Ed").

Regards
James

james_joyce

Of course, the point is that vulnerable and/or innocent people might not realise they have the option not to pay the compensation, and instead that they can defend themselves in a criminal court and quite possibly win.

The real issue for me is, who is going to point this out to them at the time?

It's almost a question of "who guards the (security) guards?"

sarahg1969

Hintza wrote: »

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving. Pay the fine and avoid a trip to court (and a criminal record) is the way I read it.

They're not fines. They have no authority to issue fines.

paulofessex

Hintza wrote: »

Should only be a worry to those that have been thieving. Pay the fine and avoid a trip to court (and a criminal record) is the way I read it.

Not as clear cut. Cannot recall where l read it but there has certainly been cases where people have been stopped by TK Max security accused of shoplifting, taken into back room, police attended, no evidence of theft either phyiscal or indeed cctv, no further action by police, released from the store there and then only to be sent a Civil Recovery demand some weeks later to cover the cost of the securitys time dealing with the issue.

If l can find the source of the info l will post it

bod1467

If that happened to me I'd send them a counter-suit for civil recovery of the cost of my time for being unreasonably detained.

james_joyce

Private Eye quotes the Law Commission as saying in April that the law "does not allow stores to apportion the overheads incurred for security and surveillance to individual shoplifters".

The article also mentions the example of people who miss out scanning items on self-service machines, which I presume is accidental in some cases.

Overall I sincerely hope this is not a scandal which is allowed to continue because the 'victims' - eg the mentally ill - have no voice.

robtruscott

But among the more than 10,000 Citizens Advice-handled cases, there is one common feature: if the sum demanded is not paid, the threatened court action does not materialise. And the most prolific agent – Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) – has conceded that it has never successfully litigated a contested court claim in respect of an unpaid demand. This, together with formal legal advice that there is no obvious legal authority for most such demands, suggests that the practice of threatened civil recovery relies on fear and/or shame, and ignorance of the law, for its effectiveness.

seems its the same as the unenforceable invoices that private parking companys send out.