"Civil recovery" demands from shops

mo786uk

Its not really a relevant exmaple.

In the case of a shop, they have spent time dealing with a shoplifter and have incurred a loss due to the shoplifters activities.

In the case of littering, arguably its only thr Council that is suffering a loss - due to them having to clean it up.

I am sure if you suffered a loss you would like the option of being able to take a civil claim against someone - or should that right be taken away?

WhiteHorse

mo786uk wrote: »

In the case of a shop, they have spent time dealing with a shoplifter and have incurred a loss due to the shoplifters activities.

The alleged shoplifter.

I am sure if you suffered a loss you would like the option of being able to take a civil claim against someone - or should that right be taken away?

They can sue if they like. But if they are so certain, then let it be a criminal matter. After all, it costs them nothing and would make their suit a dead cert.

But they don't do either, do they?

mo786uk

WhiteHorse wrote: »

The alleged shoplifter.


They can sue if they like. But if they are so certain, then let it be a criminal matter. After all, it costs them nothing and would make their suit a dead cert.

But they don't do either, do they?

Alleged indeed - but I am somewhat sceptical of lots of people falseley being accused of sholifting (but I don't doubt it happens).

The point with regards to civil recovery has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions. A shop will hardly benefit if a thief is prosecuted - they wont get their money back will they? hence probably why they might prefer civil recovery.

I doubt they care about justice - they care about £.

I daresay civil recovery can happen even if someone is prosecuted... dont see why not but I am unsure.

esuhl

mo786uk wrote: »

In the case of a shop, they have spent time dealing with a shoplifter and have incurred a loss due to the shoplifters activities.

In the case of littering, arguably its only thr Council that is suffering a loss - due to them having to clean it up.

If no one suffers a loss because crisp packets are in the street... why are we paying the council to clean them up?

Obviously I don't want people to litter as it makes the environment unpleasant. And I have to pay the council to tidy the streets! Why shouldn't I be able to fine people to compensate me and the neighbours for our losses and to discourage criminals from thinking they can get away with it?

mo786uk wrote: »

I am sure if you suffered a loss you would like the option of being able to take a civil claim against someone - or should that right be taken away?

I think it's right that individuals and businesses should be permitted to make legal claims against each other. I don't think shops or individuals should be able to "fine" each other outside of any just legal process.

Obviously if I suffered a loss, I'd like to be able to just take whatever I wanted from them without going to court. Dictatorships are great... when you're the dictator.

I have a similar problem with some ASBOs because of the lack of any burden of proof. In some cases a complaint is enough to suffer legal consequences. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty in this country.

mo786uk

I should have worded it better perhaps. Councils probably have a legal duty( if not expectation) to keep their area clean. So they will suffer costs in keeping an area clean. I believe litter fines are a punishment as opposed to cost revocery (although they might be cost recovery in the long run depending on who gets the money and how it is spent).

You might suffer because of litter but its unlikely to be a financial one you can chase the litterer for.

---

As explained in the above document, it is not a 'fine', civil recovery is an offer to accept a payment for an (allegeed) loss experienced, but is accepted on the basis of not proceeding with a civil court case.

the key is that the 'customer' still has the option of going to court if they want.

the civil recovery company shouldnt be using the word 'fine' as that implies some formal court type fine.

the main issue with civil recovery is that people will probably pay up due to not understanding what is going on - hopefully you would hope honest people refuse to pay and if a shoplifter is out £150, who cares? obviously there will be people who pay up when they sshouldn't - but the question is, should a whole system be removed because a few innocents suffer or should retailers have the option to chase genuine shoplifters?

WhiteHorse

mo786uk wrote: »

A shop will hardly benefit if a thief is prosecuted - they wont get their money back will they? hence probably why they might prefer civil recovery.

Ah. What shows the whole thing to be dodgy is the fact that the Court can order compensation. But then the retailer would have to prove the allegation, and for some mysterious reason that's something they seem to have a problem with ...

mo786uk

Realistically speaking the CPS will probably prosecute big cases whereby there is high value or the person is a persistent offender or has been violent. Those types of people are probably very unlikely to pay compensation anyway and from I understand compensation orders are not foten followed through with (mentioned in the QCs report too)

So for a start you probably have thousands of minor cases that never go anywhere further than a word from the Police.

On top of that its for the Police and CPS to prove the case. The retailer will have very little involvement apart from maybe providing a witness statement or CCTV evidence. Having worked in a large supermarket, many cases of shoplifting are thwarted before the person ever leaves the shop - in those cases the Police are not even called. The person is usually told to get lost and that is it. I would imagine a lot of these cases are the ones being dealt with by civil recovery.

As someone who has worked with the criminal justice system - the simple fact it, it is to slow and inefficient to deal with every single theft case. No disrespect to the Police or CPS or Courts but that is just the way it is. It is hard enough dealing with fairly serious crime let alone petty issues.

I do not think the issue is with the retailer proving what has happened - it is with the legal system having the resources and will to carry the cases through court and punish people. The retailer has no control over it.

Civil recovery gives them a much easier and direct way to 'get at' those people - so it doesnt surprise me in the least that they are taking it.

antrobus

mo786uk wrote: »

Alleged indeed - but I am somewhat sceptical of lots of people falseley being accused of sholifting (but I don't doubt it happens).

So am I, but thankfully we have something called a criminal justice system that deals with that sort of thing.

mo786uk wrote: »

The point with regards to civil recovery has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions.

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

mo786uk wrote: »

A shop will hardly benefit if a thief is prosecuted - they wont get their money back will they?

Yes they will. The criminal courts can and do make compensation orders.

mo786uk

So how about they do civil recovery in cases where there is no prosecution? i.e the majority you would think.

Bearing in mind the shop have no say in whether there is a prosecution or not.

justifier

antrobus wrote: »

Yes they will. The criminal courts can and do make compensation orders.

Yes, but we had a guys steal a high value item 6 years ago and we get a cheque for £1.53 a month from the courts on behalf of this thief.

Civil recovery stops the "opportunist" thieves, teenagers etc. and is a useful tool but not the answer in all cases. It does work particularly in the case of an employee stealing take an example that I have witnessed.

Girl was caught stealing £50 through refund fraud, chances are that it wasn't the first time, you don't generally get caught first time round, she was a trusted member of staff. Following company investigation disciplinary etc. She admitted it. The police were called, she was escorted out the store by police in front of her peers and had to pay a larger than £50 (unsure of the exact amount). Why is this unreasonable? It took up in excess of 10hrs of people time, and caused a number of issues.

Last year retail crime cost £1.4 billion Why shouldn't the retailers be able to recover this at a better rate than £1.53 a month?