Were we right to walk out?

daytona0

BrentMeister wrote: »

Whats wrong with the old fashioned telephone? Or popping back into the resturant? Seems like you're making minimal effort to rectify this situation.

Leaving the data page open? What information does that reveal, name and telephone number?

I for one moment dont believe had you made an effort you could have caught the attention of a member of staff. Starring gormlessly at everyone that walks past isnt the same as saying "Excuse me, can you take payment"

My money is on:

"We live 30 miles away so can't go back, I work the exact hours the restaurant is open so can't call up and I'm afraid that they will mis-handle my card details if paid over the phone"

discat11

I'm afraid it isn't the comments on this thread that have besmirched your character amongst the majority and resulted in the comments regarding your intentions and actions.

It was your own actions and inactions in leaving without paying.
Nobody has suggested your wait was not an inconvenience or that it should be accepted however, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I suggest you make more than a minimal effort to contact the company you now owe a debt to, presumably you have some idea (ballpark) of the figure you owe?

In which case what's wrong with sticking a cheque in the post -deduct the price of the stamp, envelope and paper if you must of course and suggest they invoice you for the remainder or reimburse if you have mistakenly overpaid.

If you believe they have left personally identifiable data unsecured then it may be a breach of the Data protection act -contact the ICO.

Brooker_Dave

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Not paying for food eaten ( regardless of how long waited/ poor service) = theft

But they tried to pay, and were ignored.

Lesson to waiting staff, don't treat your customers with contempt.

I don't see why the staff would have to pay the bill, its not like people in shops have to pay for the cost of shoplifting or returns.

fed_up_and_stressed

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But they tried to pay, and were ignored.

Lesson to waiting staff, don't treat your customers with contempt.

I don't see why the staff would have to pay the bill, its not like people in shops have to pay for the cost of shoplifting or returns.

Haaaa im sorry i didn't realise it was a requirement of waiting on staff to be mind readers now and not being is "treating customers with contempt" ! (Im not a waitress btw)

I'm pretty sure saying "excuse me can I pay my bill, I really need to leave" would have had been more appropriate than gormlessly loiting then leaving without paying.

I note OP refers to facebook contact with the restaurant hq rather than phoning or going to the restaurant. Smacks of spinelessness and an attempt to "shame" the restaurant (which based on the responses on here has failed) rather than a willingness to pay to me. Unless the OP cares to explain why they haven't used those methods (ie phone / visit)

Stevie_Palimo

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But they tried to pay, and were ignored.

Lesson to waiting staff, don't treat your customers with contempt.

I don't see why the staff would have to pay the bill, its not like people in shops have to pay for the cost of shoplifting or returns.

Some places do charge staff still and also the public on the cost of goods to with increases that help offset theft to, I know some people that work in a place and if the till is down they have to rectify it, I think this is wrong and when the till is over they do not get to share it out.

Stevie_Palimo

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

Haaaa im sorry i didn't realise it was a requirement of waiting on staff to be mind readers now and not being is "treating customers with contempt" ! (Im not a waitress btw)

I'm pretty sure saying "excuse me can I pay my bill, I really need to leave" would have had been more appropriate than gormlessly loiting then leaving without paying.

I note OP refers to facebook contact with the restaurant hq rather than phoning or going to the restaurant. Smacks of spinelessness and an attempt to "shame" the restaurant (which based on the responses on here has failed) rather than a willingness to pay to me. Unless the OP cares to explain why they haven't used those methods (ie phone / visit)

I am presuming that this is down to two things here both laziness and the fact that you made to of being embarrassed as to stealing goods which after all has been done however you try and sugar coat it.

BrentMeister

Cant see this as being any different to the following situation.

You spend 20 minutes on the petrol station forecourt waiting because its busy. You finally get round to filling your car up, but then lo and behold there is a massive line of people waiting to pay.

You poke your head out of the line to catch the attention of the cashier, but shes busy serving other people. In the end you think "Sod this", get back in your car and drive off.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

There is nothing to negate that they were dishonest or that they intended to permanently deprive.

If they had told the staff they were leaving unless payment was taken immediately (or words to that effect) then that would negate the dishonest element. If they had left their details or said they would return when it was quieter to pay, that would negate the intent to permanently deprive.

But OP did none of that and unless dozens of other tables also did the same, they're going to be hard pushed to show that their actions were that of a reasonable and honest person.

Don't get me wrong, not trying to sit in moral judgement of the OP - I empathise with the long waiting times and can understand how most people probably wouldn't be aware they may be committing an offence by doing (or not doing) something.

But OP certainly hasn't helped the situation by only making eye contact and then leaving without further ado.

Imagine (I know its hypothetical but also circumstances that could quite genuinely have happened):
Restaurant states they covered 400 tables that night. They state 1 (or perhaps 2) left without paying (one being the OP). The defendants did not notify any staff of their departure and did not approach any member of staff with the bill in hand asking to pay it - despite numerous staff members walking past them as you would expect in a busy restaurant. They just quietly left.

Defendants then say they did not permanently deprive as they intended to return later to make payment but have nothing in support of this other than their own say so.

And you're confident that a not guilty verdict would be returned?

Would it be such a stretch for the prosecution to imply they left without saying anything because their intent was to leave without paying? As I said, OP hasn't put themselves in the best of positions.

You have not answered my questions. Was I wrong, as you previously stated, when I said "If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law"?

If I was wrong why are you now saying intent not to pay and dishonesty (amongst other elements) need to be proved.

I will repeat what I have been saying all along "the law currently requires intent not to pay before someone can be found guilty of making off without payment. It is therefore the prosecution's problem to prove an accused person did intend to avoid payment beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not need to prove they lacked this intent."

I am surprised you seem to think it is for the accused to prove they intended to pay rather than for the prosecution to prove they intended not to pay. I do not believe both the written law and Lord Hailsham's summary of it would have got such a basic and obvious point wrong.

I have not commented on the specifics of the op's case other than to set out what needs to be proved for them to be guilty of making off. So I don't know why you are going into them now other than to divert attention from the discussion over whether or not the law currently requires intent not to pay before someone can be found guilty of making off without payment.

Silver-Surfer_2

BrentMeister wrote: »

Cant see this as being any different to the following situation.

You spend 20 minutes on the petrol station forecourt waiting because its busy. You finally get round to filling your car up, but then lo and behold there is a massive line of people waiting to pay.

You poke your head out of the line to catch the attention of the cashier, but shes busy serving other people. In the end you think "Sod this", get back in your car and drive off.

Difference there is the cashier is processing payments and it would be reasonable to wait in the queue to pay. Not doing so and making off would make it dishonest.

neilmcl

shezzone wrote: »

There are other factors involved which I didn't mention and we are awaiting their response.

There always is. Strange how we never get the "full story" with these types of posts.