Undercharged at a pawn shop: my rights

CopperKettle

This is my first time on the forum.


I'm not really sure why I'm being told to stop asking the same question. I thought I was replying to individual posts.
It's not a question of the 'answer I want'. I'm not seeking justification to behave a certain way. I'm quite happy with who I am as a person/my moral code.
I'm just surprised at the answers in the circumstances. Namely, 1. that you can be taken to court when you have a receipt saying you paid in full. 2. that a pawn shop is entitled to refuse to honour other loan agreements it has with me.


I understand if you're all highly qualified that it might be annoying to have your answers questioned. But as the forum notes remind us, anyone can answer. As this is my first post I'm not familiar with any of your names so have no idea of the quality of the information I'm receiving.
Is there legal code/case law that can help me understand this?

unholyangel

CopperKettle wrote: »

This is my first time on the forum.


I'm not really sure why I'm being told to stop asking the same question. I thought I was replying to individual posts.
It's not a question of the 'answer I want'. I'm not seeking justification to behave a certain way. I'm quite happy with who I am as a person/my moral code.
I'm just surprised at the answers in the circumstances. Namely, 1. that you can be taken to court when you have a receipt saying you paid in full. 2. that a pawn shop is entitled to refuse to honour other loan agreements it has with me.


I understand if you're all highly qualified that it might be annoying to have your answers questioned. But as the forum notes remind us, anyone can answer. As this is my first post I'm not familiar with any of your names so have no idea of the quality of the information I'm receiving.
Is there legal code/case law that can help me understand this?

What you're missing is that court works on the balance of probability.

The receipt is not a contract itself. It would merely be proof that you fulfilled your obligations under the actual contract (which is the loan agreement). But while you have "proof" you paid £x in cash, they have "proof" you only paid £y by card - in the form of card receipts & takings. You undoubtedly (because you admit yourself you didn't pay the amount stated on the receipt) won't be able to provide any corroborating evidence, they will.

Most pawn shops have cctv. Don't be daft.

CopperKettle

It's not a matter of being 'daft'. You haven't told me anything I haven't considered.
What surprises me the most is that an unresolved issue over one agreement entitles the pawnbroker not to honour other agreements.

unholyangel

CopperKettle wrote: »

It's not a matter of being 'daft'. You haven't told me anything I haven't considered.
What surprises me the most is that an unresolved issue over one agreement entitles the pawnbroker not to honour other agreements.

If I haven't told you anything you haven't considered, then why are you so surprised that they can ask you to pay the remaining balance?

If a person/company are in possession of your goods and you owe them money, they are generally entitled to sell those goods to recoup the money owed to them.

Also, were you aware that if you did try and use the receipt as proof you paid - despite knowing full well you didn't pay that sum - that it could be construed as fraud?

Aylesbury_Duck

CopperKettle wrote: »

This is my first time on the forum.


I'm not really sure why I'm being told to stop asking the same question. I thought I was replying to individual posts.
It's not a question of the 'answer I want'. I'm not seeking justification to behave a certain way. I'm quite happy with who I am as a person/my moral code.
I'm just surprised at the answers in the circumstances. Namely, 1. that you can be taken to court when you have a receipt saying you paid in full. 2. that a pawn shop is entitled to refuse to honour other loan agreements it has with me.


I understand if you're all highly qualified that it might be annoying to have your answers questioned. But as the forum notes remind us, anyone can answer. As this is my first post I'm not familiar with any of your names so have no idea of the quality of the information I'm receiving.
Is there legal code/case law that can help me understand this?

I'm not highly qualified but every time someone comes back with a (correct) answer that legally you owe the money and that the shop can legally enforce that, you contest their answer. I think five different people have told you you owe the money yet you keep clinging to the receipt as some sort of evidence you don't. You express surprise at getting these answers even though they're all similar. If you want proper legal advice you can always seek it, some solicitors will give you a free short consultation.

Your underlying message is that you are looking for someone to tell you that the shop can't enforce full payment. There is no other conclusion to draw from your answers on the thread. Unfortunately, no one has yet said that so if that's the answer you want, I suggest taking qualified legal advice to see if you get a different answer.

davidmcn

CopperKettle wrote: »

I'm just surprised at the answers in the circumstances. Namely, 1. that you can be taken to court when you have a receipt saying you paid in full.

Turn it round the other way and let's say you've been short-changed in a shop. You're entitled to the rest of the money, yes? The fact their till might have printed off a receipt with the correct numbers doesn't affect the fact that you've been short-changed and are still entitled to the remainder of your change.

I understand if you're all highly qualified that it might be annoying to have your answers questioned. But as the forum notes remind us, anyone can answer. As this is my first post I'm not familiar with any of your names so have no idea of the quality of the information I'm receiving.

For what it's worth, I'm a solicitor and agree with the other answers you've been getting. We're not in some conspiracy with the pawnbrokers.

Is there legal code/case law that can help me understand this?

Try looking up unjust enrichment and rights of set-off.

Pollycat

I think I might have been a bit miffed if this really was their attitude:

CopperKettle wrote: »

5 minutes after arriving home the phone rang. "You've underpaid. You didn't pay the right amount. You must come back now with the jewellery or the money."

but I wonder if you really did know that they'd not charged you the correct amount and thought you'd got away with £140 and were put out because really you hadn't got away with it (hence the 'niggling feeling something was amiss' and not looking at the card reader and dropping your phone').
Surely if you're being charged more than you thought you would be, you would check the amount and query it...

Personally, I would ask them to admit they'd made a mistake and when they did, I'd then pay what I owed.

Especially as...

CopperKettle wrote: »

Then there's the fact I have other items with them and it'll be horribly embarrassing to face them if I don't.

You might find it would be more than 'horribly embarrassing'.

CopperKettle

Personally, I would ask them to admit they'd made a mistake and when they did, I'd then pay what I owed.

And that is what I will do tomorrow.


I honestly wasn't aware I hadn't paid the correct amount. True, it sounded less than I expected, but nowhere near that amount. As I said, it was quite a bit higher than I expected two of the agreements to come to.


I totally accept that I would have taken the time to query it if it sounded a lot more than I expected. I doubt I'm alone in that.


Yes that really was there attitude. I can only hope they are a little more gracious tomorrow.
Thanks for the advice.

CopperKettle

The fact their till might have printed off a receipt with the correct numbers doesn't affect the fact that you've been short-changed and are still entitled to the remainder of your change

.


Perhaps customers have a better chance of this now if there are cameras pointed at the till. In the past you'd have little chance, especially if you had left the shop or only noticed you'd been short changed after putting it in your purse. Hence the 'please check your change as we won't be able to do anything about it later' or words to that affect.


Thanks for your input.

CopperKettle

Try looking up unjust enrichment and rights of set-off.

Will do. Thank you.