Sister done for shoplifting, now Boots demand £200...
Monster101
Posts: 2,923 Forum Member
✭✭✭
please nobody start lectures on how people shouldnt shoplift in the first place! i think we all know that.
im wondering if anyone can shed some light on this.
my 18 year old sister attemped to steal a £19 face cream from boots a couple of weeks ago. she got arrested and fined £80 by the police, which is what she deserves!
my uncle had to pay the fine and my sister is paying him back.
but now she has recieved a letter from boots asking for £200 civil recovery. is this legally binding?! i fail to see where the sum of 200 pounds has come from.
ofcouse my sister is in the wrong for stealing in the first place. but they have the item back, and she is now banned from all boots stores. im just wondering where boots have plucked this bizarre figure out from, and surely they should not be fining more than the police?
im starting to think u would get less hassle for battering old ladies black and blue!
im wondering if anyone can shed some light on this.
my 18 year old sister attemped to steal a £19 face cream from boots a couple of weeks ago. she got arrested and fined £80 by the police, which is what she deserves!
my uncle had to pay the fine and my sister is paying him back.
but now she has recieved a letter from boots asking for £200 civil recovery. is this legally binding?! i fail to see where the sum of 200 pounds has come from.
ofcouse my sister is in the wrong for stealing in the first place. but they have the item back, and she is now banned from all boots stores. im just wondering where boots have plucked this bizarre figure out from, and surely they should not be fining more than the police?
im starting to think u would get less hassle for battering old ladies black and blue!
0
Comments
I've never heard of that - I would have thought that only the court could impose such a fine.
But Boots is a big company. I can't imagine they would be trying it on if it were not legit. And I suppose the whole thing did cost them money in admin and stuff. I don't know for sure though.
well my advice to them would be dont waste so much time fannying about with admin and what-not!
this is the problem these days, all this pointless paper work, just let the police deal with it!
i would say i suppose its a good detterrant to stop someone shoplifting again if they are being fined so much, but im not convinced in the slightest thats what its for!
its just Boots and other such companies seeing an opportunity to be greedy plain and simple, i presume it goes towards a big fat bonus for the security guard.
No, as explained in the Watchdog piece linked to above, they probably wouldn't. All they could legitimately claim for is any actual loss caused to them by the offender - which may well be zero if they recover the stolen item. The cost of security staff, CCTV etc is a fixed cost which they incur whether or not any shoplifters actually turn up.
It probably goes to pay the wages of the security guard that caught her.
/\
Agree.
dont they get paid normally?
You can't fine somebody over something for which they have not been found guilty.
Yes of course. But it is all part of the cost of shoplifters. If there were no shoplifters there would be no need for store detectives / security guards. It is offset.
Maybe the 200 quid boots fine is paying towards the people that get away with it?
Just unlucky to be caught.
i agree, but watchdog site basically says the civil recovery is a rip off scam type scheme.
so how does that make boots any better than the theif?
I've always understood civil recovery to simply replace the money that was wasted on the "investigation" which I really think is fair enough. I don't think I've read that watchdog report though?
In all honesty though, I'm pretty sure that I've read about civil recovery running into the thousands. £200 really isn't too bad.
There is simply no way they are legally entitled to anything. The police fined her and they can do that, and it was paid.
They can only sue for the losses incurred as a result of the damage which is the cost of the item she stole (presumably at trade price as well). If they were going to court, then that is all they would be awarded, plus costs. The staff would be employed anyway regardless of whether or not the item was stolen so their costs are not offsetable against the action.
RLP will no doubt send more letters, and Boots could well initiate court action if they chose if they still have a loss as a result of the theft, however it would probably cost more in costs than the cost of the item itself, so these things never go to court, and they would never be able to justify the £200 they are asking for.
You didn't read the post did you. She was fined for the offence. This is Boots taking the piss and attempting a civil recovery even though they got the goods back.
The Watchdog link gives good advice.
Read the Watchdog link, not allowed to do that.
And your other post was wrong as well. She was charged by the police and fined £80.
Boots are attempting a civil recovery even though they got the goods back.
You're explanation being she must have stolen more stuff but not been caught before? I don't think the law does or should work like that.
So you were wrong.
She has been charged and fined legally £80.
The civil recovery is like you staying in a store supermarket for more than the 2 hours and receiving a £500 invoice for loss. Would you just pay it or challenge it.