shoplifter defended by woke

[carmanmemoranda]

Come on mate.
You're trying to explain the difference between criminal and civil matters to Himmy.
Seriously, give up.

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 it is also a criminal offence to mislead a consumer about their legal rights.

 

[motorbiking]

which is not the same as refusing a legitimate claim for a refund. Stop being silly. It would help if you read the act you keep quoting. Start with sec 3, then 5-7.

 

[blup]

Scenario, customer returns products that are faulty or not as described, shop assistant trots out the standard line of no refunds, like many small retailers do, fair enough they're not Screwfix. Disgruntled customer is denied her legal rights and maybe theres a consumer rights offence of misleading information. Angry, she takes goods to the equivalent value, or less. The shop owner, hearing the commotion, is told (you can see it on the video) that she has taken goods without paying and goes into action, grabbing her by the throat. No wonder he has regrets, he may lose his livelihood. She has cause to reflect on her aggression as well.

Six of one, if you ask me, maybe they should sit down together and find the courage to both apologise. It will upset those on both sides of the political spectrum looking for another riot, but that would be reason enough.

Blup

 

[blup]

which is not the same as refusing a legitimate claim for a refund. Stop being silly. It would help if you read the act you keep quoting. Start with sec 3, then 5-7.

I cant think of any better example of it.

Blup

 

[securespark]

A shopper has legal rights if the item bought is:

broken or damaged ('not of satisfactory quality')

unusable ('not fit for purpose')

not what was advertised or doesn't match the seller's description.

And these are the situations where a refund must be given by law.

But we are so used to most shops offering "no-quibble" refunds.

 

[johnny2007]

A shopper has legal rights if the item bought is:

broken or damaged ('not of satisfactory quality')

unusable ('not fit for purpose')

not what was advertised or doesn't match the seller's description.

And these are the situations where a refund must be given by law.

But we are so used to most shops offering "no-quibble" refunds.

True, but not adhering to this act doesn't warrant the customer taking goods from the shop and walk away.
Legally the customer can only issue a civil claim against the business.
Nothing to do with police because it's not a criminal matter.

 

[motorbiking]

This is entirely correct.

Trading standards would be very busy if they criminally prosecuted every retailer who wrongly refused a refund.

They do however target retailers who establish misleading practices to diddle consumers. Rightly so. Plenty of scammers and fraudsters selling crap and refusing refunds.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

which is not the same as refusing a legitimate claim for a refund. Stop being silly. It would help if you read the act you keep quoting. Start with sec 3, then 5-7.

Except I said, Not giving refunds MAY also be illegal.

Because the shopkeeper said " we don't do refunds"

Which comes under

But..

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 it is also a criminal offence to mislead a consumer about their legal rights.

The following are examples of statements that are likely to mislead consumers about their rights:

• no refunds given
• goods can only be exchanged
• only credit notes will be given against faulty goods
• sold as seen

Even the statement 'No refunds except where goods are faulty' would be illegal, as there are a number of cases where a consumer can claim a refund on goods that are not faulty (such as misdescribed goods).

So my statement is true and correct. Despite all your swerving to the opposite.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

which is not the same as refusing a legitimate claim for a refund. Stop being silly. It would help if you read the act you keep quoting. Start with sec 3, then 5-7.

Twisted away from what I said

 

[motorbiking]

You said refusing a refund may be illegal. It isn’t.

And again you quote without source something that is not reflected in the legislation, which I have given you a link to and told you which bits to read.

Your whole ruse was to try to trap me in to saying something in summary which you could argue was wrong. Instead you quote law you clearly haven’t read or understood.

Would you like me to go through it line by line ?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You said refusing a refund may be illegal. It isn’t.

And again you quote without source something that is not reflected in the legislation, which I have given you a link to and told you which bits to read.

Your whole ruse was to try to trap me in to saying something in summary which you could argue was wrong. Instead you quote law you clearly haven’t read or understood.

Would you like me to go through it line by line ?

So your saying the link I quoted is incorrect ?

 

[motorbiking]

it seems to be from the trading standards guidelines which are written in simple terms to create an idiots guide.

There are appropriate disclaimers in the document.

What it doesn’t do is set out the limitations of the legislation and the necessary elements that must be proven

A sign/policy saying we do not give refunds is not the same as refusing a refund on a case by case basis.

If you want to know why you should read sec 3 of the act. It’s quite clear.

 

[Odds]

Meanwhile, as the mob circles the offending store...

...A convenience store owner says he witnesses up to nine shoplifting incidents a day, with criminals who are "more brazen and aggressive".

Benedict Selvaratnam says it is because shoplifters know they are not a police priority. His situation is being echoed in small shops across the UK, according to the Federation of Independent Retailers.

goingtohel@theBeeB

I found it shocking to see a protective screen in front of the counter when i went into a NYC convenience store, notwithstanding the loaded shotgun under the counter. Now, it seems, this will be another import for our cities to get used to.
It's all well and good to scrutinise consumer rights in this matter but surely the store owner has a right to protect his livelihood and himself in the face of such provocation.