shoplifter defended by woke

[motorbiking]

"The row broke out after the woman was denied a refund and tried to take replacement items from the shop".

I had exactly the same happen to me years ago, around 1990. I bought a rugby shirt in Benetton. Cost £35 which wasn’t cheap at the time, When Mrs Mottie washed it according to instructions, the red stripe on the collar run into the white. Mrs Mottie took it back twice and was fobbed off by the manager saying it had to be sent back to Italy for inspection. I got on the phone to him and after a few harsh words he told me to come up for a replacement at a certain time. I went down with my son who was only about 4 at the time. When I got there the manager wasn’t there and they didn’t know when he would be - he was clearly giving us the runaround. I asked for a bit of paper, gave them my name, address and phone number, threw the f'cking shirt at the assistant, took another shirt from the rack and went to leave the shop. They tried to stop me leaving by snatching my son from me and holding the door shut. I grabbed him back, flung the door open knocking one of them flying, went home, job done.

Later that day I got a call from the police to go up the police station, I did and they arrested me on the spot and charged me with assault. I told them about them grabbing my son but they weren’t interested. When I went to court, I told my story including them snatching my son and the police not doing anything and the beak stopped the proceedings and ordered that the person that grabbed my son be charged with assault!

Long story short, The cps said if I dropped those charges and agreed to be bound over, that would be it. I said yes, went to court, got bound over and that was it - or so I thought. The cps 'forgot' to drop the charges against me, went ahead with the court case without telling me, I got found guilty in my absence and fined £115! I phoned up the court to complain but was told to quash that I would have to go to a higher court so I just gave up. So, a £35 shirt, £115 fines and worse of all, the shirt I grabbed was the wrong size so I gave it to my mate and he took the pîss out of me every time he wore it!

On a totally unrelated matter, that Benneton shop had its locks superglued and windows broken quite a few times in the months following that incident.

I don’t think this was a mistake. Sadly, they played you. I suspect they relied on you not having a lawyer. Agreeing to be bound over was not the right move. It sounds to me like the magistrate would have been ready to dismiss your case. You were lucky to have one who was awake.

 

[motorbiking]

Not giving refunds MAY also be illegal.

It's not cut and dried either way.

But the headlines were !

It’s a civil matter. If they refuse a refund, she issues a claim in the small claim court. No crime is committed. Many beauty products are exempt due to the personal nature and retailers are under no obligation to refund mistaken purchases.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It’s a civil matter. If they refuse a refund, she issues a claim in the small claim court. No crime is committed.

In every circumstance?

Are you sure ?

 

[motorbiking]

We don’t know if the product was faulty or misdescribed or simply the wrong size/colour. We also don’t know if the woman even had proof of purchase. Etc etc.

There are some offences, but these are reserved for retailers who are effectively scammers who defraud consumers with criminal intent.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

We don’t know if the product was faulty or misdescribed or simply the wrong size/colour. We also don’t know if the woman even had proof of purchase. Etc etc.

There are some offences, but these are reserved for retailers who are effectively scammers who defraud consumers with criminal intent.

Exactly the point.

We don't know.


But if it was faulty goods, are you saying


If they refuse a refund, she issues a claim in the small claim court. No crime is committed.

 

[motorbiking]

Correct. Consumer protections laws effectively add additional terms and conditions to protect consumers. You enforce these via civil proceedings. Trading standards have powers where policies are clearly in breach of consumer regulations.

But a shop doesn’t have to refund you if you buy the wrong item. Some of the reviews seem to say they are a bit under handed with that policy by not making it clear. But that is on the consumer for incorrectly assuming a right they don’t have.

If the item is faulty or missold. your recourse is likely to be the fast track claim process. Plod certainly won’t help you “civil matter”.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Correct. Consumer protections laws effectively add additional terms and conditions to protect consumers. You enforce these via civil proceedings. Trading standards have powers were policies are clearly in breach of consumer regulations.

But a shop doesn’t have to refund you if you buy the wrong item. Some of the reviews seem to say they are a bit under handed with that policy by not making it clear. But that is on the consumer for incorrectly assuming a right they don’t have.

Let's not confuse things because we don't know.

If the shop that says "we don't do refunds' refuses to refund a faulty item. Are you saying,



If they refuse a refund, she issues a claim in the small claim court. No crime is committed.

 

[motorbiking]

Ultimately. But there are steps before.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Ultimately. But there are steps before.

So not giving refunds MAY be illegal ?

 

[motorbiking]

No

 

[carmanmemoranda]

No

No it is definitely not illegal.

Or No, it may be illegal ?

 

[motorbiking]

I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of illegal. Something can be unlawful but not illegal.

Illegal acts are acts forbidden in law. E.g if a person does xyz he commits an offence.

Consumer protection law grants rights and remedies- there are few offences.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Definitely not illegal,

Or may be illegal ?

 

[motorbiking]

Are you being deliberately hard of thinking or genuinely confused? It would be unlawful subject to the provisions of the contract as extended by consumer protection legislation.

The retailer does not commit an illegal act by refusing the rights

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Are you being deliberately hard of thinking or genuinely confused? It would be unlawful subject to the provisions of the contract as extended by consumer protection legislation

It's a very simple question.

Definitely not illegal ?

Or may be illegal ?

Choose your answer