Theft by Consumption

[lovemybabas]

I was recently thrown out of my local supermarket because I'd allowed my 18 month old daughter to eat a banana while in the trolley. I had intended to pay for it by asking the check out staff to put through a similar sized banana twice. I did explain this to the manager but he insisted that it was theft by consumption and threw us out of the store.

I realise now that perhaps I should have given her something with a bar code which could more easily be paid for later but really - to throw out a toddler and her 7 month pregnant mother?! I don't think it was necessary.

I've tried to look up 'theft by consumption' but can't find it anywhere. Is it really a thing and if so, could they really prosecute me for giving my kid a banana?!

[gossipgirl]

i think this is absolutely shocking of them to do that, im sure anyone , including myself would do that rather than having a screaming toddler in a supermarket, infact i often do what you done. At the end of the day you intended of paying for it, im sure there would be many who wouldnt of! go to your local newspaper about it, kick up a fuss, how dare they humiliate you like that. Im sure you will find that many parents would be on your side on this one. Good luck xxx

[bednobs]

have they reported you to the police? If they just threw you out of the shop, it probably wont go any further.
i don't think the fact that you are pregnant should prevent anything happening to you that would happen to a non pregnant person

[barry1010]

This bloke was sacked for theft by consumption.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/ 05/16/fruit-loops-115875-21363259/
I don't understand why you think it is ok to eat something that isn't yours. You intended to pay for it, but what if you had forgotten your purse, or your card was rejected, or there was a fire alarm and the store had to be evacuated?

[Mr Veritas]

My Son in Law is a departmental manager in Sainsbury's
You wouldn't believe what,and the amount of food that is eaten before the checkout (usually with the intention of not paying).
Last week he found the bones/carcass of a whole hot chicken stuffed down the back of a unit.
I am sorry you have suffered because of others,but if you knew the amount that one store can lose in a day you would be shocked.
They have to draw the line somewhere.
Of course it is in effect shoplifting,that is removing goods without paying for them.
Next time pay for the goods first,and THEN let your Daughter eat them, much easier that way.

[Mr Veritas]

PS:~I very much doubt that they will prosecute,as the goods have "disappeared".but they may(and can) ban you from the shop.

[daffy654]

I would never allow my children to consume any food I hadn't paid for.You should have taken a snack with you for your daughter if she was likely to get hungry before you had finished shopping.
I doubt they will prosecute you over the price of one banana.

[diane1706]

I own a greengrocers and had a similar argument with a customer last week. My husband noticed someone 'testing' strawberries, when he told her to stop.strawberries are sold by weight and I could be prosecuted,she called my husband 'a miserable git 'to which he replied 'i know'.She came into the shop to complain to me and I told her it was stealing. Ah well another happy customer!!
I can't believe that your daughter was that hungry.Perhaps you should feed her before you go shopping. I have children and have been shopping with them but i believe it is stealing to eat something that you haven't paid for.

[lovemybabas]

We were shopping because we had no food left - so I couldn't have taken a snack with us or given her one before as we didn't have any - hence why we were in a supermarket!

Thanks for all of your comments. I definitely can see both sides but I'm still really after a legal definition of what constitutes 'theft by consumption'

I love the Sainsbury's anecdote!

:)

[joggerjayne]

There is no such thing as "theft by consumption"

But it contravenes the Theft Act to treat property in a way that is inconsistent with the rights of the legal owner.

The supermarket were still the legal owners of the banana.

You allowed a person under your control to consume it.

That was inconsistent with the rights of the legal owner.

Ergo ... it was Theft.

Whether or not you intended to pay was irrelevant.

The test is ... were you going to rermanently deprive the owner of the goods.

And ... you could hardly give it back.

You may have acted in all honesty ... but sadly, a lot of people who eat food in shops are not as honest as you.

Shops can't make individual policies for every single individual shopper. They have to make one policy, and hope that it mostly works.

The policy at that supermarket was obviously ...

Customers must not eat food until they have paid for it.

[Mr Veritas]

Personally,I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as "Theft by Consumption".Ithink that this was just said to sound official and frighten you(which sadly it did).
Really,it's could be classed as just downright shoplifiting if they want to be blunt.
Sainsbury Cafe does baby food(which they will heat).
Remembering this might save you getting into trouble again?
Try not to worry TOO much,it was a flash in the pan, and as I said the most they will/can do is ban you from the shop.
However,given the state of the recession the last thing a shop wishes to do is lose customers.
It will be allright I am sure.

[paraffin]

Hi lovemybabas:

The first thing to say is that if the circumstances are as you describe them, the store manager should be ashamed of himself. If he literally had you as a heavily pregnant woman and your little toddler thrown out, he deserves to have a complaint made about him to his head office.

Anyway, I digress. For starters, only the Police would be able to have you charged, and they weren't called. And who was he accusing of the theft? You? Because your toddler is of course well below the age of criminal responsibility. She would need to be at least 10 years old.

I've never heard of "theft by consumption" and would be very interested if the store manager could identify which section of the Theft Act applies. I'll bet he wouldn't have a clue.

Without having to give anything away, why not contact your local Police and find out if there is such an offence, and if so, what type of offence(s) does it apply to?

I'd be very interested to know.

[buildersmate]

I am frankly staggered that the question asker and so many replies seem to consider that this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

[paraffin]

buildersmate:

I think your view is somewhat OTT. We're not talking about mass shoplifting here and it has to be put in perspective.

So to say you're "staggered" suggests that you're either living in cloud cuckoo land or you've never ever done anything remotely naughty in your life.

But I thought that the last person in that particular category was nailed to a cross 2000 or so years ago?

[buildersmate]

Shoplifting is rarely 'en masse' - it is a little and often.
I am in no way suggesting this product was not going to be paid for by this person - I am merely suggesting that anyone who thought that it was acceptable to consume a product without prior payment AND THEN whine about it when the store-manager took action has limited appreciation of what is right and wrong.
Of course I do 'wrong things' - I speed a little and often - and I take a calculated risk by doing so. So far it has cost me �60 plus 3 points - but that's over 35 years.

[daffy654]

I'm with buildersmate on this one.I see people doing this sort of thing in my local supermarket and it winds me up.
I have been shopping with my own children when they were hungry but I have always made them wait until I have paid for the goods before they are allowed to eat them!

[roguepink]

Surely by chucking you out, you actually got a free banana? Or did you pay for it before you were chucked out?

To be honest I don't think I would ever eat something before I bought it, and I don't think people should in general, BUT I hate screaming children in supermarkets, I would much rather a child ate a banana then pay for it than be wailing for an hour.

[paraffin]

As I said in my last post, this was not "shoplifting en masse". I used that phraseology deliberately because several contributors either also did, or gave the impression, that they believed that that offence had taken place.

However, from the details given by lovemybabas, she has not actually committed a theft. Believe me, I was in law enforcement for 17 years and dealt with many shoplifters, i.e. people who had physically stolen items from shops/stores without paying. The same criteria has not been met here.

She was perhaps naive to allow her child to eat a banana prior to paying for it, but that in itself does not constitute theft. Especially as she also offered to pay.

Had she, though, just left the premises without making any attempt to pay, then technically a case could have been made out for theft. But that did not happen here.

None of us can judge what or what not was in the poster's mind, but based on the version given, which is what we're meant to be commenting on, no offence was committed.

Annoyed though the store manager may have been, could he not under the circumstances just have insisted that she pay for the banana, which she says she intended to do, instead of having her ejected? He exceeded his authority.

There are ways and means of dealing with situations and the manager, from the details given, made a poor decision. Had he felt that this mystical "theft by consumption" had occurred, he should have had the Police attend. His own authority does not extend to deciding what offences, if any, customers may have committed.

[paraffin]

I'd better clarify the first paragraph of my last post: I'm not saying that others have also used the same expression, i.e. "shoplifing en masse"; what I meant is that other posters seem to believe that an offence of shoplifting took place.

Sorry for any confusion.

[pink-kittens]

I'm with buildersmate on this one
Eating something before you have paid is theft, simple regardless of whether or not the customer says she is to pay for it. In fact It may have been more prudent to buy a bag of ready priced bananas.

Being pregnant doesn't give the shopper any more, or less, rights than one who isn't and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous and, whilst it may have made the store manager unpopular with some, I say good for him. Everyone bleats on about being treated equally, what makes the OP different?

She stole something, pure and simple and why should I have to pay for that?

[DaisyMae]

There is an easy way to give a child a banana and then pay at the till for it. Take the banana to one of the self service weighing machines, press the banana button and you will be issued with a sticky ticket with a barcode and price on it. Stick the ticket to the banana skin and present it at the checkout. The checkout operator will dispose of the skin after scanning it and no crime has been committed. QED