My friend's father was stopped in B & Q for shoplifting I went with her to the police station as she doesn't drive.

[stanbesida]

As far as I have been told by my friend, the people at B & Q told her father that if he had been 65 years old they would have allowed him to pay for the goods and they wouldn't have involved the police, but because he isn't 65 until September/October, the police were called. (I don't know whether this is true but I don't think that he would lie about it, so if it had been 5 months later, he would have been allowed to pay for the goods). The police have given him a formal warning and have told him that if he does anything else in the next 12 months this will be brought up again. Her father has now received a Civil Claim for £148.96 but the settlement figure is £119.17, her father is on invalidity benefit and pension credit and he is worried sick and so is my friend. Does anybody know what the legality of these civil claims are, as they are asking for more than the value of the goods, and would it be worth the family getting a solicitor? I don't want to advise them to get a solicitor if this is going to be pointless so I would welcome any assistance that you brainy A.B'ers could offer them

[bednobs]

it seems a bit pointless to get a solicitor to try and reduce the fine by £29.79 really

[sherrardk]

Surely the dad will get the opportunity to show how much he can pay back monthly? He won't have to pay it all back in a lump sum. I appreciate it's annoying that more has been added than was due but it would probably be worth it just to get the whole thing over and done with.

[Mamyalynne]

Very interesting article here about Civil Recovery, albeit from 2010, seems the first port of call is the CAB.

http://www.guardian.c...chemes-for-or-against

[mike11111]

What is the Civil Claim for? Is it the value of the goods he nicked? Can't be, unless he was allowed to walk out of the shop with them. I'm sorry, but I cannot feel any sympathy. By your own admission he was a thief and the fact that he is 64 and lives on benefits is no mitigation. I am the same age and would expect no lesser treatment were I ever to be in a similar situation. If he has mental problems, then of course that is different, but there is no reference to such in your post.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, what does the claim consist of ? The civil claim must give some particulars of what it's for. The father hasn't been accused of taking the goods away so that they have not been recovered in saleable condition by the shop, has he? So how much of the claim is for goods lost or damaged i.e an actual loss to B &Q, and how much is actually for the costs claimed for bringing it ?

[Mrsspagnoli57]

Why are we debating the 'legality' of a civil claim? The man STOLE from the store. He BROKE THE LAW. He should accept his punishment and get on with it. Its all very well saying he's 'worried sick' , I bet he is-he didn't get away with it. Perhaps if less people thieved the rest of us wouldn't have to pay high prices in these stores.

[FredPuli43]

MrsS, This claim is not the punishment. You seem to have missed the difference between a criminal court and a civil one. The criminal court deals with crime and punishment; it is a matter for the police and the CPS whether, and what, action is taken, though a shop may decide it doesn't wish to involve the police.

This is a claim for some alleged loss, a civil matter. If, for example, a shoplifter hides property under their coat, and deliberately takes it past the tills without paying and is stopped at the door and the goods recovered intact, what financial loss has the store suffered? None that's obvious.

This is only a civil claim for the loss to the shop. If none has occurred, the claim is without merit and should fail. If it has, then the shop is entitled to recompense for that loss.