shoplifting as a civil case

[simmoshouse]

My 16 year old Niece was recently shopping with a friend who was caught shop lifting. The police were called but after being interviewed and the police reviewing the CCTV they have confirmed that she is not guilty of any wrong doing. The friend has since sent her a text and my sister (her mum) a letter apologising for getting her in trouble and confirming that my niece had nothing to do with the theft (the shop are calling it deception as the girl who stole the goods valued at £15, actually paid for something else)

The shop have now sent my sister a letter stating that they are treating this as a civil matter and charging her around £150 for the time taken by the staff in looking into the theft – they have also banned my niece from all their shops. As the police have confirmed that she is not guilty, coupled with the fact that the friend has admitted it was solely down to her, do the shop have any grounds for taking this action against my niece/sister? My sister is a single parent and can ill afford to pay the sum to the shop, or pay a solicitor for advice, but is worried about what action they can take if she doesn’t, i.e. registering a bad debt against her etc.

My view is that she is not liable to pay the “fine” but I would grateful for a legal opinion and in particular any words we can use when replying to the shop.

Thanks

[R1Geezer]

They can ban her from the stores, they don't need a reason to do that. As far as the "fine/expenses" is concerned they have no legal weight to do this, the only way to force the issue legally is for them to issue a small claim at the local court. They would then have to convince a judge that these charges are valid. The evidence you have outlined above should be enough for a judge to exonerate the neice. If they do go down the small claims route then attend and make all the right noises, Ostrich won't help here.

[fredpuli47]

They are looking to the girl's mother for this money ? And her mother was not present in the shop or involved in any way? Her mother is not responsible for or liable for what the girl does or doesn't do in a shop ! Her mother can reply that a) it is evident from the police decision not to take any action at all, and from a statement she has seen and has from the other girl, that her own daughter was not party to any wrongdoing or loss and is entirely innocent and it follows that her daughter is not liable for any costs b) further, she could not be legally liable herself, as the girl's mother, for any costs alleged in respect of the incident. Her daughter was 16 at the material time. There is no basis in law for such a claim against her as the parent c) they are as entitled as anyone is to exclude any person for any reason or none from their property be it a shop or, indeed,, home.However, it is a matter for them whether they wish to make the damaging innuendo, inherent in the case of a shop, that there is some sinister reason for so doing.They may see their way, on due consideration to remove the ban on her daughter as a matter of common sense and fairness.

[simmoshouse]

Thanks very much for the advice. I have since heard that this particular shop Claires Accessories has made an industry out of these claims.

[fredpuli47]

Cynical aren't they? I bet it works as a crude scare tactic though.Word gets around.. They must know (if they don't they need legal advice) that 1) a parent is not liable for the child in such circumstances and that 2) alleging a crime of fraud or dishonesty, which is what they would be doing in the civil court, requires them to prove the case to a much higher standard of proof than the mere balance of probabilities which normally applies in a civil case.(Barristers are forbidden, by their code of professional ethics, from pleading fraud unless they have the clearest possible evidence for it, for the allegation is so serious ) When the police have considered the case and taken absolutely no action at all that would seem almost impossible. 3) suing the child for non-payment is not likely to succeed .A child (under 18) is not responsible, at common law, for its own civil debts and the parent is not either unless the debt is for necessities (food etc) or the parent has acted as guarantor.Costs are not 'necessities' ( and nor are accessories) and unless a criminal court orders costs or compensation on a finding of guilt it's hard to see how the loser can be recompensed in a court.(I forgot to mention that point, that a child can't be sued for such debts)

[simmoshouse]

Thanks again, we have used all your key points in a letter basically telling them to get stuffed. I dont anticipate hearing more but just in case we have the "under age argument" to throw back at them as the letter is addressed to my 16 year old niece and not her mum. Having also looked at the CAB site, it seem that there is an industry in these type of letters/claims so anyone needing guidance can get some there - even if you are guilty of the offence!

Cheers