Dwf - Civil Recovery

[jj20]

Hi - as I left Tesco last week I was approached by a security guard. I had put a bottle of tonic in my shopping without scanning it. I was shocked and embarrassed and taken to managers office. They advised me that I hadn't made and attempt to scan it and went on to advise that there would be a ban and also that they are part of a Civil Recovery Scheme. It's all quite a blur but I genuinely didn't mean to take the tonic and only picked up 2 bottles as it was on a '2 for .......' offer. I had about £20 worth of shopping. They mentioned that to be allowed back to store I could write to the actual manager. The next day I wrote off my letter to the manager ( I know Tesco can live without me but they are very handy for me) saying I wasn't making excuses and can't deny I was leaving with an unpaid item but gave some reasons for my absent mindedness. I haven't had a response yet but I have now had a letter from DWF Solicitors acting on their behalf and looking for £125. I am seeing lots of things telling people not to pay these costs - I really can't afford that but I'm not a dishonest person and just unsure what to do. Can anyone please advise?

[New Judge]

The Civil Recovery scheme cannot be used as a "fine". Stores re entitled to recover the cost of any goods they lose and a small amount for administration. What they are not entitled to do is to issue a demand for an unreasonable amount of money which is disproportionate to their losses. There was a case a while back where one of the big stores tried to claim a hefty sum saying that much of it was a "contribution towards their security costs". They lost, with the judge saying that those against whom the store had a legitimate claim could not be expected to pay for the store's security. I'll try to dig out the details.

[jj20]

thank you

[New Judge]

I can't immediately find details of the case I was referring to. However, in general, the store has to justify its claim. £125 seems a hefty sum for two bottles of tonic even allowing for administration and investigation (of which there could not have been very much). Of course DWF (who seem to rely heavily on the CR scheme for their income) will want their cut. It is scarcely your fault that Tesco have seen fit to employ them, especially when you have contacted the store directly in an effort to settle the matter. To enforce payment the matter will have to be heard in the county Court and it may be that Tesco (or DWF) will not pursue the matter that far. However, the Citizens' Advice Bureau will be your best bet as a start. They will have knowledge of what happens in your local area and can advise you on the best way forward.

[Buenchico]

Helping NJ out:
The case you refer to was probably A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K at Oxford County Court, 9 May 2012 before HHJ Charles Harris QC.
https://legalbeagles.info/wp-content/uploads/ApprovedJudgment.pdf

[jj20]

Thanks both , I did actually pay for 1 bottle just not the 2nd one which was in the deal . I get that my reasons /excuses mean nothing to them but it just seems so unfair as nothing like this has ever happened to me . I’m menopausal/tired/distracted but never an intentional thief. I shall speak with CAB

[ummmm]

A 2 for 1 offer so in theory they have lost nothing monetary wise. The only thing is the tills do the stock take but one bottle of tonic water is hardly going to cause mayhem.

[New Judge]

Thanks, Chico.

A starting point for the OP before contacting the CAB might be, perhaps, to contact DWF to ask them how they arrived at the figure of £125. If it is just the amount that they always claim without regard for the actual losses incurred by their client, the Oxford case suggests they may struggle in court.

[New Judge]

//A 2 for 1 offer so in theory they have lost nothing monetary wise.//

Ah, but was it the free one or the one that had to be paid for that was inadvertently taken? :-)

[Buenchico]

^^^ I don't think that it was a 2 for 1 offer. I suspect that the blank space in jj20's post represents the discounted price that was payable when two bottles were purchased at the same time, rather than the word 'one'.

[Peter Pedant]

thanks for the reply JJ
do you have a case report?

I am astounded that this occurred - the only time that this occurred to me, I unpacked everything and showed the receipt and asked "which objaaaay do you think I havent paid for?"

they thought it was the whole lot - so yeah, sozza this occurred and no dont pay the £125

[Peter Pedant]

er NJ New Judge - ( and JJ)
partially sighted
do Liddl newton heath - I went in and said to the security guard - yo are looking a bit orangey today
and HE said - I think you are going to need help with your shopping today....

[Peter Pedant]

anyway if you paid for some - it shows an intention to pay innit?
or have I lost my senses?

[Peter Pedant]

hey thanks the oxford case
that is incredible
I thought all county court judgements were not recorded and werent precedent
or have I really gone stir - crazy this evg?

[Peter Pedant]

the action you supply
shows that the firm was trying to recover as damages - opportunity costs ( money spent doing X that you cd have spent doing Y)
and the court said no thanks

[Peter Pedant]

thanks for the URLs
if you read this URL

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/consumer-and-civil-rights/civil-recovery-retail-loss-prevention/93667-the-scary-letters-rlp-and-dwf

which is also from legalbeagles - it seems that this "debt" has been sold on and all the five legal letters are in the same terms as many of my tenants get for claims that go nowhere near the small claims court

[jj20]

It was something like 1.22 a bottle and 2 for 2.20. They reviewed their cctv and said I just hadn’t tried to scan it - it went from mi basket across to the bag . I’m not denying that happened but I really didn’t mean to. They counted it all and everything else paid for. I don’t have the letter with me so don’t remember the breakdown. I’ll post as soon as I have it - it did have 0.00 against items and then just the one charge of 125 but I can’t remember wording against it.

[THECORBYLOON]

I notice in the judgement that both the names of the supermarket chain and the shoplifters were annonymized. The judgement does say the supermarket had 2,500 stores at the time.

I had look at the Wikipedia entries round about 2012 (the date of the judgement) using the Wayback machine to see how many branches the big stores had at the time and I reckon it was Tesco.

It might be worth pointing out in any letters to DWF that Tesco lost the last time they went to court over a similar matter.

[Peter Pedant]

the court case is 2012 isnt it
I think you should seek advice first ( CAB )
the maximising option for you may be to do nothing until the letter before action ....

[jj20]

Good Morning - thanks again all for the responses. Just to confirm the letter that DWF was broken down as :
Value of goods stolen 0.00
Value of goods damages 0.00
Less value of goods recovered £
Value of cash stolen 0.00
Security Costs £125.00

Anyway - a bit of good news, when I got home last night a letter from Tesco manager apologising for the situation and confirming I am not barred from the store and how the event is being internally investigated to prevent these unnecessary situations happening. He has said I am welcome to ask for him the next time I'm in. Obviously I am happy about this but there is no mention of the DWF letter. I am not really feeling like entering the store right at this minute or approaching him but do you think I should respond to his letter and telling him about the DWF letter or do I just wait and see if anything else comes through from DWF?

[woofgang]

I would write bck to him enclosing a copy of the DWF letter. He may not be aware that it has been sent.