Daniel G wrote:


I wonder whether someone can help me with a point of law. A firm of
so-called civil recovery specialists has sent a letter to my 15 year
old daughter demanding money, and threatening to take her to court if
she does not pay. The sum is quite a substantial sum for a 15 year old
girl not having any job or independent income. These people state in
their letter that they can legally demand money from and sue in the
courts a minor of over 14 years old for such a debt?

I find this difficult to believe relative to any minor. Has the law
been changed or are they just trying it on? I understand that in
certain circumstances a parent or guardian would be liable for such a
debt, but the other issue here is that the supposed debt relates to an
attempted frame-up in any case, where a company is making a wrong and
erroneous claim. As the parent I would therefore contest the situation,
which is what makes me think that perhaps the civil recovery specialists
are trying it on, as debt collectors and so on often do, making claims
that are not supported by law.

So can anyone advise me what the law is now relating to debts of
juveniles under 18 (in this case 15)? Thanks.

What's it for? The list of things they could be sued for is much more
limited than for people of 18 and over. Even if they did get judgement
against her, she most likely doesn't have any assets to pay the debt with,
so they wouldn't be able to collect anyway.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...

"Daniel G" wrote in message
news

I wonder whether someone can help me with a point of law. A firm of
so-called civil recovery specialists has sent a letter to my 15 year
old daughter demanding money, and threatening to take her to court if
she does not pay. The sum is quite a substantial sum for a 15 year old
girl not having any job or independent income. These people state in
their letter that they can legally demand money from and sue in the
courts a minor of over 14 years old for such a debt?

I find this difficult to believe relative to any minor. Has the law
been changed or are they just trying it on?

You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly
been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?


I understand that in
certain circumstances a parent or guardian would be liable for such a
debt,

Very rarely. I can't think of any circumstance, actually.

but the other issue here is that the supposed debt relates to an
attempted frame-up in any case, where a company is making a wrong and
erroneous claim. As the parent I would therefore contest the situation,
which is what makes me think that perhaps the civil recovery specialists
are trying it on, as debt collectors and so on often do, making claims
that are not supported by law.

They may of course expect that a 15 year old will be so terrified by the
prospect of court proceedings that she will quickly persuade her parents
to
make it go away by paying up.


So can anyone advise me what the law is now relating to debts of
juveniles under 18 (in this case 15)? Thanks.

In contract, they are liable for necessaries, and necessaries is an old
fashioned term that is not adequately defined. You'll have to be specific.
Did she join a book club or subscribe to an online service or something of
that sort?

If she caused damage to property or lost property that had been entrusted
to
her, then she can certainly be sued in the civil courts.


Has the minor been downloading music or films illegally at all?

In message , at 20:50:05 on Sat, 26
Jan 2008, The Todal remarked:
You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?

I agree, it does sound like shoplifting. On that note, do the shops
*also* report these individuals for shoplifting, or are they content
with getting recovery of the value? Perhaps the burden of proof is
lower. And how often do they ask for money, rather than just the return
of the item? (It will depend to some extent on the nature of the item I
suppose).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:50:05 on Sat, 26
Jan 2008, The Todal remarked:
You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly
been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?

I agree, it does sound like shoplifting. On that note, do the shops *also*
report these individuals for shoplifting, or are they content with getting
recovery of the value? Perhaps the burden of proof is lower. And how often
do they ask for money, rather than just the return of the item? (It will
depend to some extent on the nature of the item I suppose).
--
Roland Perry

I think the idea of civil recovery is that they seek not only the value of
the item, but also a contribution to all their costs arising from theft
generally, such as security. Whether they are entitled to succeed on that is
another question.

Chris R

"Chris R" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:50:05 on Sat, 26
Jan 2008, The Todal remarked:
You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets
suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly
been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?

I agree, it does sound like shoplifting. On that note, do the shops
*also*
report these individuals for shoplifting, or are they content with
getting
recovery of the value? Perhaps the burden of proof is lower. And how
often
do they ask for money, rather than just the return of the item? (It will
depend to some extent on the nature of the item I suppose).
--
Roland Perry

I think the idea of civil recovery is that they seek not only the value of
the item, but also a contribution to all their costs arising from theft
generally, such as security. Whether they are entitled to succeed on that
is
another question.

I think that they have brought cases wher they have suceeded in such a claim
(whether they have actually collected the money is another matter)

tim

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at 20:50:05 on Sat, 26
Jan 2008, The Todal remarked:
You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?

I agree, it does sound like shoplifting. On that note, do the shops
*also* report these individuals for shoplifting, or are they content
with getting recovery of the value?

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount demanded.

Perhaps the burden of proof is
lower. And how often do they ask for money, rather than just the return
of the item? (It will depend to some extent on the nature of the item I
suppose).

If it gets this far, it's always money. It's only when a shoplifter is
apprehended in the actual course of removing the item from the shop
that the shop will be content with getting the item itself back
(although, in this case, they're actually more likely to call the
police as well straight away, as there's nothing further to be gained
by delaying it).

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"

Eric Jones wrote:
"The Todal" wrote in message
...




Has the minor been downloading music or films illegally at all?

Unlawfully, surely.........

Gaz

Hi guys,

Thanks for your answers. The issue is one of alleged attempted shoplifting of one item marked at £3.97, but the store did not find the claimed item or any item on my daughter's person nor in her handbag when she was stopped, nor did she actually steal anything. They still pursued their allegations despite there being no substantive evidence of a crime. The demand for payment is by a firm of "Civil Recovery Specialists" called Retail Loss Prevention Ltd., Nottingham. They are demanding almost £88 from my daughter for supposed administrative, management and security costs relating to this incident. They threaten that if my daughter does not pay them this within the next 21 days they will institute civil proceedings against her in the courts.

My daughter is 15 years old. Thus my question was and is, can they in fact sue my daughter in the civil court in the way in which they are threatening, when she is a minor of 15 years old? I thought it was not possible to sue anyone in the civil courts if they were under 18 years old? That is why I was asking whether the law has been changed, because these people also state in their letter that after 14 years old they are entitled under the law to claim the full cost of compensation against her. " We are instructed by our clients that you committed a wrongful act causing loss to our clients. From the age of 14 our client is legally entitled to claim the full cost of compensation against you. ....If you do not pay within the 21 days our client will institute civil proceedings against you." Is this true in law or they just acting as debt collecting agencies do and trying to scare children into paying what they demand? (It is also interesting that they do not justify the amounts they are demanding, i.e. in terms of actual hours at so much per hour etc.)

So my position is that if they could in fact sue my daughter in court as a minor, to recover their supposed costs, it would be probably best for me to pay what they demand. If they are just trying it on and this is not legally possible for them to sue my daughter as a minor can they sue me instead as the parent?

Daniel

"Daniel G" wrote in message
news

Mark Goodge;490085 Wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:
-
In message , at 20:50:05 on Sat, 26
Jan 2008, The Todal remarked:-
You haven't explained the circumstances.
The term "civil recovery specialists" is rather unusual. Not a firm
of
solicitors, then. Some would suspect a firm of debt collectors trying
it
on. However, the term is often used in the context of retail outlets
suing
in the civil courts to recover the value of property that has allegedly
been
stolen from them. Is it that sort of issue, perhaps?-

I agree, it does sound like shoplifting. On that note, do the shops
*also* report these individuals for shoplifting, or are they content
with getting recovery of the value? -

That depends on how promptly the shoplifter pays up. The shop will
often use that as a bargaining point, promising the shoplifter that
they won't be reported to the police if they pay the amount demanded.
-
Perhaps the burden of proof is
lower. And how often do they ask for money, rather than just the return

of the item? (It will depend to some extent on the nature of the item I

suppose).-

If it gets this far, it's always money. It's only when a shoplifter is
apprehended in the actual course of removing the item from the shop
that the shop will be content with getting the item itself back
(although, in this case, they're actually more likely to call the
police as well straight away, as there's nothing further to be gained
by delaying it).

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about
you?
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"

Hi guys,

Thanks for your answers. The issue is one of alleged attempted
shoplifting of one item marked at £3.97, but the store did not find the
claimed item or any item on my daughter's person nor in her handbag when
she was stopped, nor did she actually steal anything. They still pursued
their allegations despite there being no substantive evidence of a
crime. The demand for payment is by a firm of "Civil Recovery
Specialists" called Retail Loss Prevention Ltd., Nottingham. They are
demanding almost £88 from my daughter for supposed administrative,
management and security costs relating to this incident. They threaten
that if my daughter does not pay them this within the next 21 days they
will institute civil proceedings against her in the courts.

My daughter is 15 years old. Thus my question was and is, can they in
fact sue my daughter in the civil court in the way in which they are
threatening, when she is a minor of 15 years old? I thought it was not
possible to sue anyone in the civil courts if they were under 18 years
old? That is why I was asking whether the law has been changed, because
these people also state in their letter that after 14 years old they are
entitled under the law to claim the full cost of compensation against
her. " We are instructed by our clients that you committed a wrongful
act causing loss to our clients. From the age of 14 our client is
legally entitled to claim the full cost of compensation against you.
....If you do not pay within the 21 days our client will institute
civil proceedings against you." Is this true in law or they just
acting as debt collecting agencies do and trying to scare children into
paying what they demand? (It is also interesting that they do not
justify the amounts they are demanding, i.e. in terms of actual hours
at so much per hour etc.)

So my position is that if they could in fact sue my daughter in court
as a minor, to recover their supposed costs, it would be probably best
for me to pay what they demand. If they are just trying it on and this
is not legally possible for them to sue my daughter as a minor can they
sue me instead as the parent?


Yes, they can sue your daughter.

Why would you (or she) pay up, if she firmly denies the shoplifting charge?
It sounds as if it might be complicated, eg perhaps she took the goods
absent-mindedly but did not have the requisite intention of stealing them.
Were the goods returned to the retailer?

Plainly, the action is being taken as a punitive measure. If she is
completely innocent of shoplifting, if I were you I would deny liability,
see if they sue, and if they do, file a defence denying liability. If she is
in some way guilty, then make an offer - don't pay 88 quid if they might
take 20 quid.

In message , at 03:20:04 on Mon, 28
Jan 2008, Daniel G remarked:
So my position is that if they could in fact sue my daughter in court
as a minor, to recover their supposed costs, it would be probably best
for me to pay what they demand. If they are just trying it on and this
is not legally possible for them to sue my daughter as a minor can they
sue me instead as the parent?

If there's no evidence against your daughter, why not have your day in
court?
--
Roland Perry