Minors being sued

**Michael Hoffman** · #21 January 28th 08, 11:40 AM posted to uk.legal.moderated

Roland Perry wrote:
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?

If you think there would even be a day in court. If there's no evidence
whatsoever, then surely they are trying it on.

Ask them what the £88 is for with specificity.
--
Michael Hoffman

**The Todal** · #22 January 28th 08, 12:10 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
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?

And if there was no criminal prosecution, that suggests the retailer is on
rather weak ground.

If the goods were planted by someone, and if the retailer behaved
unreasonably, why not submit a counter claim for false imprisonment
(assuming she was detained and searched at some point)?

If you think there would even be a day in court. If there's no evidence
whatsoever, then surely they are trying it on.

Ask them what the £88 is for with specificity.

I expect they have provided a calculation of the 88 pounds, but whether they
could recover that sum in court is another matter. It is probably up to the
district judge. See eg

Asda Stores Ltd v Croke
C was convicted of two separate incidents of shoplifting from AS's
supermarket. On the first occasion C stole goods valued at GBP 116.89 and on
the second, goods worth GBP 22.42. On each occasion, the goods were
recovered undamaged. AS sought damages at large, for trespass to goods,
based upon the financial loss incurred in detecting and apprehending C, and
arranging for her prosecution. Exemplary damages were also sought.
Held, that although AS could not produce evidence of financial loss directly
linked to C's actions, it must have caused a great deal of aggravation in
dealing with C, which was beyond measure. It was therefore appropriate to
take an intuitive approach to assessing AS's loss. A damages award of GBP 70
was made, taking into account the value of the goods involved. It might not
have been appropriate to make an award of damages for a single incident of
shoplifting. However, where special circumstances existed, such as repeat
offending, it was important to make it clear that people could not get away
with such behaviour. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to make any
award of punitive damages, given that C had been dealt with on each occasion
by the criminal courts. Interest and costs were awarded to AS in accordance
with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 27.
Court: (CC (Brighton)) County Court (Brighton)
Judge: District Judge Merrick
Judgment date: December 20, 1999

**Daniel G** · #23 January 28th 08, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel G

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

BTW, the item alleged to be involved in the claimed shoplifting (but not found in the possession of my daughter) was not an item of food, clothing or shelter, but one of female cosmetics marked at £3.97. So it does not seem that this could be treated as possible to recover relative costs in respect of from a 15 year old under the category of "essentials"? It may be this point of law that the Recovery Specialists are attempting to claim applies to this case, in which instance it would seem that they are "trying it on"?

Daniel

**bealoid** · #24 January 28th 08, 02:15 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

Roland Perry wrote in
:

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?

What happens with burden of proof - does shifting from "beyond reasonable
doubt" to "balance of probability" make any difference?

Remembering, of course, that they didn't find the item on her. Who
searched her, the police or a security officer? Would that make any
difference in court?

**Cynic** · #25 January 28th 08, 02:35 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:20:04 +0000, Daniel G
wrote:

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.

What evidence that your daughter stole anything would the store rely
on in court? I suspect it would be a CCTV footage of the alleged
theft.

Was the alleged item stolen perhaps a consumable, which the store
allege was eaten in the shop?

If you are certain that there would be no evidence of wrongdoing by
your daughter, let them take it to court. Remembering that the
standard of proof in a civil court is balance of probability rather
than beyond reasonable doubt.

--
Cynic

**Roland Perry** · #26 January 28th 08, 03:05 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

In message , at 14:15:05 on
Mon, 28 Jan 2008, bealoid remarked:
If there's no evidence against your daughter, why not have your day in
court?

What happens with burden of proof - does shifting from "beyond reasonable
doubt" to "balance of probability" make any difference?

It will make it easier for the store, but my experience of DJs is that
they aren't easily fooled.

Remembering, of course, that they didn't find the item on her. Who
searched her, the police or a security officer? Would that make any
difference in court?

Why does it matter who didn't find it? Are you saying that if a police
officer didn't find it, that's even better proof she didn't nick it?

Would the daughter be able to get a witness statement off the police
officer? There are procedures to force witnesses to appear, of course.
--
Roland Perry

**Mike** · #27 January 28th 08, 03:25 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

The Todal wrote:
"Daniel G" wrote in message
news

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.

[snip]

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.

I wouldn't make an offer of anything as there aprrers to be no evidence
whatsoever that she is in any way liable.

In fact, depending on the exact events, I would be considering the
possibility of a (counter)claim for wrongful imprisonment, assault and
possibly a few other matters.

--
Mike

**tim \(not at home\)** · #28 January 28th 08, 04:50 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

"Daniel G" wrote in message
news

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.

This could just be a blanket mailshot of everyone that the shop have accused
of shoplifting. You may find that, as soon as you explain to them that
charges were dropped because no goods were found on the person, that the
claim goes away.

tim

**The Todal** · #29 January 28th 08, 05:05 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

"Daniel G" wrote in message
news

BTW, the item alleged to be involved in the claimed shoplifting (but
not found in the possession of my daughter) was not an item of food,
clothing or shelter, but one of female cosmetics marked at £3.97. So it
does not seem that this could be treated as possible to recover relative
costs in respect of from a 15 year old under the category of
"essentials"? It may be this point of law that the Recovery Specialists
are attempting to claim applies to this case, in which instance it would
seem that they are "trying it on"?

Sorry, but no.
This isn't a claim for breach of contract - if it were, there might
theoretically be a defence that the lipstick thing was not a "necessary".
It is a claim for damages for conversion (theft) and they are entitled to
sue her.

They won't win if they can't prove that she took the item. And they might
have great difficulty proving that their loss is as great as they say.

**Roland Perry** · #30 January 28th 08, 05:30 PM posted to uk.legal.moderated

In message , at 15:20:08 on Mon, 28
Jan 2008, Daniel G remarked:

BTW, the item alleged to be involved in the claimed shoplifting (but
not found in the possession of my daughter) was not an item of food,
clothing or shelter, but one of female cosmetics marked at £3.97. So it
does not seem that this could be treated as possible to recover relative
costs in respect of from a 15 year old under the category of
"essentials"? It may be this point of law that the Recovery Specialists
are attempting to claim applies to this case, in which instance it would
seem that they are "trying it on"?

I think you are missing the point. If they have no evidence, none of the
other things are relevant.
--
Roland Perry

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode