Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Suing costumers for non payment is very easy and inexpensive, walking out a shop without paying for the service that was provided is also theft. Theft Act 1978 1978 CHAPTER 31 Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence. Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. But the service was done badly and therefore she is entitled to withhold payment. She wouldn't be making off she would be refusing to pay for poor service. I wouldn't fancy making a citizens arrest myself over something so trivial as a haircut. ---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 20:45 ---------- If the shop fails to provide a satisfactory service then it isn't theft, it's a contract dispute. Beat me to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 If the shop fails to provide a satisfactory service then it isn't theft, it's a contract dispute. She should pay and then sue the shop, if she refuses to pay then it is theft. ---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 20:55 ---------- But the service was done badly and therefore she is entitled to withhold payment. She wouldn't be making off she would be refusing to pay for poor service. I wouldn't fancy making a citizens arrest myself over something so trivial as a haircut. ---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 20:45 ---------- Beat me to it Thats subjective, if she is unhappy with the service that was provided she should pay and then sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) She should pay and then sue the shop, if she refuses to pay then it is theft. ---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 20:55 ---------- Thats subjective, if she is unhappy with the service that was provided she should pay and then sue. Perhaps, but not in law. She is within her rights to refuse payment. So far as I can remember you cannot make a citizens arrest for a civil matter. You have to assume the police cannot deal with the matter quick enough to have grounds make one. Since refusal of payment is not a police matter you'd be liable for counter-claims. My A Level law on citizens arrests is sketchy at best. Edited June 1, 2016 by Shef1985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Perhaps, but not in law. She is within her rights to refuse payment. So far as I can remember you cannot make a citizens arrest for a civil matter. You have to assume the police cannot deal with the matter quick enough to have grounds make one. Since refusal of payment is not a police matter you'd be liable for counter-claims. My A Level law on citizens arrests is sketchy at best. Theft isn't a civil matter, it's no different to shop lifting, you take good or a service without paying and you are in breach of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Sutty - just remind us what your legal qualifications are old son - your wrong - and if you think CPS would even consider a prosecution your dreaming - even some of the lawyers they employ know a bit about the criminal law. By the way the important word is dishonest - Can't say I have ever encountered a prosecution for someone who had a dodgy haircut and left without paying. Not saying it hasn't ever happened but its such a daft one and you tend to hear about those. I suppose if the officer (having nowt better to do obvs) was asked to attend the scene to investigate this grave matter, he might take one look at the alleged offender and take the view the haircut is rubbish and try not to laugh too much as he makes a swift exit to deal with more pressing criminality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Theft isn't a civil matter, it's no different to shop lifting, you take good or a service without paying and you are in breach of the law. The law doesn't define theft the way you want it to in this example, sorry Smithy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 The law doesn't define theft the way you want it to in this example, sorry Smithy. Theft Act 1978 1978 CHAPTER 31 Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence. Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Theft isn't a civil matter, it's no different to shop lifting, you take good or a service without paying and you are in breach of the law. IF the service has been supplied to a satisfactory standard then you'd be in the right ball park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Theft Act 1978 1978 CHAPTER 31 Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence. Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. Read the above posts. Why post this again? Scraping the barrel now, you lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 IF the service has been supplied to a satisfactory standard then you'd be in the right ball park. That's subjective, if you didn't like your meal you can't refuse to pay for it, if the taxi ride was too bumpy for your liking you can't refuse to pay for it. The offence of making off covers such activities as leaving a restaurant or hotel without paying, not paying a taxi fare and filling up with petrol and driving off. Making off without payment is a triable either way offence. Under s.4 Theft Act 1978, the maximum sentence for making off if tried on indictment is 2 years and 6 months if tried summarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts