Poundland dispute instore

[Merseysider]

I had some fun at Poundland earlier today.

I'd bought some headphones about 5 weeks ago, on 16/05/15. I'd completely forgotten I had them up until several days ago, so they hadn't been used until then. Unfortunately, only one earbud was producing any sound, so I went instore today to get them replaced. I won't reveal the store location or staff name in public though.

The woman on the till looked at the receipt suspiciously. She started off with "you didn't buy these headphones from this store did you?" to which I responded "it says Poundland on the receipt doesn't it?"

She took a moment to confirm that the receipt did, indeed, say Poundland on it.

"Yes, but you have to take it back to the store you bought it" to which I responded "No I don't, I can take it back to any Poundland store. Do you have a copy of that policy?" (The Poundland website states any store is fine) :

Q. Does the product have to be returned to the same Poundland store from which it was purchased in order to receive a refund or exchange or can it be returned to any store?
A. You can return the product(s) to any Poundland store.

She looked at me dumbfounded and went off to ask the assistant manager something. She came back, grunted once or twice and then triumphantly came up with "you bought these five weeks ago not four. We only do returns within four weeks". Again, I asked for a copy of this policy, which she was unable to produce. She snarled, and went off to get the assistant manager who came back and took me aside so the queue could carry on with their purchases.

He tried the same excuse, saying "there's a copy of our four week policy on our window outside" (which there wasn't, he went and looked for it). I told him Poundland's policy couldn't override consumer law, which allowed for a six month period for faulty product replacement as long as I didn't cause the fault. I don't think he understood me because he carried on waffling nonsense. I asked "can I have written confirmation that you refuse to accept the return?" [and replacement of the headphones] to which he said "no". Therefore, as he was holding the faulty headphones and receipt, and I was holding the replacement headphones, I took this as acceptance of the replacement, and walked out of the store.

He nearly had a heart attack and ran out of the store after me, calling for security. He then grabbed me. I told him he was under citizens' arrest for assault and that he was to remain there until police arrived

Naturally, being British, the whole thing was very civilised. I said "I'm Jake, what's your name?" to which he responded "I'm ****."

"Pleased to meet you," I said, and shook his hand.

Security came a minute or two later, and **** explained his POV first, and the security bloke then asked me for mine.

We went back into the store, **** went to speak to the manager and I had a chat with the security bloke. He told me that whilst I may infact be entitled to the replacement, I shouldn't have walked out of the store as Poundland staff might have wanted to print off another receipt for me. I agreed but said that as I had a train to catch, I couldn't really wait around for the staff to get their act together. He found the whole thing rather funny. I mentioned that if Poundland carried on like this it could be quite bad PR, especially as the local paper was free on Thursdays and Fridays, to which he nodded and said "it's up to them now, I'm obviously not going to do you for shoplifting but you should have waited."

**** came back and told me he'd spoken to the manager, and "as a gesture of goodwill", I was "allowed to keep the replacement headphones". He agreed to sign the receipt as acceptance of the replacement, we shook hands again, and the security bloke wished me a nice journey home.

So who was technically in the right? Do I have only four weeks' protection for faulty goods, or as per consumer law, I am entitled to replacement within six months?

(1) This section applies if—
(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a) under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
b) under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a) it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

(source)

I know it was probably a bit naughty to walk out of the store but the whole thing was getting rather ridiculous. (4)a quoted above couldn't possibly come into effect in my view as I didn't use the headphones on that date [of purchase] therefore it couldn't be established that the goods conformed. But any alternative angles of thought?

It also occurred to me on the way home that I hadn't actually de-arrested the assistant store manager

 

[Simon11]

When it is only £1, is it worth the bother?

 

[Merseysider]

When it is only £1, is it worth the bother?

I knew that question would appear at some point

But I didn't go out of my way for it. I was in town anyway and had a few minutes to spare.

 

[carriageline]

When it is only £1, is it worth the bother?

My time is far too valuable to have this much ****ing around for £1 , whether it's a matter of principle or not.

 

[Merseysider]

My time is far too valuable to have this much ****ing around for £1 , whether it's a matter of principle or not.

At what point does it become worth ****ing around for you? £5? £10?

 

[Mojo]

I've never understood the argument that because you are "only" saving x pounds, it is not worth investing n amount of time on something.

 

[Darandio]

He nearly had a heart attack and ran out of the store after me, calling for security. He then grabbed me. I told him he was under citizens' arrest for assault and that he was to remain there until police arrived

So that suggests that any theft from a store can be counteracted with a citizens arrest when detained?

Regardless of what nonsense had gone on before, it was theft, wasn't it?

 

[Merseysider]

I've never understood the argument that because you are "only" saving x pounds, it is not worth investing n amount of time in something.

Nor have I to be honest.

If an advance cost £2, but the company refused to fulfill the contract to travel by cancelling the train and saying you can't travel or get a refund, I wonder if the same people would say it isn't worth complaining as it "only" cost £2?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So that suggests that any theft from a store can be counteracted with a citizens arrest when detained?

Regardless of what nonsense had gone on before, it was theft, wasn't it?

Theft? Theft requires an intention to permanently and dishonestly deprive a person or company of property.

I was entitled to a replacement for the pair of headphones. I hardly think it could be argued that I was dishonest in taking the headphones which I was entitled to, especially after the assistant manager refused to give me a written confirmation that he wouldn't deny the replacement.

In fact, the law agrees:

Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

...

“Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;
...

(source)

 

[Kite159]

But why would you want to waste £1 on a cheap and nasty pair of headphones which give Apple products a run for leaking music?

 

[Merseysider]

But why would you want to waste £1 on a cheap and nasty pair of headphones which give Apple products a run for leaking music?

As backup for my expensive headphones in case I ever lose them and need to, for example, spend 2 hours on a Pacer

Similarly, I have a £1 phone charger in my cupboard in case I ever lose my 'official' Apple charger and the Apple store is shut

 

[Darandio]

Theft? Theft requires an intention to permanently and dishonestly deprive a person or company of property.

I was entitled to a replacement for the pair of headphones. I hardly think it could be argued that I was dishonest in taking the headphones which I was entitled to, especially after the assistant manager refused to give me a written confirmation that he wouldn't deny the replacement.

I've no idea, that is why I asked. By definition, no, it probably isn't.

However, I still see nothing to believe you were entitled to walk out of the store with the goods in the manner you did. That act and the subsequent events were you being a smartarse, in my opinion of course.

 

[Merseysider]

I've no idea, that is why I asked. By definition, no, it probably isn't.

However, I still see nothing to believe you were entitled to walk out of the store with the goods in the manner you did. That act and the subsequent events were you being a smartarse, in my opinion of course.

Yeah, I probably was being a smartarse And in reflection, there were obviously better approaches than just walking out. I'll agree with you there. But after dealing with someone younger than me who spoke and acted like a college dropout yet still managed to talk down to me, and an assistant manager who didn't have a clue what he was talking about and had never heard of consumer law, also trying to talk down to me, I'd say my judgement wasn't as clear as it could have been. 'Frustrated' might be the right word.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never understood the argument that because you are "only" saving x pounds, it is not worth investing n amount of time on something.

Time is, as they say, money. Those with limited time on their hands will not waste it dealing with relatively trivial issues. Fortunately, though, you usually have one or the other, so those with more time can of course spend more of it pursuing justice over a smaller amount of money, as Jake seems to have done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was entitled to a replacement for the pair of headphones.

No you weren't. You were entitled to a repair, though admittedly at that price most stores will just do a replacement and bin them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, I probably was being a smartarse And in reflection, there were obviously better approaches than just walking out. I'll agree with you there. But after dealing with someone younger than me who spoke and acted like a college dropout

I was with you (ish, I wouldn't have walked out as without permission I would agree it was theft[1], but I'd probably have written a stern letter to the head office when I got home) until then. I don't think it's right for people to look down at people, whatever side of the counter and whoever they are. Indeed, per another thread, I think disrespect is a huge cause of many societal problems. In Switzerland, the person behind the desk in a store is a professional and needs to be respected as such.

[1] Because you did not, and you knew you did not, have the right to simply take the product. The staff may have been in the wrong, but until you had permission to take it you had no right to do so.

 

[Merseysider]

Time is, as they say, money. Those with limited time on their hands will not waste it dealing with relatively trivial issues. Fortunately, though, you usually have one or the other, so those with more time can of course spend more of it pursuing justice over a smaller amount of money, as Jake seems to have done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No you weren't. You were entitled to a repair, though admittedly at that price most stores will just do a replacement and bin them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was with you (ish, I wouldn't have walked out as without permission I would agree it was theft, but I'd probably have written a stern letter to the head office when I got home) until then. I don't think it's right for people to look down at people, whatever side of the counter and whoever they are. Indeed, per another thread, I think disrespect is a huge cause of many societal problems. In Switzerland, the person behind the desk in a store is a professional and needs to be respected as such.

It is fortunate then, that I am blessed with a moderate amount of both. I have enough money to live on, and then a bit extra; I also have a fairly busy life but enough time to escape the rat race now and again, and also address relatively trivial matters over principle. (2) quoted above doesn't make a distinction between replacement or repair; the key issue is that if it doesn't work, the retailer is bound to resolve that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is fortunate then, that I am blessed with a moderate amount of both. I have enough money to live on, and then a bit extra; I also have a fairly busy life but enough time to escape the rat race now and again, and also address relatively trivial matters over principle. (2) quoted above doesn't make a distinction between replacement or repair; the key issue is that if it doesn't work, the retailer is bound to resolve that.

Yes, but it is at THEIR option to decide how they do so, not YOURS.

You are lucky you were not arrested on suspicion of theft, even if it is likely you would later be released without charge due to the circumstances (but you'd still see it on an enhanced DBS check). IMO a *very* silly move and one where you could have taken many other options as a means of resolution.

 

[Merseysider]

Yes, but it is at THEIR option to decide how they do so, not YOURS.

Yes, I am not disagreeing with that.

You are lucky you were not arrested for theft, even if it is likely you would later be released without charge due to the circumstances (but you'd still see it on an enhanced DBS check). IMO a *very* silly move and one where you could have taken many other options as a means of resolution.

I have already agreed upthread that walking out of the store was not the best option. The security bloke was never going to take it further after he heard the circumstances, and when I asked the assistant manager whether he was accusing me of shoplifting, he said he wasn't, but he felt calling someone neutral to the situation would help defuse it.

 

[yorkie]

When it is only £1, is it worth the bother?

Doesn't that apply to the store too? If it's only £1 to ensure the store's legal obligations are met, why on earth wouldn't the store do that?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Similarly, I have a £1 phone charger in my cupboard in case I ever lose my 'official' Apple charger and the Apple store is shut

That I wouldn't use though, unless your fire alarms are something better than poundland offer...!

 

[Merseysider]

That I wouldn't use though, unless your fire alarms are something better than poundland offer...!

Thankfully I've not needed to use it yet If I do, I'll make sure to first test it on a Voyager...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As well as probably looking like a bit of an idiot, you did not have the power to make a citizens arrest. The power of a citizen's arrest applies only when the person is committing, or is reasonably believed to be committing, an indictable only offence. Common assault is a summary offence, and I don't think you could successfully argue that grabbing you after you walked out a shop with goods you were not entitled to have would be an indictable offence.

Pound land obviously didn't deal with it in the best manner, but personally I think you were just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Merseysider]

As well as probably looking like a bit of an idiot, you did not have the power to make a citizens arrest. The power of a citizen's arrest applies only when the person is committing, or is reasonably believed to be committing, an indictable only offence. Common assault is a summary offence, and I don't think you could successfully argue that grabbing you after you walked out a shop with goods you were not entitled to have would be an indictable offence.

Pound land obviously didn't deal with it in the best manner, but personally I think you were just as bad, if not worse.

Sorry, but if you knew what you were talking about you might have considered your post a little further before 'looking like a bit of an idiot' yourself.

False imprisonment
False imprisonment is a common law offence involving the unlawful and intentional or reckless detention of the victim. An act of false imprisonment may amount in itself to an assault. If a separate assault accompanies the detention this should be reflected in the particulars of the indictment.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Sorry, but if you knew what you were talking about you might have considered your post a little further before 'looking like a bit of an idiot' yourself.

Nice try. Common Assault is still a summary only offence...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a07

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

It is a summary offence, which carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. However, if the requirements of section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are met, then Common Assault can be included as a count on an indictment. Refer to Summary offences and the Crown Court (Criminal Justice Act 1988 sections 40 and 41; Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 51 and Sch.3 para.6, elsewhere in this guidance).

 

[Merseysider]

Of course, I really should start carrying a library around with me.

The person doesn't need to have actually committed an indictable offence; merely I needed to have:

"reasonable grounds to suspect [he] is committing an indictable offence."

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps debatable, as if ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law in other matters, nor would it be in this case. To have reasonable expectation that someone is committing something, you have surely to know what it is you are alleging them to be committing, rather than simply thinking something probably might be illegal or a specific type of offence.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Of course, I really should start carrying a library around with me.

The person doesn't need to have actually committed an indictable offence; merely I needed to have:

Like I said, no court will accept that a reasonable belief that being grabbed by a store manager after walking out with goods you were not entitled to could be considered an indictable offence! The courts are very keen to restrict the use of the citizens arrest to prevent vigilante justice, and there are many, many horror stories of people trying to make arrests in far more serious situations than not getting a refund on a pair of £1 headphones and ending up being charged with kidnap or assault themselves (and being dragged through the court system for months on end). I think you really need to accept that you handled the entire situation very poorly.

 

[Merseysider]

Perhaps debatable, as if ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law in other matters, nor would it be in this case. To have reasonable expectation that someone is committing something, you have surely to know what it is you are alleging them to be committing, rather than simply thinking something probably might be illegal or a specific type of offence.

Debatable indeed.

Assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. (TEW)

is an indictable offence. So what's the threshold in your eyes for bodily harm?

• Pain?
• A bruise?
• A cut?

 

[carriageline]

At what point does it become worth ****ing around for you? £5? £10?

It's not just about how much it's worth, but also how much time and effort I will expend chasing that money. The more the money is worth, the more time and effort I am willing to expend chasing it.

If I had bought something for a pound, from a shop out of my way and it was faulty, then I would bin it and put it down to "one of those things". Laziness? Probably.

But if I was overcharged by a couple of quid buying something online, I would think about firing off an email to get it sorted. No real time or effort expended there.

 

[Merseysider]

I think you really need to accept that you handled the entire situation very poorly.

I accept that. I'm happy to be criticised as long as it doesn't become personal. I'm happy to be told I was in the wrong if the reason why is also given.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not just about how much it's worth, but also how much time and effort I will expend chasing that money. The more the money is worth, the more time and effort I am willing to expend chasing it.

If I had bought something for a pound, from a shop out of my way and it was faulty, then I would bin it and put it down to "one of those things". Laziness? Probably.

But if I was overcharged by a couple of quid buying something online, I would think about firing off an email to get it sorted. No real time or effort expended there.

As I've already said, I didn't make the trip into town purely to exchange the item. I was already in town on other business and just so happened to have the faulty headphones with me when I walked past the store, and the receipt buried in my bag. I didn't expect it to take longer than thirty seconds.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Assault occasioning ABH is an indictable offence. I can't remember off the top of my head the exact definition of ABH (I'm away from my computer now), but I think it is an injury that is "more than trivial or trifling".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Debatable indeed. is an indictable offence. So what's the threshold in your eyes for bodily harm?

• Pain?
• A bruise?
• A cut?

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/S-47-Actual-Bodily-Harm-(ABH).php might help.

Or: http://londoncriminalsolicitors.co.uk/violent-crimes/actual-bodily-harm-abh/

which seems to make clear it was not ABH in your case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FWIW, personally I do believe a store security guard should be able to use reasonable force to apprehend someone he reasonably believes to be engaging in theft from the store (which as you removed an item without permission with the intent to permanently deprive, I believe you technically were committing it even if in likelihood a case would not have succeeded). Otherwise that is giving carte blanche to theft. To me it would be reasonable to use something like a rugby tackle, but not to fire a weapon nor to use any more force than required for restraint once caught.