Woman sues Lidl for £6000 over child being accused of theft.

Run_to_da_hills

I saw this in the media today.

A 6 year old child was accused of swiping a pack of crisps at a Lidl branch in North Dublin. He was pulled aside and quizzed by staff after checkout. His mother was able to show receipts proving the item were purchased. Staff continued to be rude.

Stupid move on behalf of Lidl staff for jumping to conclusions and not examining CCTV footage before they made the move. I hope those responsible get the sack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/7914309/Boy-5-wins-6000-in-Lidl-defamation-case.html

wmpdd3

Happens every day only you don't about it, but you pay for it as the €6000 is added to your shopping.

Business cost of retailing.

You pay for the actual thieves and the compo paid to those who 'suffered distress and inconvenience'.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Stupid move on behalf of Lidl staff for jumping to conclusions and not examining CCTV footage before they made the move. I hope those responsible get the sack.

Are surveillance camers not evil? :P

BTW not to nitpick but he was 5 and the amount was STG£6,000 in the article so more in €

Love this bit


"The boy’s barrister, Alison McIntyre, told the court that Tadhg’s reputation had also been discredited by the false accusation"

His reputation?:D

listermint

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I saw this in the media today.

A 6 year old child was accused of swiping a pack of crisps at a Lidl branch in North Dublin. He was pulled aside and quizzed by staff after checkout. His mother was able to show receipts proving the item were purchased. Staff continued to be rude.

Stupid move on behalf of Lidl staff for jumping to conclusions and not examining CCTV footage before they made the move. I hope those responsible get the sack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/7914309/Boy-5-wins-6000-in-Lidl-defamation-case.html

I believe the amount was £6000 not Euro. I hate this distress and defamation crap..

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

Are surveillance camers not evil? :P

BTW not to nitpick but he was 5 and the amount was STG£6,000 in the article so more in €

Love this bit


"The boy’s barrister, Alison McIntyre, told the court that Tadhg’s reputation had also been discredited by the false accusation"

His reputation?:D

Edited.

At least the child should be able to afford a decent motorbike when he reaches the age of 18.

The £6000 should come from the pockets of those working in security. They are employed to scrutinise opportunist thefts. The child wasn't caught stealing. It was just assumed that because he was unattended with the pack of crisps in his hand that he had nicked them.

foggy_lad

the amount was €7500 as it was in an irish court, the british papers have used their own auld currency as ours. and the case was as much about wrongful imprisonment and assault as it was about the actual items the child was accused of taking.

this piece at the end of the telegraphs article makes for very interesting reading

In November 2008 the German discount supermarket chain apologised after workers at one of its Swedish stores deliberately poured cleaning fluids in rubbish bins to stop the homeless rummaging for food.

stores like heatons and the other english chains cut up cloths and footwear they cant sell instead of giving it to homeless charities.

baldbear

Rediculous decision by the courts. Reputation of a 6 year old damaged, my arse. I know in big shops like Tesco some certain types go in pick something up in full view of security hide them and when they walk off put the item down.
When they are approached by the security and searched they kick up hell and end up trying to sue.

Anyway the young fella got a crisp amount of cash in the end.

Guy:Incognito

foggy_lad wrote: »

this piece at the end of the telegraphs article makes for very interesting reading.

I dotn see what the issue is with them not wantign homeless people rummaging in bins around their stores.

I also have no issue with what Heatons do re cuttign up clothes. I hate this thing thats sprung up in the last few years where people and companies are expected to give to charities or be looked down on. If I choose to burn money rather than give it to charity thats my choice.

MagicMarker

baldbear wrote: »

Rediculous decision by the courts. Reputation of a 6 year old damaged, my arse. I know in big shops like Tesco some certain types go in pick something up in full view of security hide them and when they walk off put the item down.
When they are approached by the security and searched they kick up hell and end up trying to sue.

Can you not see the fundamental difference between what you describe and the case at hand?

Cabaal

Compensation culture,
this country is turning into the states when it comes to the compensation side of things,

Run_to_da_hills

Cabaal wrote: »

Compensation culture,
this country is turning into the states when it comes to the compensation side of things,

Its down to the ability of people making easy money without having to get up off their asses, and especially more so with the recession and people out of work.

Tabnabs

More wise words from the peanut gallery.

If a poster came on here and said their 5 year old boy was wrongly accused of stealing a bag of crisps in a Lidl store, was also falsely imprisoned and assaulted when a shop assistant grabbed his arm the same people would be screaming SUE, SUE, SUE!

Of course he has a reputation that can be harmed/discredit, we all do. Just because he is under the age of 18 does that mean he has fewer rights in law?

As for a compo' culture, "a settlement offer of €7,500 and costs by Lidl", he accepted their offer and what he is entitled to in the eyes of Irish legal system.

There must be standards in how these situations are dealt with and these must be upheld.

Head The Wall

On newstalk this morning they commented on another case in court yesterday. A kid suffered corneal damage while in a shop where a bulb had exploded and he got hit in the eye.

He received €7,000!!!! for an actual injury where he could have been blinded. Makes the other award look even more ridiculous

dudara

Not a Consumer Issue

dudara

bonerm

I was once falsely accused of shoplifting in the old Virgin Megastore on Aston Quay, Dublin and was even escorted out of the building by some fat thick as pigshít Arab fúcker from their security team. I was delighted when I saw the place had out of business less than 6 months later.

Ever since then I've had a bugbear about these inbred security guards pushing their weight and accusing people of shoplifting around without any proof. So I'm not gonna begrudge that woman her 6k.

Zadkiel

Dyflin wrote: »

More wise words from the peanut gallery.

If a poster came on here and said their 5 year old boy was wrongly accused of stealing a bag of crisps in a Lidl store, was also falsely imprisoned and assaulted when a shop assistant grabbed his arm the same people would be screaming SUE, SUE, SUE!

Of course he has a reputation that can be harmed/discredit, we all do. Just because he is under the age of 18 does that mean he has fewer rights in law?

As for a compo' culture, "a settlement offer of €7,500 and costs by Lidl", he accepted their offer and what he is entitled to in the eyes of Irish legal system.

There must be standards in how these situations are dealt with and these must be upheld.

There should be, I'm more alarmed by the fact that she didn't miss her five year old son wasn't with her until she was in her car. She was quoted as saying this in yesterdays paper. Can't find a link.:( If she was supervising him the whole thing would never have happened

Minstrel27

€7,500???

That's nuts.

gaz wac

Zadkiel wrote: »

There should be, I'm more alarmed by the fact that she didn't miss her five year old son wasn't with her until she was in her car. She was quoted as saying this in yesterdays paper. Can't find a link.:( If she was supervising him the whole thing would never have happened

She was on the radio this morning. She paid for her stuff and gave the boy the crisps. he was walking beside her while she was pushing the trolly. he stopped to open the multi packet, but she didnt notice. She was only a few feet out the door when she went to look for him. ( cant blame her, its was a couple of seconds and is human !! mammies have a lot to deal with )

She called out his name and someone said " are you looking for a little boy?. he's after been dragged back into the store by the check out girl "..not a security guard. Woman showed her receipt and gave out to the checkout girl and manager.

In fairness, she was well entitled to, he deserves the payout and Im glad it was in the papers. Discracefull behaviour by the worker :mad:

Zadkiel

gaz wac wrote: »

She was on the radio this morning. She paid for her stuff and gave the boy the crisps. he was walking beside her while she was pushing the trolly. he stopped to open the multi packet, but she didnt notice. She was only a few feet out the door when she went to look for him. ( cant blame her, its was a couple of seconds and is human !! mammies have a lot to deal with )

She called out his name and someone said " are you looking for a little boy?. he's after been dragged back into the store by the check out girl "..not a security guard. Woman showed her receipt and gave out to the checkout girl and manager.

In fairness, she was well entitled to, he deserves the payout and Im glad it was in the papers. Discracefull behaviour by the worker :mad:

According to the paper she was in her car when she noticed he wasn't there, so thanks for clearing that up. I dont agree with the actions of the shop by the way.

up for anything

Any shop that deals with an unattended five year old like that needs a good smack/court case. They should have been more worried about his safety than frightening the shite of him and upsetting his mother. Time enough for the strong arm tactics when she couldn't prove she had paid for the crisps! :rolleyes:

Drake66

Badly trained staff increases the chances of things like this happening. I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for Lidl.

Agent Smith

the kid prob just wanted more crisps in fairness

gizmo

gaz wac wrote: »

She was on the radio this morning. She paid for her stuff and gave the boy the crisps. he was walking beside her while she was pushing the trolly. he stopped to open the multi packet, but she didnt notice. She was only a few feet out the door when she went to look for him. ( cant blame her, its was a couple of seconds and is human !! mammies have a lot to deal with )

She called out his name and someone said " are you looking for a little boy?. he's after been dragged back into the store by the check out girl "..not a security guard. Woman showed her receipt and gave out to the checkout girl and manager.

And you think that warranted a court case and compensation? Would an apology from the staff in question not have made them feel equally better?

pickarooney

Minstrel27 wrote: »

€7,500???

That's nuts.

No, crisps. For nuts it's only about €3,800.

gaz wac

gizmo wrote: »

And you think that warranted a court case and compensation? Would an apology from the staff in question not have made them feel equally better?

He was a minor who was :

Illegally detained and falsely imprisoned

Accused of theft ( incorrectly )…now remember, he is 5 !!

And received bodily harm..

so they just say.." ehh sorry about that, here is a €10 voucher off your next shop" ....

im sorry, but no........ :rolleyes:

phill106

Stekelly wrote: »

I dotn see what the issue is with them not wantign homeless people rummaging in bins around their stores.

If you think of it, they were poisoning food they knew homeless people were going to eat. Still think its ok?

MistyCheese

Dyflin wrote: »

Just because he is under the age of 18 does that mean he has fewer rights in law?

Well, yes. A minor has many, many, many less rights in the eyes of the law, such as the right to take out a loan, the right to buy alcohol, the right to sign a contract, the right to watch certain movies...

Mr Jinx

I know this kid, he already has a reputation as a bedwetter and a cry baby.

derfderf

Mr Jinx wrote: »

I know this kid, he already has a reputation as a bedwetter and a cry baby.

on the mobile, have to thank when i get home.

Einhard

I was held by security in the front of the Centra in Ranelagh a few years back, having been accused of thieving a large bottle of coke. The manager was very aggressive, and was at pains to point out that he intended filing a full prosecution against me. The clerk who had served me less than a minute before denied having done so, and I was held by the security man as the manager called the cops. I eventually asked him to check the security cameras, which he reluctantly did, only to come back and give the most cursory, forced apology. All this happened in the middle of the day, with people coming in and out, including my neighbours and people who knew me in some way.

I told the manager I thought he was a stupid, ignorant fucking cunt, and that I would never shop in his store again. That was it. The idea of suing him, or the store, or demanding that he lose his job would have seemed as ridiculous then as it does now. People can't expect money every time they are inconvenienced or feel "distress".

My name is URL

What's the big hoopla? People get paid compensation every single day and it's not reported by the media. I think they were right to look for compo in this case, he's a 6 yo ffs.. even if he was stealing the crisps there'd be no need for the staff to manhandle him

Einhard

My name is URL wrote: »

What's the big hoopla? People get paid compensation every single day and it's not reported by the media. I think they were right to look for compo in this case, he's a 6 yo ffs.. even if he was stealing the crisps there'd be no need for the staff to manhandle him

They held his arm!! When the fup did that become manhandling?!

ch750536

Having dealt with a number of legal situations like this there is a very simple premise to follow.

'It is always about the money.'

If you think making people apologise will ensure this does not happen again, then you are wrong. If you think sacking the girl who made the mistake, you are wrong. Even a €10 voucher would not stop this happening again.

Wiping off a few days profit of the store will ensure staff are properly trained on this.

Imhof Tank

Einhard wrote: »

I was held by security in the front of the Centra in Ranelagh a few years back, having been accused of thieving a large bottle of coke. The manager was very aggressive, and was at pains to point out that he intended filing a full prosecution against me. The clerk who had served me less than a minute before denied having done so, and I was held by the security man as the manager called the cops. I eventually asked him to check the security cameras, which he reluctantly did, only to come back and give the most cursory, forced apology. All this happened in the middle of the day, with people coming in and out, including my neighbours and people who knew me in some way.

I told the manager I thought he was a stupid, ignorant fucking cunt, and that I would never shop in his store again. That was it. The idea of suing him, or the store, or demanding that he lose his job would have seemed as ridiculous then as it does now. People can't expect money every time they are inconvenienced or feel "distress".

More fool you, some would say.

The legal system provides a remedy for those falsely accused of theft and unlawfully detained. Its up to the victims to decide whether or not to avail of their right to claim damages - you didnt but many would have after enduring the experience you describe and there wouldnt be anything ridiculous about it.

ch750536

Einhard wrote: »

I told the manager I thought he was a stupid, ignorant fucking cunt, and that I would never shop in his store again. That was it. The idea of suing him, or the store, or demanding that he lose his job would have seemed as ridiculous then as it does now. People can't expect money every time they are inconvenienced or feel "distress".

So you did nothing to ensure it didn't happen to anyone else then! If you had sued them then they would be trained properly on how to handle situations like this.

K4t

Stekelly wrote: »

I dotn see what the issue is with them not wantign homeless people rummaging in bins around their stores.

I also have no issue with what Heatons do re cuttign up clothes. I hate this thing thats sprung up in the last few years where people and companies are expected to give to charities or be looked down on. If I choose to burn money rather than give it to charity thats my choice.

Wow. So if you have old clothes or old furniture you don't need anymore, you would throw it away rather than give it to a family who need it or to charity? In my house, anything we don't 'need' goes to someone who does 'need' it, whether in exchange for cash or for nothing in the case of giving to charity. Just the way I was brought up I suppose.

ch750536 wrote: »

Having dealt with a number of legal situations like this there is a very simple premise to follow.

'It is always about the money.'

If you think making people apologise will ensure this does not happen again, then you are wrong. If you think sacking the girl who made the mistake, you are wrong. Even a €10 voucher would not stop this happening again.

Wiping off a few days profit of the store will ensure staff are properly trained on this.

Ok, fair point. However, couldn't the state do something worthwhile with the payout. No matter what you say, the 'distress' caused to the child and his mother did not warrant a payout of €7,500.

Why not give €3,500 to the child and his mother and use the other €3000 for some other purpose beneficial to the state. Give it to charity even. There are so many more worthwhile causes than a child who was given out to and questioned about taking a bag of crisps. False economy.

Galvasean

'Distress' me bum! He's a kid. He was probably well over the occurence later that evening and would have forgot about it entirely after a day or two.

up for anything

ch750536 wrote: »

Having dealt with a number of legal situations like this there is a very simple premise to follow.

'It is always about the money.'

If you think making people apologise will ensure this does not happen again, then you are wrong. If you think sacking the girl who made the mistake, you are wrong. Even a €10 voucher would not stop this happening again.

Wiping off a few days profit of the store will ensure staff are properly trained on this.

You can't do right for doing wrong. Ten years ago I was at the checkout in Superquinn in Kilkenny and while I was paying at the checkout, my two brats then aged 5 and 2 made a run for the life sized replica of a Labrador that is the collecting box for Guide Dogs for the Blind which sits on a plinth because first one there would get to sit on the dog's back. The elder one grabbed the back of the younger one's teeshirt and he fell forwards and split his forehead open on the metal plinth. Cue torrents of blood and crying. The staff were like lightening with handfuls of tissues and help with the elder child. Within five minutes one of the managers was driving us to A&E and telling me to send any bills to them. My shopping which I had left at the check out was delivered home and a note telling me not to worry about paying. The next morning bright and early they were on the phone asking me how he was. He got two stitches on his forehead which necessitated a GA. A day later a big hamper full of kiddie goodies from SQ and vouchers from Adams was delivered. Whenever they spotted him the shop for about a year after they would come and enquire as to how he was. I know a lot of this was in order to encourage me not to sue which I had no idea of doing as it was my own fault for not keeping my children under supervision.

The next year I was in SuperValu and had my younger son standing in the trolley. I turned my back to pick up something and the trolley overbalanced and it and him hit the floor. Cue much screaming and crying (from him, not me ). Lots of customers rushed over and helped me. Not one member of staff from the checkouts or Customer Service Desk came over. The next day I met one of the girls who had been working when it happened and she apologised for not coming over to give a hand but apparently it was then their policy to ignore situations like this in the hope that a claim would go away. If he had been hurt, rightly or wrongly (and it would have been wrongly because it was again my fault), I would have sued the arse off them out of spite.

So it not always about the money.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I saw this in the media today.

A 6 year old child was accused of swiping a pack of crisps at a Lidl branch in North Dublin. He was pulled aside and quizzed by staff after checkout. His mother was able to show receipts proving the item were purchased. Staff continued to be rude.

Stupid move on behalf of Lidl staff for jumping to conclusions and not examining CCTV footage before they made the move. I hope those responsible get the sack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/7914309/Boy-5-wins-6000-in-Lidl-defamation-case.html

This happened to me in a petrol station near Newcastle West. Myself and the boss were on the road so called in for lunch. Upon paying for the stuff and walking out she shouted back at us saying we never paid for some bottles of water we had. He promptly went over and shoved the receipt in her face and said "you should be careful who you accuse in future." Didn't sue though.

Drake66

Galvasean wrote: »

'Distress' me bum! He's a kid. He was probably well over the occurence later that evening and would have forgot about it entirely after a day or two.

Why pray tell? Are children incapable of remembering being grabbed by a stranger and being called a thief?

Jumpy

Minstrel27 wrote: »

€7,500???

That's nuts.

No. Crisps.

Sonnenblumen

Galvasean wrote: »

'Distress' me bum! He's a kid. He was probably well over the occurence later that evening and would have forgot about it entirely after a day or two.

How the hell do you know? All that can be said, is the store handled the situation very badly and got off lightly. And if you read all the posts, you would realise that this kind of experience lingers on much more than a day or two.

aDeener

Stekelly wrote: »

I dotn see what the issue is with them not wantign homeless people rummaging in bins around their stores.

I also have no issue with what Heatons do re cuttign up clothes. I hate this thing thats sprung up in the last few years where people and companies are expected to give to charities or be looked down on. If I choose to burn money rather than give it to charity thats my choice.

i'm fairly sure that's illegal

Sonnenblumen

Cabaal wrote: »

Compensation culture,
this country is turning into the states when it comes to the compensation side of things,

A hard lesson in sanctioning a system's failure.

Sonnenblumen

Stekelly wrote: »

I dotn see what the issue is with them not wantign homeless people rummaging in bins around their stores.

I also have no issue with what Heatons do re cuttign up clothes. I hate this thing thats sprung up in the last few years where people and companies are expected to give to charities or be looked down on. If I choose to burn money rather than give it to charity thats my choice.

If you drive a Renault, well you'd know all about burning money:D

robinph

Drake66 wrote: »

Why pray tell? Are children incapable of remembering being grabbed by a stranger and being called a thief?

Wasn't it a multi-pack of crisps? I'm sure he'd have forgotten about it as soon as he started the next packet.

The only reason a 5 year old would give a damn is if his mother was over reacting about the situation afterwards.

sesna

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

How the hell do you know? All that can be said, is the store handled the situation very badly and got off lightly. And if you read all the posts, you would realise that this kind of experience lingers on much more than a day or two.

:rolleyes:
How is 6000 euro damages against a legitimate business for the incompetence of one clueless worker, whose sloppy actions resulted in nothing more than a minor inconvenience to a mother, getting off lightly? As for the distress and trauma the mother suffered from this experience...

In a shopping centre 6 months ago I saw a man walk into a shop front (the shop mistakenly had no poster displayed or anything to warn it was clear glass). He got up immediately and brushed himself off slightly embarrassed. I was bemused to see him return a few minutes later with a companion, and lie down on the ground in front of the shop in apparent agony, while his accomplice took details from the shop owner. I'm sure he will get a substantial award for this.

Also, for example, the under resourced health service for example is crippled by workers afraid to make a diagnosis, ordering unnecessary obscure diagnostic tests and referrals, lest they miss something and face getting sued. This is not without consequence to the hoards of sick people attempting to access such an inefficient system.

Any system grinds to a halt when people are always out trying to make a cheap buck. There are of course legitimate cases for compensation. This particular one stinks of the more common case of someone taking advantage.

Would you prefer if our horrible culture of litigation was more excessive, and this 6 year old would have been awarded something more substantial. Maybe you'd prefer something along the lines of Monica Leech's ridiculous defamation award of €1.9 million.

Sonnenblumen

sesna wrote: »

:rolleyes:
How is 6000 euro damages against a legitimate business for the incompetence of one clueless worker, whose sloppy actions resulted in nothing more than a minor inconvenience to a mother, getting off lightly? As for the distress and trauma the mother suffered from this experience...

Would you prefer if our ridiculous, horrible culture of litigation was more excessive, and this 6 year old would have been awarded something more substantial. Maybe you'd prefer something along the lines of what Monica Leech got in her defamation award which was €1.9 million.

The world would be better with fewer 'clueless workers' and more observant Retailers. And no, I disagree with your assessment of the incident, IMO, it was outrageous and hence the finding. Learn the lesson and move on, this is a busy world.

gizmo

gaz wac wrote: »

He was a minor who was :

Illegally detained and falsely imprisoned

The article may say that but reading the rest of the information indicates that he would have been no more than 10 feet away from his mother for not even a couple of moments and in full view of the public.

gaz wac wrote: »

Accused of theft ( incorrectly )…now remember, he is 5 !!

And? 5 year olds can't steal?

gaz wac wrote: »

And received bodily harm..

Now you're being ridiculous, where did it say he was harmed? All it says is that the clerk "grabbed" his arm. The reality of the situation, given his age, is that the clerk probably placed their hand on the kid to stop him. No one is stupid enough to aggressively grab at kid of that age under those kind of circumstances.

gaz wac wrote: »

so they just say.." ehh sorry about that, here is a €10 voucher off your next shop" ....

So what did he deserve then? Why €6,000? Why not €10,000? Or €20,000? Or €1,000?

As other posters said, this was just about the mother trying to extract money from the shop. The kid himself will have forgotten by now, the parents, knowing the action they've taken, will probably already be thinking of ways to spend the money. Maybe they can go on a nice sun holiday so they can put this tragic incident behind them? :rolleyes:

Personally, if I knew my mother acted like this after such an event I'd be ****ing mortified.

Ann22

I read about this, didn't Lidl offer around €2,500 and the mother refused it, took it further and got the full amount?

The checkout girl probably did overreact by stopping the child marching past with an armful of crisps, but I'd say the mother was delighted at the chance to make some easy money and there she goes, selling her story to the papers for more dosh:D. People like that look out for wet patches in stores to slip on:rolleyes:.

My hubbie had three car crashes in the last 20yrs, all were the other drivers fault. Not once did he claim for injury, just got the car fixed by a panel beater he knows and gave the bill which was quite small, to the other driver.

sesna

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

The world would be better with fewer 'clueless workers' and more observant Retailers. And no, I disagree with your assessment of the incident, IMO, it was outrageous and hence the finding. Learn the lesson and move on, this is a busy world.

Agreed - the point related to your claim that 6,000 euro was getting off lightly. So you think 50,000 or 100,000 maybe would be more appropriate for this six year old?