Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

135

Comments

  • #62
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    rumby wrote: »
    i work in the retail business. it is almost impossible to be positive that someone has stolen something. the company policy is only to approach someone when they have left the shop as up to then they have an opportunity to pay. the whole culture of claiming for health and safety and allegations has rocketed on th last two years

    I hope people take this into account next time they are whining about the cost of everything they buy.


  • #63
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    rumby wrote: »
    i work in the retail business. it is almost impossible to be positive that someone has stolen something. the company policy is only to approach someone when they have left the shop as up to then they have an opportunity to pay. the whole culture of claiming for health and safety and allegations has rocketed on th last two years

    you have no jurisdiction once they have left the shops premises. to accost someone amounts to false imprisonment unless you make a citizens arrest.


  • #64
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    sensibleken wrote: »
    you have no jurisdiction once they have left the shops premises. to accost someone amounts to false imprisonment unless you make a citizens arrest.

    You have to wait for them to leave to prove they have not taken the goods without paying. Alot of people are total scumbags such as taking an item off the shelf and hiding under clothes for example. Then they leave the shop and are confronted by security, only to produce a valid receipt for the item they have brought into the shop. They of course subsequently sue for damages (false arrest, and the distress and anguish caused). It's great we have such respect for peoples rights.


  • #65
    robinph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,146 ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Drake66 wrote: »
    To be honest the veracity of that statement is impossible to prove. Being grabbed by a stranger, being called a thief and being taken away from his mother is something I speculate that a child of 5 would remember.

    He far more likely to have remembered his mother shouting and screaming blue murder at the shop staff. Give him a packet of crisps and he'd not give a damn about it any more, unless the mother kept on reminding him about it and training him to be distressed and offended about the incident and feeling that his good character had been damaged and that the best way to solve very minor disagreements or misunderstandings is to go to court.


  • #66
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    sesna wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    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.

    This says a lot about you, you facilitated Insurance fraud and did nothing about it. It's bad enough when some crook does it but when a regular punter like you sees this you in my eyes are worse than that person.
    caseyann wrote: »
    I love this story,hope they sacked that cow who grabbed the poor child aswell :D put hands on my six year old see what happens.

    This is the attitude that has the youth of today the way that they are, I'm not on about slapping kids but with the no consequences attitude that will probably turn your cosseted molly coddled "Child" into a degenerate or hopefully a druggie

    You can't be a friend to your child, you have to be a parent.

    caseyann wrote: »
    That she sued and didnt let them get away with it,good for her.

    You pay for sueing in the long run but you are too narrow minded to see this, why don't you move back to the USA with your attitude.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    lidl staff can be extra unpleasant...ryanair mentality..though we are making millions daily we will pretend to be doing you a favour,

    I hope she gets it, .... :pac:


  • #68
    borderlinemeath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,375 ✭✭✭borderlinemeath


    Have Lidl commented on the incident?
    Nobody has heard their side of the story - only the "distress and inconvenience" of poor little Tadgh. FFS - what 5yr old knows what distress and inconvenience is?

    Lidl don't seem to have handled the situation very well - but we don't know their version of events.

    From a retailers point of view - professional shoplifters and opportunists use their kids all the time to rob stuff. Kids (while they can sue through their parents) they cannot be prosecuted for a crime.

    A coworker of mine used to work for a large sports shop and the branch she worked in was plagued with one particular family who used to come in and put about 6 layers of clothes on their kids and instruct them to run out the door wearing the clothes. One time they caught one of thes kids and got the guards up but they couldn't prosecute and just had to let him go.

    It really is compo culture at its best - an opportunistic parent and a bemused child.


  • #69
    yoshytoshy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭yoshytoshy


    I was stopped/grabbed a hold of and virtually strip searched in a carrefour in spain ,it was pretty embarrasing and I didn't have a clue what was going on.
    Turns out there was a tag still on something I'd bought a few days before and it was still active. Had a laugh about it and walked off.

    If someone grabbed hold of a kid of mine though,I'd deck them.


  • #70
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    up for anything wrote: »
    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 :D). 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.

    Yes it is always about the money. Thats the reason you got the hamper, to avoid paying you much more money. Fact is all people are warned about riding in trolleys so you probably would have no case, thats why they didn't respond, they had no fear of losing money. If they got involved and said something wrong then they may lose money.


  • #71
    gaz wac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    gizmo wrote: »
    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.


    And? 5 year olds can't steal?


    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.


    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.

    Your reading the article from an english paper, im listing to the woman in question, who was on the radio yesterday morning..now tell me,who is going to be more precise ? :rolleyes:

    The clerk grabbed his arm, this is bodily harm, which is assault !! They held him in the store, without his mother and against his will, again, this is against the law.

    As reguards to the payout...thats what a Judge decided !!! Are you saying he is wrong ?

    also I forgot to say, she didnt want to sue, she told the manager that all she wanted was an apology..but Lidl never gave her one !


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    Ann22 wrote: »
    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.

    Always tell the truth about any possible injury in an accident. Insurance companies love ripping off the likes of your hubby.

    One day he will have a real accident and get nothing.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055160926


  • #73
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    Head The Wall wrote: »
    You pay for sueing in the long run but you are too narrow minded to see this, why don't you move back to the USA with your attitude.

    No you don't. Dead simple economics.

    Sale = cost + profit
    Shareholders (Owner) gets profit.

    Training = bad = sued.
    Sale = cost + profit + sued
    Shop closes as uncompetitive.
    We win as poor business is gone.
    or
    Training = bad = sued.
    Sale = cost + profit
    Shareholders (Owner) loses money.
    Shareholders (Owner) trains to ensure does not lose money again.
    We win as poor business is now a good business.

    Essentially if a business can only be competitive through poor practice (training) then good riddance in my opinion.


  • #74
    Ticktactoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 765 ✭✭✭Ticktactoe


    Drake66 wrote: »
    Why pray tell? Are children incapable of remembering being grabbed by a stranger and being called a thief?


    Most likely because what would happen is the child would turn to its responsible parent for guidance. The responsible parent would then explain the situation to the child which would put the child at ease and the child runs off happily with its packet of chips.

    Its not rocket science - children look to their parent/s for guidance and reassurance and if the parents show content then the child is content.

    Im sure the child is more distressed over the fact that mammy was in the shop probably shouting SUE SUE at the staff.


  • #75
    gaz wac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    Ticktactoe wrote: »
    Im sure the child is more distressed over the fact that mammy was in the shop probably shouting SUE SUE at the staff.

    She wasent, just edited my post. This was done at a later stage


  • #76
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Yes because only bad companies get sued:rolleyes:, take off the blinkers. It's not just a bad companies insurance that goes up, insurance providers realise this could potentially be a claim in every premises and everyones insurance will be increased.

    Same way we are all paying more motor and home insurance now even though we haven't claimed. Everyone pays in the long run


  • #77
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    Head The Wall wrote: »
    Yes because only bad companies get sued:rolleyes:, take off the blinkers. It's not just a bad companies insurance that goes up, insurance providers realise this could potentially be a claim in every premises and everyones insurance will be increased.

    Same way we are all paying more motor and home insurance now even though we haven't claimed. Everyone pays in the long run

    Seems the capitalists have made you believe the bull about not suing companies that wrong you.

    Do you think for one moment that these companies do not sue each other when wronged? Do you believe they don't sue individuals when wronged? I worked in a cafe called 'Planet Hollybush' - the name of the town was Hollybush, how long do you think it took to be sued?

    These very businesses that you argue need protecting are the first to run to the courts. Capitalism demands it.


  • #78
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    gaz wac wrote: »
    Your reading the article from an english paper, im listing to the woman in question, who was on the radio yesterday morning..now tell me,who is going to be more precise ? :rolleyes:
    Given the action taken, I'd be inclined to believe the paper a lot more than the woman.
    gaz wac wrote: »
    The clerk grabbed his arm, this is bodily harm, which is assault !! They held him in the store, without his mother and against his will, again, this is against the law.
    Why do I feel that you're the kind of person who believes in "emotional distress" when it comes to these kind of court cases.
    gaz wac wrote: »
    As reguards to the payout...thats what a Judge decided !!! Are you saying he is wrong ?
    Yes, I'm saying he's completely wrong. I'm also saying the mother was completely wrong and the clerk was completely wrong. What I'm also saying is that the entire situation could have been resolved with a proper apology from the shop/clerk. If one was not forthcoming from the clerk then they could have received a verbal warning from their boss. The woman did not need or deserve the money, the boy did need or deserve the money and Lidl sure as hell won't care about €6,000 in the long run. The only "winner" here was the mother, nothing will change except we have another example of this culture of litigation infecting this country.
    gaz wac wrote: »
    also I forgot to say, she didnt want to sue, she told the manager that all she wanted was an apology..but Lidl never gave her one !
    Did she ****. According to a poster above, she was offered a smaller settlement from the store and refused it, instead wanting to go through the courts for more money. You think the store would have offered her money had they not tried apologising first?


  • #79
    gaz wac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    gizmo wrote: »
    Given the action taken, I'd be inclined to believe the paper a lot more than the woman.

    :rolleyes: I stopped reading at this point !!!


  • #80
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    gizmo wrote: »
    Given the action taken, I'd be inclined to believe the paper a lot more than the woman.
    gaz wac wrote: »
    :rolleyes: I stopped reading at this point !!!

    Congratulations. I believe a certain postmistress from Donegal would love more supporters like you.


  • #81
    gaz wac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    I know the case. She didnt follow the rules, she got sacked. Staff member in Lidl, not only didnt follow the rules, but also broke the law...the victim was justifed in suing !! Pity you cant see this !!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Imhof Tank
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Imhof Tank


    Jealousy and begrudgery are alive and well obviously.

    Perhaps if we had more people asserting their legal rights, the corporates might start to pay more attention to their own negligence and recklessness cultures.

    Whenever a case likes this gets publicity you can depend on the “political correctness gone mad” brigade to come out with their talk about how it wouldn’t even cross their mind to bring a compo claim if it happened to them, and people who do are screwing the rest of us, etc. Many of the posts on this thread are along these lines.

    Retailers only have themselves to blame for these cases. And when you hear about how its “impossible” to be 100% sure of whether someone is thieving – take that as retailer’s code for we couldn’t be bothered investing in proper training and equipment to improve our systems –its cheaper to just do the job half right and pay out the occasional €7500 plus costs to the odd 6 year old you falsely imprison.

    And incidentally, the €7500 was an offer from Lidl – not an award from the judge (he just had to approve it as in all minor’s cases); and the money gets lodged in court until the child reaches 18 – so don’t worry gizmo, the cash wont be financing whatever celebrations you might imagine the mother is planning for the weekend.


  • #83
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Does the kid get the €7000 or the parents who would probably blow it all on a foreign holiday?

    EDIT - Just read the above post


  • #84
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Does the kid get the €7000 or the parents who would probably blow it all on a foreign holiday?

    usually what happens is that the parent sues on behalf of the child and the money is then released when the kid is 18. not sure if thats a legal requirement though

    edit: i just read the above also


  • #85
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    gaz wac wrote: »
    I know the case. She didnt follow the rules, she got sacked. Staff member in Lidl, not only didnt follow the rules, but also broke the law...the victim was justifed in suing !! Pity you cant see this !!
    Yes, but in the context of your previous reply, she too is hoping people "listen to her" rather than looking at what actually happened or what is being reported.

    As for agreeing with you on the latter issue, the simple fact is, I don't believe this child was a victim in a manner which justified a court case and such a pay out. The fact that people are going on about false imprisonment etc... is completely besides the point since the action taken was one for Defamation. As the Times article put it...
    In defamation proceedings against Lidl Ireland Ltd, the court was told that Tadhg, who is now aged six, had been caused to suffer distress, inconvenience and injury to his credit and reputation.

    If the assault and false imprisonment were so bad why didn't she sue on those grounds? One can only assume that they were inconsequential but the above criteria appears to be a far easier one to sue on these days.
    Imhof Tank wrote: »
    And incidentally, the €7500 was an offer from Lidl – not an award from the judge (he just had to approve it as in all minor’s cases); and the money gets lodged in court until the child reaches 18 – so don’t worry gizmo, the cash wont be financing whatever celebrations you might imagine the mother is planning for the weekend.
    Fantastic, so now when the kid turns 18 he's going to get a nice cash payout for an event which occurred 13 years previously which he probably won't even remember. And that's justice? Sorry but I just can't agree with that.:o


  • #86
    Imhof Tank
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Imhof Tank


    gizmo wrote: »

    Fantastic, so now when the kid turns 18 he's going to get a nice cash payout for an event which occurred 13 years previously which he probably won't even remember. And that's justice? Sorry but I just can't agree with that.:o

    Yes, that is justice - the courts deal in euros and cents, they cant turn back time and undo these incidents.

    Lidl messed up, they inflicted damage on a kid, they have to pay for it and they know they do and accept it an an occupatuional hazard in their business.

    If Lidl were to get way with this sort of thing scot free - now that would be an injustice


  • #87
    gaz wac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭gaz wac


    gizmo wrote: »
    Yes, but in the context of your previous reply, she too is hoping people "listen to her" rather than looking at what actually happened or what is being reported.

    She needs " people to listen" to her cos there was no one around, there was numerious of wittness to the lidl case

    As for agreeing with you on the latter issue, the simple fact is, I don't believe this child was a victim in a manner which justified a court case and such a pay out. The fact that people are going on about false imprisonment etc... is completely besides the point since the action taken was one for Defamation. As the Times article put it...

    If the assault and false imprisonment were so bad why didn't she sue on those grounds? One can only assume that they were inconsequential but the above criteria appears to be a far easier one to sue on these days.

    Maybe they had too much incriminating all ready..:P


    Fantastic, so now when the kid turns 18 he's going to get a nice cash payout for an event which occurred 13 years previously which he probably won't even remember. And that's justice? Sorry but I just can't agree with that.:o

    Now your getting it...we could be here all day , lets agree to disagree :)

    dont know how to multi quote


  • #88
    Micheal Wrong Victory
    Posts: 6,645 ✭✭✭ Micheal Wrong Victory


    Fair play to the little fella and his mam. I'm sick of stuff like this happening. About a year ago, I was in Tesco and as usual the self scan machines were faulty. I asked for help 2 or 3 times and was ignored, so I went to the checkout girl who was beckoning me to her till and paid there. As I was walking across the car park, this manager type ran out and said 'you didn't pay for your items!' I went to the checkout, and then she started giving out at me for not waiting for assistance. :confused: Why the hell should I? I asked 3 times. I used the self service thing cos I was in a hurry. I did nothing wrong. Like, if she'd even said 'sorry, just checking that you did pay', I wouldn't have minded, but no, she out and out accuses me of being a thief. And I'm 99.9% sure it's because I look foreign, because I cannot see that happening to a well dressed young blonde woman, I really can't. Once she heard the Irish accent, she dropped her 'you're a thief' attitude pretty fast. I told her I would be reporting her but I never did get around to it. Really wish I had now.


  • #89
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    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

    The staff were just doing their job and they made a mistake.

    This was not defamation and in no way was that child's reputation damaged IMO.

    The child was 6, I'm sure he'd forgotton all about it as soon as he was home munching his crisps.


  • #90
    Micheal Wrong Victory
    Posts: 6,645 ✭✭✭ Micheal Wrong Victory


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    The staff were just doing their job and they made a mistake.

    This was not defamation and in no way was that child's reputation damaged IMO.

    The child was 6, I'm sure he'd forgotton all about it as soon as he was home munching his crisps.

    It's bloody mortifying for an adult, let alone a little kid. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? There are way too many power tripping employees going around accusing people of things with no proof. You can't even eat a bag of crisps now without someone assuming you nicked them?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    ch750536 wrote: »
    Seems the capitalists have made you believe the bull about not suing companies that wrong you.

    These very businesses that you argue need protecting are the first to run to the courts. Capitalism demands it.

    You're believing your own bull that you know what I am thinking. I don't know where you got the notion either that I said these businesses need protecting.

    The end result of all this is the customer pays in the long run every time
    gaz wac wrote: »
    :rolleyes: I stopped reading at this point !!!

    Thats how a 6 year old child goes on when they don't like what they hear.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement