Client walked out without paying
- Thread starter jemfox
- Start date
Help Support SalonGeek:
So weird, why didn't she just pay straight away? Did she say why? Glad it's all sorted though [emoji106] x
She said that when she went to her car to get her card it had been broken into! [emoji33] Apparently her head has been a mess all week trying to sort it out.
Funny how she had time to post 3/4 statuses on Facebook every day since, none of which mentioning this, also checking in to a gym just a few hours later. Also it was a very flat and open, public, packed car park at 3pm that this happened.
But hey, I guess she was always going to use some excuse! I think she was hoping to get away without paying, phone call from the police must have scared her into paying!
willowrose
Well-Known Member
@AcidPerm It wasn't theft from a legal perspective it was deferred payment which is a civil matter.
Because the client said "oh dear I've forgotten my card I'll go get it & come back" they accepted they owed money & simply deferred payment.
If they had bolted from the building without saying anything it would be classed as making off without payment which is theft. It may sound silly but it's different legally & if you didn't know a policeperson it would not be a police matter.
Whether it's 9 or 900 makes a big difference for 2 reasons:
Most police forces have a guideline of £20 minimum for reporting theft and anything less is to be logged internally. I have community police handbooks for 4 London boroughs and it's the same in all of them.
Secondly any theft of goods under £200 is classed as low value shoplifting. These are summary offences which means the police handle prosecution internally rather than the cps.
I know the issue is resolved but I thought I'd answer the points raised.
Whilst it's nice the 9 quid was recovered the inappropriate police involvement is unfortunately another case of nepotism.
Because the client said "oh dear I've forgotten my card I'll go get it & come back" they accepted they owed money & simply deferred payment.
If they had bolted from the building without saying anything it would be classed as making off without payment which is theft. It may sound silly but it's different legally & if you didn't know a policeperson it would not be a police matter.
Whether it's 9 or 900 makes a big difference for 2 reasons:
Most police forces have a guideline of £20 minimum for reporting theft and anything less is to be logged internally. I have community police handbooks for 4 London boroughs and it's the same in all of them.
Secondly any theft of goods under £200 is classed as low value shoplifting. These are summary offences which means the police handle prosecution internally rather than the cps.
I know the issue is resolved but I thought I'd answer the points raised.
Whilst it's nice the 9 quid was recovered the inappropriate police involvement is unfortunately another case of nepotism.
'Inappropriate police involvement'?!
I asked their advice and they acted. In fact, it wasn't actually the client who followed this up for me it was her colleague.
CocoAllure
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you got the right support and a happy ending.. Hope her cars alright lol [emoji43]
All interesting points, but I'll have to disagree. My husband used to work as a special police officer, and he says the situation is definitely legally classed as theft. It wasn't deferred payment, as the client never actually gave a specific time she would be back with payment; quite the opposite, she ignored all contact from the OP when trying to chase up the payment. She got a service and did not pay, it's criminal theft.
Same sort of thing as when people get in to a taxi, and then at the end of their journey, do not pay. It's theft, and certainly round here, police will deal with this as its a criminal matter.
It would however become a civil matter if the client was not happy with her treatment, then refused to pay. This was not what happened though.
Police are there to serve the public, which is exactly what has been done, really effectively in this case. Definitely not a waste of resources or 'inappropriate police involvement' in my opinion.
willowrose
Well-Known Member
You don't have to give a set time for deferred payment. You have to accept that you owe the money & will ultimately pay.
The case law for your husband to have a look at is Allen, R v (1985) HL - jury verdict quashed on appeal as the judge ruled "making off without payment required an intention to permanently avoid payment".
Been there, done it, recovered the funds the legal way with a solicitor, then mediator, then small claims. I am now paid £3.89 every 2 weeks lol.
ps... "making off without payment" is the official title of the legislation for services theft. You're right that it is the exact piece of legislation used for taxi fare dodging, not paying the dinner bill etc. But it only comes into play when there is no intention to ever pay.
The case law for your husband to have a look at is Allen, R v (1985) HL - jury verdict quashed on appeal as the judge ruled "making off without payment required an intention to permanently avoid payment".
Been there, done it, recovered the funds the legal way with a solicitor, then mediator, then small claims. I am now paid £3.89 every 2 weeks lol.
ps... "making off without payment" is the official title of the legislation for services theft. You're right that it is the exact piece of legislation used for taxi fare dodging, not paying the dinner bill etc. But it only comes into play when there is no intention to ever pay.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 10,907
- Reaction score
- 6,919
[QUOTE="willowrose, post: 2505671, member: 74820"
The case law for your husband to have a look at is Allen, R v (1985) HL - jury verdict quashed on appeal as the judge ruled "making off without payment required an intention to permanently avoid payment".
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning.
In R v Allen, the defendant left his Passport at the hotel as security for the debt.
Thereby, failing the test for 'intention to permanently deprive' as it's clear that he would want to retrieve the passport at some point.
As far as I understand from the OP, the client didn't offer to leave any security, did a runner and didn't make any attempt to respond to the repeated requests for payment.
The case law for your husband to have a look at is Allen, R v (1985) HL - jury verdict quashed on appeal as the judge ruled "making off without payment required an intention to permanently avoid payment".
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning.
In R v Allen, the defendant left his Passport at the hotel as security for the debt.
Thereby, failing the test for 'intention to permanently deprive' as it's clear that he would want to retrieve the passport at some point.
As far as I understand from the OP, the client didn't offer to leave any security, did a runner and didn't make any attempt to respond to the repeated requests for payment.
willowrose
Well-Known Member
It's not the circumstance that matters, the case law created is the judge stating "making off without payment required an intention to permanently avoid payment".
This is legally interpreted that those who admit they owe a debt & will pay but are deferring payment are not stealing the service.
Maybe she would never have paid. But that wasn't what she said. She said she would return with payment which is deferring payment & a civil issue.
Services theft is very wriggly. It isn't the same as stealing a physical product & the parameters for legal involvement are extremely narrow.
This is legally interpreted that those who admit they owe a debt & will pay but are deferring payment are not stealing the service.
Maybe she would never have paid. But that wasn't what she said. She said she would return with payment which is deferring payment & a civil issue.
Services theft is very wriggly. It isn't the same as stealing a physical product & the parameters for legal involvement are extremely narrow.
daydreams01
Well-Known Member
Great outcome, it may only have been a small amount but it's the principle that people think they can walk all over you and get away with it. Hope she learnt her lesson and won't be trying that one again in a hurry!
FlawlessBeauty
Well-Known Member
I am so happy at how this turned out and I think it's fantastic that the police were helpful. So much better than brushing you off as a waste of time.
Regardless of the cost, this was theft and why should you work for free? I'm offended at the suggestion you just accept and get over it. That is unfair to you and your clients who do pay for your services. It gives the impression that to skip out on payment and avoid you is ok. It is definitely not ok.
Well done xx
Regardless of the cost, this was theft and why should you work for free? I'm offended at the suggestion you just accept and get over it. That is unfair to you and your clients who do pay for your services. It gives the impression that to skip out on payment and avoid you is ok. It is definitely not ok.
Well done xx
motherbird
Well-Known Member
Jemfox I'm delighted that the person who tried to fiddle you didn't get away with it, I'm glad the police were helpful and got you a result, I don't care that it was £9, I'm sorry that it seems to be either so trivial or so complicated that it could be thought to be better to let it go, or that it may have ended up that way. In this case it was a positive result and I'm sorry that seems to have caused issue. It seems you can't win.
The police officer just called me again to ask if she had paid which was great for him to follow up.
Apparently, she told him that she had called us to say she would be coming the next day to pay as she urgently had to leave due to problems with her ex boyfriend who had hacked her phone?!!
Yet we got the broken in car story [emoji23]
Policeman also kindly said that he would let her know on our behalf that she's not welcome back.
What an amazing result!
Apparently, she told him that she had called us to say she would be coming the next day to pay as she urgently had to leave due to problems with her ex boyfriend who had hacked her phone?!!
Yet we got the broken in car story [emoji23]
Policeman also kindly said that he would let her know on our behalf that she's not welcome back.
What an amazing result!
Grace_Hair
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you have some fab police officers round your way... Maybe he has a soft spot for you?!
*winky face*
Anyway I'm glad that it's all been sorted. And I'm gonna keep this in mind and be careful next time a client forgets their money. I've been lucky so far.
*winky face*
Anyway I'm glad that it's all been sorted. And I'm gonna keep this in mind and be careful next time a client forgets their money. I've been lucky so far.
pinknsparkly
Well-Known Member
Wow lucky you having police officers like that in your area my salon got vandalised causing 10,000 worth of damage a couple of years ago I even gave names of eho did it and the police couldn't have ever cared less I guess as it was too difficult for them to follow up. Had to wait months for my insurance to come through wish we had police like that around here!
Im glad you got the money & it was resolved but do think you were very lucky to get the help from the police that you did (an unfortunate sign of the times!) I cant help thinking that as you knew the officer you first spoke to, this helped it be taken seriously... I too have had cars, money & property damaged & the police were no help at all...
I think in this case it was more a case of 'its who you know...' That said, i dont believe it was a waste of resources, more a case of you were lucky to get their help!
Id never book her back in, as it seems the daft bnt would have the brass neck to try & book an appointment again in future Xx
I think in this case it was more a case of 'its who you know...' That said, i dont believe it was a waste of resources, more a case of you were lucky to get their help!
Id never book her back in, as it seems the daft bnt would have the brass neck to try & book an appointment again in future Xx
