a two dollar key chain
Complaint
GLORIA LESTER
Country: United States
My 16 year oldwas in spencer's at the mall looking at the key chains,when herfriend called her attention to someone walking bythe store.Daughterhad key chain on finger went to talk to friend.An employee ran up to her yelling stealing stealing,The mall cops were called and she was taken to the office.detective told me I would receive a letter from juvenile on when to go to court.I received a letter today saying settlement offer at the top of page.It says"Upon reasonable cause, notice is given of Spence Gift's demand for paymentof damagesin the amount of 150.00arising out of your alledged theft of property owned by SPENCERGIFTS.Code51-10-6,you further notified that if the amount is not paidor an agreement to its payment is not reachedwithin 30 days Spencer GIFTS may bring an action against you for such an amount plus attourney's fees and court cost".Now I wasn't there so what do I know?Is this LEGIT OR NOT?called detective that got her and he said wait for letter from juvenile for court.Please what do I do?
Comments
Although your daughter may have exercised poor judgement, it doesn't sound like she had any intent to steal anything. Presumably she didn't even go running off to try to avoid getting caught. Even if it does go to court, it's not clear the outcome will be any better for paying them off, nor is it likely you would be running up high legal bills in her defense. The mall detective is probably out of this loop, and it may or may not even be the store's decision whether it goes to court, regardless of whether you pay them off.
This shows up:
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/retaile ... egal_extortion/
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423589910
According to the WSJ article, they sidestep protections against deceptive collection in the FDCPA that apply to debt collectors, since they claim this is a "tort", an issue of "damages". The deception is still present, as apparently they seldom actually sue, even though they are implying they will, even though they emphasise the possible costs of attorney fees if they did sue.
There is no guarantee that if they did sue, that a court would award them the "damages" they claim ($150 on a $2 keychain taken inadvertently, and immediately returned), or their "attorney fees". In fact, if a debt collector wrote a letter like this, to collect on a consumer debt, they could probably be sued by the consumer under FDCPA or equivalent state laws. They carefully avoid calling it a "debt", instead calling it "damages". Just because FDCPA may not apply doesn't mean the letter is any less deceptive.
Although they are implying by sending this letter that something will happen if you don't pay them off, it is not clear that if you do pay them, it will make any difference in the end, except that you will be #150 poorer. Whatever shoplifting case there is may or may not go forward, regardless of whether you pay them or not, and even if it did, it still probably wouldn't affect whether they sued, as apparently they seldom do. They would probably run into trouble saying, for example, "pay us or we will prosecute you", and they have carefully avoided saying that.
It's basically a deceptive "shakedown" or con.
Note, I am NOT an attorney, just a student of deceptive scams.
You need to do the homework yourself and not trust a stranger b/c other opinions prevail on other websites.
Confusion and obfuscation are integral parts of deception, as they act to deny reliable alternative sources of information that might counter the deceptive storyline.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120347031996578719.html
For example:
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-736-8850
http://www.lawknowledge.org/criminal-law-procedure/53701/
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/palmer--rei ... rs---23234.html
http://sfcriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html
Note that this employee is specifically NOT accused of theft, and indeed there is no evidence or proof of any theft by employee or even that rental equipment went missing while he was on duty, only that they don't know what happened to some rental equipment weeks earlier, and supposedly this employee might have checked better although he had had no training in company procedure in this area when he was asked to handle rentals. It may even have disappeared AFTER it was checked in, outside of the control of this employee.
Home Depot attempts to recover their "loss" (if any), by firing the employee, disputing the unemployement claim (which dispute they lost in court after withholding the alleged tape on which they claim to have based their decision), then a year later trying using R,P&A to "shakedown" their ex-employee.
Numerous problems with California labor law, and doesn't even fit within "civil recovery" laws, yet here comes P,R&A, just like any other debt collector, making unsubstantiated demands.
Even if the employee was negligent in signing in equipment, California labor law generally does not allow recovery from the employee of employer losses for such errors where the employee didn't actually take anything. That is the employer's risk, they had control over and chose how they would handle it, and they have the obligation to take such prudent actions (like training?) necessary to protect their interests.
Note P,R&A only shows up a year later, after CA labor law SOL passes (1 year). Real clever.
Also note that similar cases often arise in employee fraud and theft cases where other employees or management more familiar with the system take advantage of that knowledge to steal and stick some new or inexperienced employee with it. One indicator of such possible fraud is the presence of sloppy controls and training.
Those indicators of conditions conducive to internal fraud are present here: 1) Asked on short notice to handle task without normal training (why?) 2) new loss control personnel (why? What did the old ones do/fail to do?), 3) investigation of an alleged loss weeks after it supposedly occurred (why?) 4) attempt by the employer to game the unemployement compensation system (reflects on managment competence, similar to (1), (2), and (3), and integrity, indicating deception, 5) refusal to provide access to "tape" (why? Attempt to "bluff" with no obvious need to, further indication of deception).
http://forum.freeadvice.com/debt-collections- ... tes-365606.html
This is nothing BUT a scam. Go to the link about them I'm posting and read the truth about Palmer Scumbag Reifler and assoc. They are a phishing org that sends out approx. 1.2 million of these letters a year. This will tell you everything from an attorney. http://prascare.blogspot.ca/
This is nothing BUT a scam. Go to the link about them I'm posting and read the truth about Palmer Scumbag Reifler and assoc. They are a phishing org that sends out approx. 1.2 million of these letters a year. This will tell you everything from an attorney. http://prascare.blogspot.ca/
I am not paying one dime to this law firm.