I WON on a self service checkout!

mistercrabb said:
You realize that when Asda notice the discrepancy they are going to go straight to the CCTV, don't you?
Click to expand...

That'll not do any good unless they can prove he actually received double change. All the CCTV will show is him using the self service checkout.
its not like the checkout itself is going to record giving out double the change with a time-stamp is it, as far as its concerned it was doing its job correctly.
 
One time I got a can of Coke out of a Soda machine & they just kept coming, prob. all the Cokes in the machine came out. That was nice on a 95+ f day, to get some free cans of Coke.
 
Last edited:
Haha awesome :p

I found that someone had left £10 in the self-checkout tills and I gave it to the security guard which was watching me without thinking - But as I left I knew what I had done... He blatantly just took the £10 :p
 
It might not be theft, reason I think this Is because if you fi to a petrol station, fill up and then go to the cashier with a bag of crisps and give them 70p, if this goes unchallenged its not theft - you have made a reasonable attempt of payment.

The police will simply say its a civil matter and the store would need to start civil proceedings against you. I would think however, removing someone's change is theft though.

Op's situation is very similar to the petrol station scenario, its not theft, who is he to argue if the store wants to give him some money?
 
OP's behavior was right on the cusp for me. I'd say he just comes in on the right side of "acceptable" :) I bet over the years he's lost money to supermarkets by being short-changed, overcharged, etc, without even knowing it. I'd call it karma and not lose any sleep over it, personally.
 
mattyfez said:
It might not be theft, reason I think this Is because if you fi to a petrol station, fill up and then go to the cashier with a bag of crisps and give them 70p, if this goes unchallenged its not theft - you have made a reasonable attempt of payment.

The police will simply say its a civil matter and the store would need to start civil proceedings against you. I would think however, removing someone's change is theft though.

Op's situation is very similar to the petrol station scenario, its not theft, who is he to argue if the store wants to give him some money?
Click to expand...

When would that work? I don't recall once ever going up to an attendant with something and him/her not saying, 'Any fuel with that?' ... naturally if you say no, then it is theft. Also, handing over simply 70pence when you may have filled up an #80 tank is not considered a 'reasonable attempt of payment' ...

Honestly, I've never bought something in a petrol station without them asking what pump number or at the very least, 'Any fuel sir?'
 
mattyfez said:
It might not be theft, reason I think this Is because if you fi to a petrol station, fill up and then go to the cashier with a bag of crisps and give them 70p, if this goes unchallenged its not theft - you have made a reasonable attempt of payment.

The police will simply say its a civil matter and the store would need to start civil proceedings against you. I would think however, removing someone's change is theft though.

Op's situation is very similar to the petrol station scenario, its not theft, who is he to argue if the store wants to give him some money?
Click to expand...

The theft thing is a little awkward, although in your example the behaviour would actually be caught by s.3 of the Theft Act 1979 (which was enacted mostly to cover petrol station thefts). You can still be a thief anyway notwithstanding that you are willing to pay for goods - it depends on if you have a dishonest state of mind. If you genuinely thought that the petrol attendant was satisfied with the debt by paying 70p then it would just be a civil matter. But let's be realistic - you know you are being dishonest and have paid only for the crisps, not the petrol.

However, regardless of the theft argument the OP has made a false representation to dishonestly make a gain for himself, which is fraud pursuant to s.2(1) Fraud Act 2006. No way out of that one if the offence were charged and the facts as he has admitted proved.
 
I'm a ********. Back in school the can machines always used to break, they'd empty themselves, you'd put in 60p for one can and it keep giving you cans until it was empty. 3 or 4 of us used to fill our bags up with cans whenever that'd happen.
 
23JMZ07 said:
OP is a
b3r9eb.jpg
5bd4hv.jpg
Click to expand...

or a

tearo.jpg
leafo.jpg



:D
 
Nikias said:
The theft thing is a little awkward, although in your example the behaviour would actually be caught by s.3 of the Theft Act 1979 (which was enacted mostly to cover petrol station thefts). You can still be a thief anyway notwithstanding that you are willing to pay for goods - it depends on if you have a dishonest state of mind. If you genuinely thought that the petrol attendant was satisfied with the debt by paying 70p then it would just be a civil matter. But let's be realistic - you know you are being dishonest and have paid only for the crisps, not the petrol.

However, regardless of the theft argument the OP has made a false representation to dishonestly make a gain for himself, which is fraud pursuant to s.2(1) Fraud Act 2006. No way out of that one if the offence were charged and the facts as he has admitted proved.
Click to expand...


The dishonest state of mind argument is nullified when the cctv shows you walking up to the pay point and 'paying' it wouldn't stand up to argue theft (my friend used to manage a petrol station and this is his experience) the police review the footage, and decide its not worth perusing. Driving off without attempting to pay IS a different matter.

I'm not sure I buy the fraud Argument either, he's just going about his business and buying some food, if he gets too much change, well, that's hardly fraud is it. It could be construed as fraud, but you would need to prove intent.. repeat visits to the machine may well prove intent, but it certainly wouldn't wash for a single occurrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom