Civil demand letter wants big money for little junk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Default judgment because a suit DID HAPPEN. I agree its unlikely but there are new firms who have jumped into the Civil Demand market and want to make a name so the risk is higher even if slightly. In addition there are firms like Palmer and Reifler who have always been aggressive at collecting these funds. The law is not exactly toothless! Its up to OP to decide if he/she wants to take this risk. Your stance is to ignore the law put there to actually reduce cost to retailers so its not passed on the store staff or law abiding consumers.
 
In that case not only did the suit happen, it apparently happened after the SOL and could have been stopped in its tracks. Perhaps if proper notice wasn't given that person could find a way out of it, but he likely got himself into that mess by ignoring a summons. Ignoring a summons is quite different than ignoring collection letters.

By the time the collection company took action it was long out of the store's hands. I'd bet they only moved forward after mail was returned and they saw an easy and uncontested default judgment. The slightest hint of contest would stop them because it isn't profitable to hash out in court. For small amounts.

Even if a collection company should file in court on time it doesn't mean doom for the accused. The filing is often another scare tactic. Defend and they fail to show. Ignore them and they swoop in for a default judgment. It makes no financial sense to do it otherwise.

Yes, the civil demand laws are toothless because there is no penalty for completely ignoring the demand. They are also totally unnecessary because retailers could bring the same action in court without the law. There are no teeth until the judge weighs in and issues an order.
 
shrinkmaster said:
Your stance is to ignore the law put there to actually reduce cost to retailers so its not passed on the store staff or law abiding consumers.
Click to expand...

My stance is not to ignore the law (quite different than ignoring a fancy letter), it is to demand due process and protect civil liberties. Civil demand laws do not require the accused to take any action and do not obligate the accused to pay one penny of any demanded amount. My stance is and always has been to wait until required to act, or at least wait until some cards are shown, before giving in to any demand. History has shown further legal action is incredibly unlikely, and if further steps are taken it can still be dealt with reasonably if responded to appropriately.
 
Last edited:
Insanely inflated is a matter of perspective. If they lose $350k per year due to theft, pay 3 fulltime employees for their theft detection program, have to install and maintain security cameras, monitoring banks, recording banks, item sensors, item sensor activation/deactivation equipment and pay cashiers to deactivate the theft protections and stock personnel to activate them. It seems like a bargain to me.
 
I guess this bares repeating. the cost of Civil Demand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COST OF ITEMS TAKEN! It is about the cost to protect store from theft! MM more than others should understand that. It can cost $100,000.00 or more just in payroll to prevent theft not without equipment, training etc put in. Its not inflated because it has nothing to do with cost of items taken.
In the case referenced (by me) the SOL did not run out because we don't know! We have no idea when the OP was attempted to be served or if they used proper means to do so. A Judge should have thrown case out if OP was not served properly or if SOL ran out. In fact if that be the case he should appeal ruling
Ok so Civil Demand is not binding because no court has ruled. We might as well say murder is ok long as you are not convicted in court.
I have sought out some of these firms and spoken with them on some of these issues. They take action much more often than you think. We here on forums see but a fraction of the people sent letters. Where a small amount actually pay action is taken more often than one thinks. They of course could not speak in exacts but said if was fair to say that over 50% of those who ignore Civil Demand find themselves subject to further action or actions by Legal firm and/or retailer and a fair amount of those wind up paying so there is a benefit.
As a law abiding citizen I do not care to pay for theft by paying higher prices nor do I want retail staff to suffer reductions to pay for theft prevention. I actually offer low or no cost tools to prevent theft for retailers who cannot or do not wish to pay large sums for theft protection. Disagreeable post some numbers ( thank you) let me give some others. The average shoplifter will get away with theft 48 out of every 49 attempts. The average theft is about $100.00. The National stats for lost from shoplifting alone (not the biggest bulk either) is 15 billion with a B.
 
I think we all agree that any theft is illegal.
No one should steal, including employees who steal far more than the garden variety thief.
Internal theft by employees far exceeds external theft by non-employee thieves.

Yes, we acknowledge that stores who have been victimized by thieves have the right to send demand letters.
So, send them, no one has argued they can't send a demand letter.
The issue is bigger than some idiot stealing make up or tools.
It's about due process.
It's also, in the end, a civil matter.
Go to court, get a judgment, then try to collect that judgment from a deadbeat.
Or, prosecute ALL thieves to the fullest extent of the law.
For years, that worked. Then some genius figures out the civil demand angle.
It's far less effective than pursuing the criminal prosecution of all thieves.
A criminal court matter comes with restitution for the victim.
In fact, the state even assists in collecting that restitution in cash, or from the hide of the convicted thief.
Far more effective, due process is preserved, so why on earth is a civil demand better?
Because a few unscrupulous scammers can try to get themselves paid for collecting off the pain of the merchant.

We once upon a time had a great country.
The founders and those who followed them showed us the way.
All we've done today leads to losing our way.

Let's agree to disagree.
We don't agree on civil demand laws, but that doesn't matter. No one asked me, nor was my approval sought.

Why not prosecute all thieves, no matter how cheap the item, prosecute them all. Send a message that would get the attention of some thieves, stop stealing.

But, don't try to circumvent due process. Even the IRS can't do that, so why should some unscrupulous collection agency be empowered to scare money out of people?

Frankly, the thieves aren't paying, either by criminal conviction or money order. The thieves are still stealing. Maybe the store security agents need to do a better job or protecting the stuff on offer. I do know that prosecuting thieves does reduce their proclivity to steal, Walmart once proved that with a zero tolerance policy.
 
disagreeable said:
Insanely inflated is a matter of perspective. If they lose $350k per year due to theft, pay 3 fulltime employees for their theft detection program, have to install and maintain security cameras, monitoring banks, recording banks, item sensors, item sensor activation/deactivation equipment and pay cashiers to deactivate the theft protections and stock personnel to activate them. It seems like a bargain to me.
Click to expand...

A shoplifter is responsible for his or her actions alone, not the collective loss due to others or expenses the retailer made prior to an incident. If these sort of losses are included in a civil demand it is all the more reason to fight it in court. The laws are rather specific about what damages may be claimed.
 
shrinkmaster said:
I guess this bares repeating. the cost of Civil Demand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COST OF ITEMS TAKEN! It is about the cost to protect store from theft .
Click to expand...

Not true, at least in the case of the New York statute. It specifically limits the demand to 5x the retail value of the item or $75, whichever is greater. Cost of protection of the store is not even addressed in the statute. That might be an argument to make in court if it should ever get that far, but those costs have no business being on the initial demand and absolutely should not be paid if demanded since the law does not permit it.
 
Last edited:
shrinkmaster said:
In the case referenced (by me) the SOL did not run out because we don't know! We have no idea when the OP was attempted to be served or if they used proper means to do so. A Judge should have thrown case out if OP was not served properly or if SOL ran out. In fact if that be the case he should appeal ruling.
Click to expand...

We do not know that the SOL did not run out either. With the dates given it appears very possible it had. The court would not dismiss the case due to SOL or improper service unless that party was in court to make that argument. That is why it is called a default judgment. Hopefully that person was able to find some recourse after the fact if something was done improperly.
 
shrinkmaster said:
Ok so Civil Demand is not binding because no court has ruled. We might as well say murder is ok long as you are not convicted in court.
Click to expand...

No. Criminal law provides specific penalties for homicide. There is no penalty for failing to pay a civil demand. Let's not cross civil and criminal law.
 
army judge said:
Or, prosecute ALL thieves to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

That is what should happen every single time. If a person pays their demand then maybe the store can consider asking the DA to not prosecute the offense. By not involving law enforcement there is no real mechanism in place to ensure there is a penalty of some kind, and stores actually contribute to the problem by allowing so many to walk away.
 
I wonder if a truce should be called & agree to disagree (or some such thing) & the people receiving civil demand letters will have to make their own decisions whether to pay or not.
 
You do realize how foolish this statement and the the subsequent one sound don't you? You just corroborated the law assigned a factor to cover extraneous costs associated with providing loss prevention activities.

mightymoose said:
A shoplifter is responsible for his or her actions alone, not the collective loss due to others or expenses the retailer made prior to an incident. If these sort of losses are included in a civil demand it is all the more reason to fight it in court. The laws are rather specific about what damages may be claimed.
Click to expand...
 
I believe my comments are in line with the 11-105 statute. The only penalty set for the civil demand is based on the retail value of the items taken. Whether that amount is intended as punitive toward the shoplifter or is intended to recoup extra costs is debatable. Perhaps it is both. Adding additional costs for cameras, staff, other shoplifters etc is beyond what the statute allows. Perhaps that claim could be made in a separate action, but not under the civil demand prior to any court hearing. Inflating the demand in such a way would give the accused a valid reason to not pay it and would likely protect them from incurring additional costs if dragged into court.
Example- according to the statute a person is to pay a $90 civil demand. The store/collection agency sends a demand letter for $250 instead. This happens regularly.
Perhaps statutes in other states are written differently to allow this, but New York does not.
 
Last edited:
mightymoose said:
I believe that is always the case.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say - it's the people's decision anyway whether to pay/they will have to make their own decision whether to pay so why continue this thread forever. It also doesn't seem like any of the responders' minds are going to be changed re their opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top