using it against PPC's is totally different than a supermarket using it to Keep track of banned people.

Rubbish. Everyone and every company has to comply with the GDPR. If you have any valid response to my points feel free to raise them so the OP has all the info to hand. But making simple statements that a supermarket can do whatever they feel like to keep a list of banned people without compliance with the GDPR is not helping anyone.

Nope youre generalising. They do have to comply with teh data protection regulations, but the names are usually discared after a few months or so. Their lifetime ban is in writing, but they dont store the details indefinitley and nowhere do they suggest it.

They know they wont be able to stop them coming back a few months or years later undetected but they have to show an official line.

No idea why you think they can keep the list indefinitley. I havent said it, and the supermarket will tell you they dont. The letter just there to keep the opportunists in check, not the habitual lifters.

Maybe they do discard the names after a few months. Means nothing. They have not complied with the GDPR even if they keep the details for a couple of hours. Unless they have complied with all the articles I mentioned above.

And I can tell you that the large chains have photographs of listed “offenders” that security use to refer to people that hav3 been banned. Not been tested in court under GDPR yet but won’t be too long.

maybe serial offenders but not one offs.

 

And I can tell you that the large chains have photographs of listed “offenders” that security use to refer to people that hav3 been banned. Not been tested in court under GDPR yet but won’t be too long.

No idea where you got that info bu they dont. They just have a name and address and rely on security staff and store staff to remember. At least like dx says, for habitual ones. For opportunistic offenders, supermarkets prefer to scare them into not doing it again.

No idea where you got that info bu they dont. They just have a name and address and rely on security staff and store staff to remember. At least like dx says, for habitual ones. For opportunistic offenders, supermarkets prefer to scare them into not doing it again.

From a reliable source that works in rlp with some of the large stores. Although in the case of this OP, it’s down to being known by the security and manager.

even the ones that don’t keep photos, as you say keep names and address details. Again the GDPR comes into play, and if they haven’t provided the correct info under the GDPR, and haven’t taken the case-by-case evaluation under the GDPR then the keeping of that name and address list is unlawful.

Thank you. The thing is I do not want to give them more information by writing to them with my full name and address.

And you don't have to

Let those that think it's important do so

Blowing things out of proportion to an individual's case by generalised discussion deserves it's own thread..not here on yours

Give the store a ring and ask to speak to the store manager. It will be sorted one way or the other pretty quickly

Give the store a ring and ask to speak to the store manager. It will be sorted one way or the other pretty quickly

Strange that. In post 21 you stated

”That letter is prob printed off by the security staff and signed by them without any knowledge of management.

All they'll say to store management is ... we caught a shoplifters today and banned them.

That's it.”

The store manager is surely going to just say that the security guard had informed that the op was caught shoplifting, when the OP phones the store manager. Or was post 21 a mistake?

My first post to the OP was based on the fact that the store has given them that letter which states that their details will be recorderd for future court action.

Therefore the OP has the option of a SAR to see exactly what the head office, store manager has been told by the security guard.

It’s the OPs choice to do that and whether to complain to the ICO or the company for breaching the GDPR.

It was meant to offer advice to the OP.

No need for snide remarks from anyone.

you are a wonderful champion of GDPR etc etc

but sometime one needs to weigh up what someone actually states as being 'what was said'

we have not seen the letter...

against what good firing all guns actually does in terms of helping or further the OP's issue ..

9/10 its better to let things die then keep advising posters to get the the pointy stick out..

bit like the numerous threads that say 'the security guard said that RLP will contact me and I must pay a fine to them'...

you are a wonderful champion of GDPR etc etc

but sometime one needs to weigh up what someone actually states as being 'what was said'

we have not seen the letter...

 

against what good firing all guns actually does in terms of helping or further the OP's issue ..

9/10 its better to let things die then keep advising posters to get the the pointy stick out..

 

bit like the numerous threads that say 'the security guard said that RLP will contact me and I must pay a fine to them'...

@dx I would agree with you, except we have seen the letter -

post 15. And it’s not going in all guns blazing. I simply advised the OP as a starting point to do a SAR to see what has been said about them. Nothing more. They could then make the choice as whether to take it further. 9/10 in my experience starting off with the hint to the other side that the have broke the law leads to them dropping the issue like a hot potato. But in the end it’s the OPs choice