Kidnapped by Asda for refusing to Show Receipt on Exit.

[postggj]

when you take civil action against ASDA, Do not let ASDA fob you off saying it is down to the security company who employ the guards, and to take it up with them.

 

ASDA are accountable by means of "vicarious liability" on behalf of its agents (security guards) behavior

[lenny01]

OK a few things, and I'm only speaking from my training and experience and not trying to start an argument with anybody!

 

Unlawful detention vs false imprisonment - Squaddie we are both correct as the criteria for both has been met - however - as somebody has alluded to security officers / loss prevention arrest under PACE 1984 which states that a person other than a constable may arrest without warrant anybody in the act of committing an arrestable offence or has reasonable belief has committed an arrestable offence. (also under SOCPA 2005 substitute arrestable for indictable)

 

Now you and me both know that they didn't have reasonable belief to detain the OP. But what I know is that they will make up some furtive behaviour or action that would give them the 'reasonable belief' something as innocuous as looking behind them etc, this then takes out the 'unlawful detention' part as they have argued that they have detained lawfully.

 

This brings in False Imprisonment 'depriving the victim of freedom of movement without lawful justification to do so' - and any mitigating factor leading to the false imprisonment would fall under the tort of negligence. This is what is claimed at court in the majority of 'false arrest' claims.

 

As a side note, I believe Asda employ their own in house security staff, and although I have met some great people that work for Asda security teams, they are usually ex shelf stackers (no disrespect intended) and woefully undertrained.

 

Whatever the legal standpoint on this is, one thing I will guarantee you is that Asda's own policies and procedures will have been breached big-time.

 

One thing I would do Ian Valentine, is submit a Subject Access Request for the CCTV footage of your incident, from the moment you entered the store, to the moment you left with the police, including footage of the holding room. I would do it now before it accidentally gets 'recorded over'.

[renegadeimp]

But what I know is that they will make up some furtive behaviour or action that would give them the 'reasonable belief' something as innocuous as looking behind them etc, this then takes out the 'unlawful detention' part as they have argued that they have detained lawfully.

 

Still has to be proven. Even if they had a suspicion they would need to show it.

[andrx074]

I cannot claim to be as knowledgeable in this area as lenny01. He certainly seems to have given you some excellent advice that I would hopefully remember if I was in a similar situation. But this thread brings up some very basic principles. The European Convention on Human Rights, backed in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998) shows that articles 5 and 6 have been breached here. The security guards do not seem to have given the reason for your detention and they have presumed you guilty in the absence of you proving your innocence. As for the giving due notice of 'spot checks', I used the self service checkouts today at Ikea. They had very clear signage, boldly written at every till, that they would carry out such checks, I have never seen it in a supermarket.

 

It all brings to mind a conversation I had with my dad (a retired police officer) about police operating road side checks for drink drivers. These too are illegal if they are only doing it to breathalyze you. On TV shows where these checks are being shown they often tell the driver they were slightly over the speed limit, giving them reason to breathalyze, but if they have no proof of wrongdoing you are entitled to refuse without fear of retribution. Simply ask if and why they suspect you of 'committing a moving traffic offence'. It is the same in this instance, ask the question about what they suspect you have done and the proof thereof, when none is forthcoming make to leave (sounds as if there were plenty of witnesses, if they lay their hands on you its common assault.

[lenny01]

Still has to be proven. Even if they had a suspicion they would need to show it.

 

Completely agree, but from experience, you won't believe some of the things the magistrates will accept as showing reasonable belief, hence why I have advised the OP to SAR Asda for the footage.

[Jimmy99]

I was always taught that you could not detain a person until they had left the store and that you had to be 100% certain that they had committed an offence

[lenny01]

I was always taught that you could not detain a person until they had left the store and that you had to be 100% certain that they had committed an offence

 

That's right - that's the industry gold standard if you like, SCONE, 110% certain etc etc - that is what's put in most companies policies and procedures and thats what companies drum into all their security, for fear of legal action against them should they get it wrong, as has happened above.

 

People mistakenly believe that we detain when they leave the store, as there is no offence until they leave, but this is incorrect. This is best practice as it then "completes" the offence, and makes it easier to gain a conviction. You only have to prove that they INTEND to steal. I have gained convictions from arresting people in stores before. Knowing full well they could run faster than me, I arrested after seeing somebody rip a security tag off an item and stuff the item down his jeans, as he walked past the last point of payment, i grabbed him. But, like I said, It's the company gold standard to stick to SCONE.

 

Thats why I believe that Asda's policies will have been breached, and whilst Asda may argue that stopping him was lawful, they cannot defend keeping the OP for an hour in the holding room.

[2Grumpy]

If there was a reason they should have given it when they stopped the OP. Afterwards it's just an excuse thought up to try to justify their actions after the fact

[BazzaS]

Precisely.

SCONE isn't an absolute, but makes it very unlikely you'll put yourself in legal peril by following it.

 

Equally, acting without all the components of SCONE doesn't mean you'll get sued : it just increased the likelyhood you'll drop a clanger, or that you won't be able to defend it if sued for an alledged wrongful/unlawful action.

[2Grumpy]

So how much do we think that the OP should be asking for?

[BazzaS]

Depends what the OP's aim is?

Cash is nice, is a language the firm understands as part of their bottom line, but depends if the OP wants cash, as there are other ways to "make them pay".

 

"Specific performance" is an alternative : an agreement for :

:

a) notices apologising, prominently displayed, for an agreed period at the offending store ?

b) an apology printed in the local paper (agree how close to the front page, how many column inches, minimum font sizes)

c) payment of OP's reasonable costs and a sizeable donation to charity : gives the OP a great comeback ("we'll, actually, I made nothing from it myself, but X charity did") if someone later says "Oh, you were only in it for the money"

 

If they decline the OP's reasonable requests, then, yes, go for the cash. Then the OP can go to local media with the story and say "I wasn't after cash, only a decent apology visible to those who may have seen the events and a donation to charity : but they didn't seem to want to agree"

"I was left with a County Court summons as the only way to get redress."

[renegadeimp]

If you are discussing compensation, then a fully qualified solicitor needs to be informed. They have access to the details of comp amounts as well as experience, since this could turn into a criminal case.

[ian valentine]

Received e-mail from Asda Yesterday Feb 18th: Good Afternoon Ian,

Thank you for your email to Andy Clarke. As part of Andy's Executive Relations Team, I'm available to respond on his behalf.

I'm writing to confirm we've received your email and are looking into the issues you’ve raised. Once we've completed our enquiries, we’ll be back in touch.

In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

Kind Regards

Executive Relations

Sent Reply:

Dear Executive Relations,

Thank you for acknowledging my e-mail.

I visited your store in Thurmaston today as the People Sevices Manager never contacted me on Sunday as he said he would. I updated the duty manager with the fact that I had forwarded an e-mail to the CEO of your company.

I have submitted a verbal Subject Access Request to her for the CCTV footage from the moment I entered the store to the moment I left and would also submit this request to you in this e-mail if you have already not been made aware of it.

The copies of this can be forwarded to my company (Name of Company deleted on forum) for my attention. Whilst in the Thurmaston store I also gave the duty manager the opportunity to contact your department to resolve the situation before it went further but she decilined to accept my offer.

I would remind you that I am not a resident in the UK and that if I have not heard from you further by this Wednesday I will be putting the case in the hands of my solicitors to seek financial redress.

Having already taken independent legal advice I am advised that the criteria for both unlawful detention and false imprisonment have been met and that also my rights under articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, backed in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998 have also been breeched.

I look forward to hearing from you by Wednesday 20th February.

Regards

Ian Valentine

 

Received telephone call from the store 5pm today 19th Feb offering "vouchers" by way of an apology, so informed them that it was not about the vouchers it was about clearing my name publicly, making sure they put in place safeguards to prevent repitition, and financial compensation for the detention, distress etc caused. Informed store it is in the hands of their CEO and that i will deal with him to resolve the settlement.

[caledfwlch]

I would doubt extremely highly that refusal to present a receipt could even remotely be considered grounds to allow a private individual the protections of Any Persons Arrest.

 

Sue them for ever single penny you can get. The Thugs have acted completely unlawfully and outside the scope of any powers they imagine themselves to have.

 

I would also make a serious criminal complaint at the Police Station, pointing out that security guards have no more legal protection than a tramp sleeping in a doorway. They kidnapped you, Kidnap is a criminal offence. And it is kidnap, since they had no APA protection.

 

Googling shows cases where failed Citizens Arrests have led to people being charged with Kidnap. These guards are a menace to the public and if I were you I would take both civil and criminal remedy against them. Even if they tried to claim APA protections they didn't even perform an APA correctly.

 

I would also institute formal complaints with SIA against the guards. These menaces must be attacked from every angle to protect the public.

[caledfwlch]

This is what happens when you do not carry out the Principles of Any Persons Arrest lawfully, even when the person you are arresting IS guilty of an offence.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357217/Boss-Simon-Cremer-forced-pay-worker-THIEF-13-000-humiliating-him.html

 

Furious that one of his staff had stolen hundreds of pounds from his business, Simon Cremer hung a sign saying ‘thief’ around the man’s neck and frogmarched him to a police station.

But while the employee, Mark Gilbert, was let off with a police caution, Mr Cremer spent three months facing a charge of false imprisonment until the case was dropped.

 

Generally, when the "victim" actually is guilty of committing a crime, the person who carried out the Arrest is usually cleared at Court, or the case Dropped before it is heard. I don't see that happening when the victim is innocent, and when the Arrestor had no reasonable grounds for suspicion.

 

But even in the above case, whilst he was cleared of criminal action, the Employer was still taken to the cleaners by the thief through civil action.

[citizenB]

 

Received telephone call

from the store 5pm today 19th Feb offering "vouchers" by way of an apology,

 

Vouchers ! Would you really want to shop in Asda's again !!

[MrHat]

Following

[Horsen]

Hi folks,

Caledfwich. Just a quick note. In the ASDA's that I work in, the security guards are employed by ASDA and are normal colleagues, only working on security. Over the years I have seen many of them adopting normal instore roles on the different departments. Some of them do adopt a very stroppy attitude even with the staff within the store only to come unstuck when they end up back on the shop floor.

[assisted blonde]

If by showing the reciept at any time after the initial request would have stopped any further action I think the op should have done so, we all have to mitigate our losses, yes the store was wrong initially but show the bxxxxx receipt and write to them afterwards. the words mountrains and molehill come to mind

[hightail]

I can see why you'd say that if it had never happened to you. I however, have been subjected to roughly the same request outside a Tesco store by two young 'security' personel. I had been lucky enough to see what they were up to for a little while before I left the store so I was ready for them. They were targeting women and the elderly and thought it a huge joke to intimidate customers and rifle through their shopping. Should I have let them go through mine and written a letter afterwards? There's no way anyone would have taken a blind bit of notice. I stood my ground and loudly insisted the manager attended. I'd do the same again.

[assisted blonde]

It has happened to me i have been stopped and asked for reciept and i have just shown it, I just think there are more important things to get wound up about, but what I wrote above is only my opinion, I did study law at uni so i can see where others are coming from but tbh I just couldnt be bothered.

[hightail]

It is probably easier to let them get away with it. I don't like bullies and I had witnessed this particular pair bully a very elderly couple.

[MrHat]

I half agree with assisted blonde in that I would prob have simply shown my receipt if I was in this situation. I would have THEN kicked up a stink.

 

However, lets not forget who is in the wrong here. Where do you draw the line when it comes to being treated as a criminal despite no evidence?

[hightail]

There's no point in asking to see your receipt unless they intend to check all your shopping - and remember this is your property by this stage. This is exactly what the dubious pair at Tesco were doing when I stood my ground. Where does it stop being OK for those of you who wouldn't mind these spot checks? Your pockets, your handbag, how about they want to search your car?

[leigh04]

the only time I show my receipt is if the alarm goes off when I'm leaving, any other time my reply will be NO