barred from supermarket ...

[NSC]

a couple of years ago i struck up a friendship (purely platonic) with a check-out girl at my local supermarket. this year i was told that she had complained about me to her management because i gave her a small present at christmas (i have done this in previous years without any such problem). i was told that she interpretted this as a romantic gesture, though she has never said anything to me about it. i had not had the oportunity to ask her about this when i was told by the police that they had been contacted by the supermarket and that i have been barred from shopping there because of harassment. given that i felt this friendship was mutual and that i was never given any indication by her that she was in any way unhappy with me, i feel i have been treated very unreasonably by this supermarket. accordingly, i have written to the supermarket twice by recorded delivery to complain about their conduct. i have not received any reply. now feel i need to take this to a solicitor in order to get a response from this supermarket. and i really need to do this on a no win no fee basis as i cannot justify any significant expense. i am not looking for any compensation per se. i just want this unreasonable decision reversed. any advice would be gratefully received.

Edited February 21, 2013 by NSC
re-formatting. no change to text.

[BazzaS]

Move on.

 

The supermarket is private property that they allow the public access to. As such if they choose to withdraw your permission to be on their property, you can write to them (as you have done) but they don't have to reply, and certainly don't have to reverse their decision to deny you access to their property,

 

You might think their decision unreasonable, but it is still a decision they have the right to make.

You might feel you are "owed" a reply, but (in a way) you've had a reply : it appears they don't want to engage in correspondence with you.

 

Involving a solicitor won't change that they are within their rights to behave this way.

[SWLABR9]

What if it's the only food shop for miles because they drove their competitors out of business? What if you have to get on expensive buses to reach another food shop? Isn't there some kind of human rights issue like you must have access to food shops or something?

[BazzaS]

What if it's the only food shop for miles because they drove their competitors out of business? What if you have to get on expensive buses to reach another food shop? Isn't there some kind of human rights issue like you must have access to food shops or something?

 

Who said the OP had no other access to a food shop : I detect a "straw man".

 

Since it is only a 'very short straw man', here goes for "stubble burning" ........

 

Which Human Right are you claiming is being breached?.

The right to a family life? The right to a 'private' life? (Article 8)

 

Unless the right is an absolute one, then it is 'qualified' (see the recent speech from the Home Secretary about deporting convicted immigrants, and that their right to a family life is qualified rather than absolute).

 

So, the "right" of an individual to have a food shop nearby (even if that did fall under Human Rights legislation) would be tempered by the right of the store to ban people to protect its staff.

 

Bear in mind we are only hearing "the OP's side of things". I don't have reason to doubt them, but from their posting they are saying the police told them the member of store staff felt harassed. What of their (the staff's) Human Rights?

Edited February 21, 2013 by BazzaS

[SWLABR9]

Oh I agree but for some people banning them from their local supermarket is banning them from access to food. I have wondered myself whether the OP is being quite as honest with us as they might be but I wonder too if there isn't a broader issue being brought up here, the ability of supermarkets to ride into town, lower their prices to the point where all the competition goes out of business, then up their prices and provide an appalling service secure in the knowledge they're the only game in town. Any complainers could be banned from the store thus causing them big problems if they want to buy life's staple, food. The supermarkets are way too powerful in my opinion. I suspect the OP brought their problems on themself but when it comes to supermarkets banning people there's a bigger issue which needs to be considered.

[BazzaS]

Oh I agree but for some people banning them from their local supermarket is banning them from access to food. I have wondered myself whether the OP is being quite as honest with us as they might be but I wonder too if there isn't a broader issue being brought up here, the ability of supermarkets to ride into town, lower their prices to the point where all the competition goes out of business, then up their prices and provide an appalling service secure in the knowledge they're the only game in town. Any complainers could be banned from the store thus causing them big problems if they want to buy life's staple, food. The supermarkets are way too powerful in my opinion. I suspect the OP brought their problems on themself but when it comes to supermarkets banning people there's a bigger issue which needs to be considered.

 

Note that I wasn't accusing the OP of being

'Economical with the truth' : quite the opposite!, though there are usually 2 (or more!) sides to every story.

 

As for your "banning people from buying food" : wouldn't this be so newsworthy we'd know about it?.

Can you give examples if where it has actually happened?

[NSC]

yes, i am being economical with the truth: i'm not telling you the name of the supermarket and i'm not telling you the name of the check-out girl either, though i could do. i'm a little awestruck that if you strike up a friendship with someone who works somewhere you risk not being allowed to shop there again. and i'm also a little awestruck that one doesn't have to do anything criminally or civilly wrong to be treated this way too. i didn't force my attentions on her. she made it quite clear to me that she wanted to get to know me. if she had told me she'd changed her mind, i could accept that. but to be treated like some sort of criminal is just plain offensive. and yes, this was a significant source of food for me, which i relied on heavily both economically and in terms of diet.

[renegadeimp]

Please dont take offence to this, but it seems like you are slightly obsessed. It might be better to forget about this checkout assistant, and negotiate with the store directly. Perhaps use their online shopping. The fact is, that the person you were friends with, no longer wants the attention you are giving her. If you continually try to chase up after her, you leave yourself wide open to criminal charges of harassment and stalking.

 

Infact, you said yourself that the police were already involved. This should be a huge pointer that she doesnt want your friendship anymore.

 

Yes. She was your friend for a while, but only when you were shopping. Nothing more. Move on and take it s a lesson learned.

 

Regarding the supermarket, they can ban anyone they like for any reason they like. It is private property and they are within their rights to do so. It is unlikely that they will allow you back on the premises after you have been accused of harassment. You can always write back and negotiate, but chances are you'll have to find somewhere else to shop now.

[NSC]

i'm no longer interested in pursuing this friendship. i didn't say i was. my grievance is that i get barred from a supernarket that i depended on heavily because she complained about me to her management rather than telling me she had a problem with me herself. that's not a very adult way of behaving. nor is being barred from this supermarket without any opportunity to put my side of this story to anyone. it's just plain shabby and offensive. and i am offended. that's why i haven't simply let it drop, yet.

[Consumer dude]

Forget the girl, however if you have been going to this particular supermarket for sometime you could complain that this has become a way of life and part of your daily routine and you are seeking damages for banning you for no reason. its ridiculous..

[SWLABR9]

Perhaps you should approach your MP. I'd be interested to see their response.

The local Tesco girls once asked me to have a word with one of the local drunks who they were refusing to sell to as he was clearly several sheets to the wind and being argumentative. I wouldn't as I regard it as being up to Tesco to protect their staff and if they undercut all the local offies with a view to putting them out of business and succeed then they've got to live with the consequences, namely that all the local drunks will then be lurching through their doors in all sorts of conditions. I've no doubt this is not a problem for the board members many cosy miles from the front but it's potentially a real problem for the staff. It's also potentially a problem for us as if Tesco can ban our presence from the local food supply that gives them an authority their corporate status doesn't merit. Who elected Tesco to say who eats and who doesn't? No-one, but increasingly they can. That needs knocking on the head. Private property it may be but they're providing an essential service for all the piublic, not just a chosen few, and that's by design not some happy accident. The big supermarkets have got far too much authority.

[MaxxPower]

I'm afraid you wont really have much choice but to let it drop. Beyond asking the supermarket management unbarring you as a goodwill gesture there's nothing you can do.

They can ban you for whatever reason they like and have no legal obligation to unbar you for any reason and don't have to give you any opportunity to put across your side of the story.

 

The only other thing you can try is to write to the head office of the supermarket involved and see if they will over-rule the local manager, but given the circumstances I doubt they will.

[Consumer dude]

I don't think he should drop it. Why were the police called. Had a crime been committed ? I would consider going to my MP..

[renegadeimp]

The police were involved as he was accused of harassment. Meaning the girl ont he till he only saw when he went shopping didnt want the attention anymore. The shop followed their procedures and legal rights and banned the person from entering their premises. It is no concern of theirs that there are no other shops around.

 

Why would you advise someone to go to their MP?

[MaxxPower]

The impression I got was that the police were called because the supermarket were worried that there may have been some form of harassment going on, so by calling the police they felt they were acting in their employee's best interests.

 

Also, when were the police called? Immediately? Or was it only after an attempt to return to the supermarket?

[renegadeimp]

Well, one thing is for sure. They wont let the OP back. If they do, then it shows they couldnt care less about the harassment of their employees. Reading the posts int his thread again, it seems like we are not being given the full story here.

[Consumer dude]

I would call the supermarkets bluff and continue to go shopping there. A food shop is every ones concern and banning someone just because they can is wrong..

[renegadeimp]

It's not wrong though. It is their legal right and they can have you removed and charged for trespassing as well as enforcing the potential harassment. The shops rules were clearly broken, so they have every right to deny you entry.

 

Also, please do not advise that people break the law simply " to call the supermarkets bluff". They deal with things like this day in, day out, and they will not hesitate to prosecute.

[Hammy1962]

Yeah, great, get done for trespass as well as harassment, that should help.

 

H

[Consumer dude]

Yeah, great, get done for trespass as well as harassment, that should help.

 

H

 

What was the harassment. He gave her a present at Christmas..

[renegadeimp]

The police were involved so there was harassment somewhere. Re-read the thread.

 

i was told by the police that they had been contacted by the supermarket and that i have been barred from shopping there because of harassment

[Consumer dude]

It's not wrong though. It is their legal right and they can have you removed and charged for trespassing as well as enforcing the potential harassment. The shops rules were clearly broken, so they have every right to deny you entry.

 

Also, please do not advise that people break the law simply " to call the supermarkets bluff". They deal with things like this day in, day out, and they will not hesitate to prosecute.

 

I am not advising anyone to do anything. I simply said what I would do..

[MaxxPower]

I would call the supermarkets bluff and continue to go shopping there. A food shop is every ones concern and banning someone just because they can is wrong..

 

By that same logic I should be allowed to just walk into people's homes whenever I like because they have a nicer TV than mine that I want to watch, or take my dog for a walk on someone's back garden because it's bigger than mine.

Supermarkets being able to ban people just because they can isn't wrong. It's private property in exactly the same way my home is private property.

[Consumer dude]

The police were involved so there was harassment somewhere. Re-read the thread.[/quote

 

Fair point however I'm not sure that any harassment was actual. It sounded like the girl complained and it was decided that some thing was harassment but what was said or done to confirm this..

[renegadeimp]

Oh i agree. However, since the police are now involved, it would be very very silly to go back to the store. It would appear to the police that you ignored their advice, and they would prosecute for trespass AND continued harassment. The OP could also be subject to a restraining order if they went back a few times.