barred from supermarket ...

[Consumer dude]

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.

 

I may be inclined to request of the police on what basis they were advising not to return as it would appear that it is just that, advice and not an order. Interesting subject..

[MaxxPower]

I may be inclined to request of the police on what basis they were advising not to return as it would appear that it is just that, advice and not an order. Interesting subject..

 

The basis on which they have advised not to return is that the supermarket have revoked the OP's right of entry onto their private property. They've advised him not to return as, by doing so, he would be committing a criminal offence, trespassing.

[Consumer dude]

Further more the idea that a supermarket which often are used by people to meet, to shop together and use the supermarket cafe (where there is one) to interact with each other are infact private property. Now I find that scary.

[renegadeimp]

How is it scary? It is private property that the owner allows the public to use. If the public breaks the rules that they are obliged to adhere to when on the property, the owner has a legal right to remove them and refuse future entry.

 

Nothing scary about that.

[MaxxPower]

Agreed, there's nothing scary about it at all. As has been said, it's private property. A private company has bought the land, had a building constructed and chooses to offer a service there. Why should it not be private property?

There are plenty of other places to meet and socialise like public parks.

[renegadeimp]

Ok. Back on topic now guys.

 

To the OP. You have 3 choices now.

 

1. You can either shop elsewhere and forget about the girl and store.
   
   
    
   
   
2. You can go back on to the property and risk arrest and prosecution.
   
   
    
   
   
3. You can write a formal letter to the Store manager and ask him for clarification.
   
   

[Consumer dude]

In theory, all shops that sold food by the sound of what I am understanding could withdraw there right of access and in effect deny the individual the right to buy a very basis need..

[Consumer dude]

Good debate peeps..

[renegadeimp]

There is no debate. You are misinterpreting everything. Every shop has a right to deny you entry regardless of what they sell there. It doesnt matter if food, white goods are sold there. It is private property. The rules of entry were broken, so they are denying you further entry. Theres no consiprarcy at all. You are just misreading it.

[Consumer dude]

There is no debate. You are misinterpreting everything. Every shop has a right to deny you entry regardless of what they sell there. It doesnt matter if food, white goods are sold there. It is private property. The rules of entry were broken, so they are denying you further entry. Theres no consiprarcy at all. You are just misreading it.

 

It is a debate because people who choose to have entered into the sharing of information by a thread and therefore are talking about it. I'm not sure what you mean but I am happy to learn..

[renegadeimp]

I understand what you are trying to say, but really. Theres no reason to have any debate. A shop can force you off their premises and deny you immediate and future access for any reason they feel fit. They could ask you to leave and refuse you further entry simply for wearing a hat. Of course, they would have to apply this rule for every person visiting the store, but you can see my point. The same goes with harassment/trespass etc.

[ploddertom]

Sorry to butt in here but this is going round in circles & acheiving nothing. It has been pointed out that any retailer may bar any individual and no reason needs to be given. It does not matter a jot what the retailer sells, it is heis right to allow in who he wants. the OP has disappeared long ago having accepted his fate, further solution is to close the thread.

[renegadeimp]

Agreed ploddertom. Although roundabouts are pretty fun sometimes

[Consumer dude]

I understand what you are trying to say, but really. Theres no reason to have any debate. A shop can force you off their premises and deny you immediate and future access for any reason they feel fit. They could ask you to leave and refuse you further entry simply for wearing a hat. Of course, they would have to apply this rule for every person visiting the store, but you can see my point. The same goes with harassment/trespass etc.

 

Thank you. This post is helpful. One of my concerns about all this is that if a disabled person without a car in a village with limited shopping access could under the present situation be denied access to the only shop because it is private property.

 

The point of harassment also appeared to be alleged rather than a proven one so banning someone on one complaint which had no substance to it is an opt out and then using a law to justify the harassment actually applied.

[geoff1248]

It would be interesting to find out just how the supermarket define harassment, and if their definition is the same as a legal definition. To just talk to a checkout girl as she is scanning your purchases would hardly meet either definition; even a small Christmas present is not pushing the definition. Maybe the content of the conversations are the problem.

Have the supermarket either put the banning order in writing and stated the reason for the ban or just told you verbally. If so maybe a threat of defamation/slander may make them reconsider. Either way the girl is gone!

[Consumer dude]

....

Edited February 21, 2013 by Consumer dude

[Consumer dude]

It would be interesting to find out just how the supermarket define harassment, and if their definition is the same as a legal definition. To just talk to a checkout girl as she is scanning your purchases would hardly meet either definition; even a small Christmas present is not pushing the definition. Maybe the content of the conversations are the problem.

Have the supermarket either put the banning order in writing and stated the reason for the ban or just told you verbally. If so maybe a threat of defamation/slander may make them reconsider. Either way the girl is gone!

 

Thank you. The OP had already stated he had no interest in the girl. The issue seemed to be, how he felt he was treated based on her complaint of him..

[NSC]

the OP had gone shopping!!! i do still need to eat, after all. and please, no more implications that i'm in some way being economical with the truth to cover up something. i'm not. i had what i thought was a mutual friendship with this check-out girl. we even exchanged e-mail addrsses.

 

i only got any indication of there being a problem when i approach a manager there about an unrelated issue. i was then told about the complaint that the check-out girl had allegedly made against me (that the chistmas present was perceived as too romantic, though this wasn't my intention and i'd given her a similar present two years previously) and that i could have been barrred over this. i shopped there a few more days before being approached by the police after i had left the supermarket with my shopping. they didn't know what it was all about and teased out of me the issue with the girl. they then seemed to latch onto this and say it was because of harassment. but i have no first had knowledge of this. not least of all because i never saw the check-out girl again. all that happened in the interim was that i e-mailed her, as i said i would to the manager i saw, and asked for her side of this story. i've had no reply to that, from which i infer that it could well be true that she did complain about me. but beyond talking about things in general, as everyone does, i only ever asked her if she'd like to have a drink of tea or coffee with me some time. she always said she would but never seemed to have the time to do so. candidly, i think she must have been less than entirely honest with me, given this turn of events. and i personally find it deeply disturbing that shops can arbitarily bar people. they provide a public service, whether they care to admit this or not. as such, there ought to be some test of reasonableness applied. it shouldn't be that they can deny you a service for no reason whatsoever. and this doesn't personally feel to me like a reasonable reason. their staff shouldn't enter into such relationships if their employer doesn't like it. it shouldn't be for the consumer to be policing their policies, which seems to have been implied here.

[BazzaS]

i personally find it deeply disturbing that shops can arbitarily bar people. they provide a public service, whether they care to admit this or not. as such, there ought to be some test of reasonableness applied. it shouldn't be that they can deny you a service for no reason whatsoever. and this doesn't personally feel to me like a reasonable reason. their staff shouldn't enter into such relationships if their employer doesn't like it. it shouldn't be for the consumer to be policing their policies, which seems to have been implied here.

 

They are a business, not a "public service".

 

The public don't have to pay taxes to support them, and aren't forced to shop there, so why should they "owe it" to any member of the public to admit them?

 

So, they can choose to refuse admission to anyone (and don't HAVE to give a reason, though often they will), as it is their private property.

 

It makes commercial sense to allow most of the public access (so they don't go out of business), but they can choose to bar individuals.

 

Why not write to their head office (and take your business elsewhere?). If you really need to continue shopping there : why not write to head office, apologising for any unintentional distress, and ask if you can shop there (by arrangement, when that member of staff isn't on duty). Demonstrate your reasonable nature and they may reciprocate .......

[NSC]

i'm not going to argue semantics but food is a necessity. if no one would sell you food that would be very serious indeed.

 

and i'm not going to do anything to imply that i did anything wrong. i didn't.

[renegadeimp]

Thats why there are tens of thousands of food shops. Just because that store is the closest doesnt mean you have ANY right to shop there.

 

Now, as already advised, the best course of action for you to take now would be to write a well thought out letter to the store manager inquiring about what has happened. It would be very foolish for you to go back to the shop after the police had been involved before you had any discussions with management over the issue.

[NSC]

Thats why there are tens of thousands of food shops. Just because that store is the closest doesnt mean you have ANY right to shop there.

that's not why there are thousands of food shops at all. AFAIK, there's no link whatsoever between the number of food shops and their right to bar people. if there is, please show me!!!

 

Now, as already advised, the best course of action for you to take now would be to write a well thought out letter to the store manager inquiring about what has happened.

as i stated in my first post of this thread: "accordingly, i have written to the supermarket twice by recorded delivery to complain about their conduct. i have not received any reply." ...

 

It would be very foolish for you to go back to the shop after the police had been involved before you had any discussions with management over the issue.

... and the reason that i've done this is because i've no intention of going back there under the current circumstance. candidly, i'm not expecting a reply. they seem to prefer using the police to do their dirty work for them.

[renegadeimp]

Did you address it to the store manager? If so, go one step up and get the regional manager or head office.

 

As for "dirty work", you are woefully misinformed. The police will only become involved if they have evidence of this harassment. They arent a body for hire. Somewhere along the line your actions have been interpreted as harassment. Send a letter to the head office, or the regional manager. If you don't get anywhere with them, then it might be time for you to find another shop for a while.

 

You also seem to be a bit obsessed with going back to this store.

[porkyp1g]

You also seem to be a bit obsessed with going back to this store.

 

I was thinking this. Just shop somewhere else, it's not like you can't get food from anywhere else, otherwise you would have a point. But it behind you, why chase the aggro?

[assisted blonde]

If the shop hadnt involved the police or banned the op from the premises then I would have thought th=at the checkout assistant would have said they were failing in their duty of care to her, if they want to bar you they can and they dont have to give a reason if they dont want to, they certainly dont have to enter into a written correspodence with you.

In short, they dont want your custom, it may be inconvienient that you cant shop there but lifes inconvienient at times, you wont get an explanation, you may feel hard done by, slighted etc etc but again thats life. Forget it and move on