Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bank the cheque.  No doubt it will bounce - but you never know. When it bounces - that is when you are meant to access their website link and enter your personal details - but of course - DON'T.
    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

barred from supermarket ...


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2813 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed ploddertom. Although roundabouts are pretty fun sometimes ;)

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .......

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...