falsely accused of shoplifting by a well known grocery store

[Sidewinder]

I agree. It will be hard to quantify losses or damages in Court, so if the offer is agreeable I would accept it subject to written confirmation and an apology for the distress.

 

That will probably go further than a court would award, and the legal process would undoubtedly create a huge amount of work and added stress - better to get a settlement OOC wherever possible.

[noomill060]

Tell them you will consider settling on condition that the vouchers are accompanied by a full and very humble apology which confirms their error in accusing you of shoplifting.

[renegadeimp]

Its a good offer as they are obviously scared of the negative publicity that would occur on the company> Especially when they are promoting themselves as a 'leading retailer'.

 

As advised, ask them to put it in writing to you. Make sure they know that if you dont get it within 7-14 days, then you will continue with small claims.

[tommy456]

You could buy yourself a megaphone and a cam corder and go stand outside their shop letting the shopping drones know what the company is really like and that it thinks it's above the law , not forgetting of course to upload it onto youtube , like Charles veitch has done, see his you tube channel for more, There is some swearing on some of the videos for those who may find it offensive

[skookum]

I might be able to help out a bit here. Funny enough I have my own thread as something similar happened to me yesterday.

 

I have an SIA license and have just finished a refresher in January this year. They advise that all guards/employees only stop people when they are 100% sure a crime has been committed. So much that if you view somebody stealing you must keep a totally uninterrupted eyeball on them till they leave the store. This is in place as a big high street store has recently been hit by a group who conceal items and then put them back before they leave the store. I understand a lot of prosecutions for false detention have arisen and believe me it is drummed into you how sure you have to be. Putting your hands on somebody and holding them is considered a detention and is a serious matter however short the time is it lasts.

 

It seems some shops think that acting on suspicion is legal and justified. This is not the case and only the police can act on suspicion and detain somebody.

[renegadeimp]

You forget. A lot of shops have inhouse security staff that are woefully undertrained. Thats why a lot of shops offer vouchers and unreserved apologies, as they dont want to go near court.

[tommy456]

If it where me i would tell them where they could stick their vouchers, if they want to compensate me or pay for my silence, then they better had at least try offering cash , as i may not want to ever shop in their store again , As for private security working for the corporations , they have virtually no more rights, than the rest of the public have, in a public space, they can't make /force someone back into a store, they can't use more than minimum force, otherwise they are guilty of assault ,they can only use the same powers of arrest "citizens arrest" as the public can make, that is the law the SIA know this, but this isn't what it's so called accredited security guards are doing , plenty of video footage of how many operate outside of the law

[maxxer]

A lot of shops who have in house security actually train a lot BETTER than the normal security guards 'training'.

 

 

One of my ex employers was 4 weeks of training, including going to sit in the back of courts to see what it was like, law, use of force, statement writing, pocket notebook etc.

 

 

Ask how many security guards can recite definition of theft, burglary, criminal damage, fraud. And of course, the definition of arrest.