Banned for life from Sainsbury's

[Idon'tknowwhattoputhere]

Please help!

 

The other day I was caught scanning something as bananas on the self-checkout when they weren't.

 

I was taken to the back room to see the manager,

who decided not to call the police (thank God),

but did take a copy of my driving licence

and aive me a letter banning me from any Sainsbury's in the country.

 

What I want to know is, will anything else happen to me?

 

The letter he gave me mentioned other people who may be getting in touch for some kind of claim.

 

Also, what will have been done to my driving licence?

 

Am I on some kind of register somewhere?

 

Will future employers be told about this?

 

I'm a student, and don't want my career and prospects ruined by this.

[citizenB]

It could be you will hear from a rather odious company called RLP (Retail Loss Prevention). If you do, then let us know, but you might want to have a read round the forums to see what this company is like, what they will say.

 

They took a copy of your driving licence in order to confirm you were who you said you were and perhaps also to pass those details on to the above named RLP.

 

No, future employers will not know about this. RLP might imply that they will, but they wont.

[Bandit127]

Welcome to CAG.

 

I know you are worried but the lack of police involvement means that there won't be implications for future employment.

 

I think the Information Commissioner's Office might view the storing of your entire drivers license as unnecessary though, when they just needed to establish that your name and address were bone fide in store at the time and write that data down on a form.

 

Personally I am a bit fussy about my data. I would write and request them to remove it if it were me. You might not be so fussy.

[Idon'tknowwhattoputhere]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for any letters from that company.

 

With regards to the driving license,

 

they said they were going to circulate my photo around all of the Sainsbury's in the country so I'd be recognised by security, but is that possible?

 

Obviously I won't go back to the store in question,

and probably not even the ones in the local area (there are quite a few where I live),

 

but if I went in to one on the other side of the country,

would they really know who I was and ask me to leave?

 

This may seem a bit childish, but I really don't want my parents to find out about this incident,

and I don't want to go to the supermarket at home with one of them and have to explain why I can't go in.

[citizenB]

I am not quite sure whether they can circulate your photo in that way

 

IMHO, you havent actually been charged with any offence, so I would think this could possibly be a breach of DPA.

 

I am sure others will be able to advise of this.

[Sidewinder]

I think Sainsburys use DWF not RLP, but there is little difference - there is no basis in law to pay anything that they demand of you

 

As for the ban - they won't circulate your photo - how good do you thing a guard's memory would have to be to remember the features of every person whose details were circulated across the country if that were the case! Just stay away from ones in your local area

[Bandit127]

Yes, it is possible. And there may be security guards that have a photographic memory and could remember your face among the hundreds that must be circulated each and every week.

 

A good job the security office doesn't have every picture of every person that has wrongly scanned goods at the checkout. They would soon have to have an office bigger than the store...

 

(I would still probably have a pop at them under the Data Protection Act. It has a slim chance of succeeding, but my view is that they should have taken their own picture. And not scanned your driver's license).

[dx100uk]

pers i'd just keep going to them.

 

they don't have face recog software!

nor are allowed too.

 

dx

[griffzilla]

Just wondering - did you leave the supermarket? If not, what 'crime' did you commit?!

[fletch70]

Something to think about , when you were stopped had you already paid for the goods and left the store. If you hadn't paid for the good they would be hard pushed to prove intent. I was always taught you had to see the person leave the store so you could prove intent.

[f16]

I agree with post#10

I was taught the same thing.

No "crime" committed until the person left the store.

[Idon'tknowwhattoputhere]

I hadn't left the store, or finished the process.

 

I offered to restart the process and scan it all through properly,

but the woman on self-checkout just called security over.

 

What I was scanning clearly weren't bananas, so it was kind of clear my intention..

 

. I don't really know much about the details of law, and

 

the manager started telling me he'd taken someone to court for doing the same thing on an item worth a lot less...

I guess he might have been just trying to intimidate me.

And it worked.

 

I'm not 100% sure they have a copy of my driving license,

but the manager took it away to take down the details,

and he said he'd circulate my photo

so I assumed he had.

 

I'm not going to go back to that store again (to be honest, I'm only living in this area for another 6 weeks),

 

I just wanted to find out if I could go into another one somewhere else and not be spotted by security.

 

I know what I did was stupid;

I've had some issues lately that have led to me doing stupid risks

(don't worry, not going to start going in to all of my problems here!),

 

I just don't want this to follow me for the rest of my life.

[dx100uk]

if that's what happened and what you are going to do soon

 

i'd totally forget about it.

[renegadeimp]

Also the good thing is, should DWF contact you, you can tell them to bugger off, as you hadnt even left the checkout. Therefore you WILL be reporting them and issuing full complaints.

[SabreSheep]

For shoplifting to be a safe conviction there are 5 points required to be satisfied. If they stopped u before payment then two points are missing.

 

I wont elaborate on here.

 

No offense committed.

No they cannot circulate your photo.

And theft is a criminal act not civil so any letters not from the police or court van be filed.

[ericsbrother]

OK, so it was fraud rather than theft. Doesnt make any difference in the long run, the police werent called and wont be. Can they circulate your details to all of their branches? Yes they can, they are registered as data handlers and processors so not liking what they have done wont make any difference to the legality of it. Will it be effective? No, they have no system that will identify you. Have you thought of using Sainsburys online and see if they dont turn up with your groceries.

Back to the other bit about DWF and RLP. They have no rights to anything as they havent suffered a loss due to your conduct and I doubt if Sainsburys did either so they cant do court for a civil claim, even if they say they can it isnt true. ignore their letters and get on with your life, shop elsewhere to avoid a to-do at your local store and dont abuse the self check outs

[BazzaS]

I agree it wasn't shoplifting.

It could have been theft (you appropriated the item [property belonging to another] by entering it onto the till, and your intent was both dishonest and to permanently deprive the owner of it). One might argue that you might have changed your mind and gone to customer services to say "oops, I rang this through wrongly" in the same way they wait for shoplifters to pass the "last point at which payment can be made".

 

Even if you might have evaded a theft charge :

It was also likely fraud by false representation [ss 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006]

(you represented the item as something of lower cost per weight - the false representation, you knew it was false, and intended dishonesty, and you exposed another to the risk of a loss. The offence is made out at the moment of the false representation - you wouldn't have had to be seen leaving the store.

 

However, the police weren't called, so it is very unlikely that any prosecution / criminal case will follow.

I agree with the other posters:

a) you would only be liable to Sainsburys for their losses (and what loss have they suffered? The staff involved were already paid to be there), while

b) it is Sainsburys you would be liable to anyway, not DWF

 

Post back for further advice if you get a letter from them.

[fletch70]

Lets not worry about what may have happened or could have happened , the fact of the matter is as far as I can see no crime was committed unless thinking is now a crime.

 

I don'tknow

I am not sure what other risks you have been taking and why but can I suggest you try to resolve them in what ever manner is best for you. Let me tell you from experience, if it's crime then the more you do the more chance of getting caught and you will eventually .

If it's something else then try to think , is it worth it...is the long term pain worth the short term thrill (again from experience) . I understand about not discussing it on here, there are some things i would never disclose on here .

[BazzaS]

Lets not worry about what may have happened or could have happened , the fact of the matter is as far as I can see no crime was committed unless thinking is now a crime.

 

I don'tknow

I am not sure what other risks you have been taking and why but can I suggest you try to resolve them in what ever manner is best for you. Let me tell you from experience, if it's crime then the more you do the more chance of getting caught and you will eventually .

If it's something else then try to think , is it worth it...is the long term pain worth the short term thrill (again from experience) . I understand about not discussing it on here, there are some things i would never disclose on here .

 

 

I agree that it isn't worth worrying about what could have happened, which is why I noted "However, the police weren't called, so it is very unlikely that any prosecution / criminal case will follow".

 

I disagree that "the fact of the matter is as far as I can see no crime was committed unless thinking is now a crime."

The OP didn't just think about a "fraud by false representation", they made such a false representation.

 

The fact that they made it to a machine (the self-service till) rather than to another person is specifically catered for in S2(5) of the Fraud Act 2006 : this remains a fraud by false representation.

The fact that they didn't succeed or leave the store with the items is again irrelevant (for the Fraud Act, it may be relevant regarding "Shoplifting " / Theft).

 

That it seems the OP is not going to be prosecuted doesn't mean that from a legal viewpoint (I'm not making any moral statement, BTW) that you can advise "not a crime" / "not liable for prosecution"

That would be poor advice for others who might come across this thread looking for advice, having done similar, but been less lucky re: prosecution when caught.

[fletch70]

I would argue that if a charge of fraud by misrepresentation was brought as per section 5 of the act they would have to show an intention to cause a loss to the business. As nothing had been paid I think that they would have trouble doing that to the standard required in a criminal court. I know the OP says it was pretty obvious but unless someone was in the OPs head at the time they will not know.

 

I am not making any judgements either and obviously were anyone be arrested for such an offence then they should immediately seek legal representation even if that were to mean sitting in a cell for a couple of hours or upsetting the "nice" policeman.

 

The Fraud act in itself is a very complicated piece of legislation.

[BazzaS]

I would argue that if a charge of fraud by misrepresentation was brought as per section 5 of the act they would have to show an intention to cause a loss to the business. As nothing had been paid I think that they would have trouble doing that to the standard required in a criminal court. I know the OP says it was pretty obvious but unless someone was in the OPs head at the time they will not know.

.

 

I must, again, disagree.

 

As for "knowing what is in someone's head" : courts and juries make findings as to this all day, every day (well, at least days they are sitting!), else no one would ever be found guilty except for strict liability offences.

 

Intention is at S2 of the Act [s2(1)(b)], not at S5.

Also at that point it notes there can be a gain for himself OR a loss to another OR exposing another to a risk of loss : any one of the three will suffice.

 

S5 defines loss and gain, and doesn't deal with intent.

S5(3) : Gain can be getting what one does not have, while loss includes not getting what one might get - like the retailer not getting full purchase price of the items.

[fletch70]

Well it is academic in this situation but one item at a till that has not been paid for would leave any ordinary person in reasonable doubt of intent. I will admit if it was a tablet computer that you were trying to scan through as a bag of flour that may be a different case .

 

S5 deals with what is a loss or gain so yes I am sorry I didn't correct myself there. Remember that we are still innocent until proven guilty although IMHO many legal aid lawyers would say take it on the chin and move on thus giving them their fee for minimum work