waitrose wrongly accused shoplifter. please help.

[maitresse]

My mum was in Waitrose on Sunday afternoon, and was suffering from a severe confusion and memory loss

because she was entering a hypo from diabetes.

 

 

My mum couldnt remember what had happened,

but told her husband that she had been banned from waitrose.

 

An ambulance was called as she was very ill.

She was rushed into hospital with hypoglaecemia and a suspected heart attack.

 

While she was in Waitrose, from what we can piece together from what she can remember,

she was thrown out for shoplifting a packet of lozenges.

 

 

I phoned the store this morning to ask them if it had really happened, because my mum was incredibly confused,

and asked them to shed some light on the events.

 

 

The woman on the phone was incredibly rude and just kept telling me that my mother was in perfect health when she left the store.

She told me they had my mothers details and that she was banned from the store.

 

 

I asked my mother how they got her details, and she said she thinks she can remember them taking her driving license from her purse,

along with her Waitrose loyalty card.

 

 

The police were never called, and she was removed from the building and sent on her way.

She was rushed into hospital by ambulance a short while later.

 

I have contacted their head office as the branch was no help.

They were very apologetic, but told me they could not discuss it without written consent from my mum.

 

 

I explained that she was unable to do that at present as she is not a well woman

and that I was concerned with how they handled an obviously incoherent and ill oap.

 

 

They replied several hours later that they had spoken to their legal department and were told not to discuss the matter

with me without written permission from my mum, despite me telling them that she was unable to do so.

 

So, does anyone know if they had the right to go into her purse?

What is the protocol for this kind of thing?

[BazzaS]

How do you know they went into your Mum's purse?.

 

If she was having a hypo and was confused, I'm not sure you yet know what actually happened?

 

She might have gone into her purse, or they might have.

 

I suggest you let Waitrose Head Office know your Mum will be seeking all relevant documentation as soon as she is well enough to submit the SAR

, and that they should preserve all the information (including any CCTV footage).

 

Does your Mum have a diabetic card that they would likely have seen if they did indeed go into her purse and see her Waitrose card and driving licence?

[maitresse]

She is getting flashes of memory coming back, and thinks she remembers them taking her waitrose card and driving license from her purse.

She doesn't carry a diabetic card I'm afraid.

 

 

I have asked waitrose for their company protocol for dealing with shoplifters,

especially ones who are obviously not mentally aware enough to know what is happening.

 

 

To be honest, I am more disgusted that they threw her out of the store in a very bad state

when they should have been calling an ambulance. :/

 

Ill inform them about the relevent documentation. Thanks

[porrohman65]

Seeing your not 100% sure of what has happened, and at the moment, your relying on Waitrose telling you the truth; I would try to see if there were any witness to what happened to your mother, maybe you could use local Facebook pages

[maitresse]

Seeing your not 100% sure of what has happened, and at the moment, your relying on Waitrose telling you the truth; I would try to see if there were any witness to what happened to your mother, maybe you could use local Facebook pages

 

Thanks. It might be worth a try. Unfortunately it was just as the store was closing so there may not have been many people about, but I will give it a go.

 

We have slightly more information.

She remembers taking her purse out for them.

She also remembers that they asked her to sign something.

I am not even sure that that was, and she has no idea.

 

 

They gave her a bit of paper, but she doesn't know where it is.

What could it be that she signed?

 

 

I have received an email from head office saying that they still won't discuss the matter with me without written permission from my mother, which I am hoping to get from her today.

 

 

I asked them to send me a copy of their stores protocol for dealing with shoplifters, especially those who are obviously mentally impaired,

they just sent me back the same saying they could not discuss it with me.

 

 

Mum said it was a new security guard, because it wasn't the girl she normally chats to when she is shopping in there.

Its all a bit confusing.

 

 

Can someone give me something to help me out!

 

 

please!!

[citizenB]

For sure your Mother really needs to have a medi alert bracelet or something to say she is a diabetic on her person when she goes out and about.

[maitresse]

For sure your Mother really needs to have a medi alert bracelet or something to say she is a diabetic on her person when she goes out and about.

I think so too. This was the first time she has had a hypo, and it has terrified her. I'm off to buy her one!

[citizenB]

I think so too. This was the first time she has had a hypo, and it has terrified her. I'm off to buy her one!

 

I would have thought that she would already have a card that identifies her as a diabetic and what her insulin is and GP. I am pretty certain my Mum used to have one which she kept with her Bus Pass

[maitresse]

I would have thought that she would already have a card that identifies her as a diabetic and what her insulin is and GP. I am pretty certain my Mum used to have one which she kept with her Bus Pass

 

Mum is type two diabetic, and is not insulin dependent. I will definitely be getting her a medi alert bracelet though after this.

[citizenB]

Ah, I apologies.. for no reason, I just assumed she was insulin dependent. But yes, do get her some kind of medi alert product - JIC !

[citizenB]

https://shop.diabetes.org.uk/store/managing-your-diabetes/accessories/wristbands

 

You can get an ordinary wrist band from this place.

[ericsbrother]

So far you have not told us anything that is contrary to their side of the story

so I would tread a lot more softly than you are doing at present.

 

Get you mum to sign a letter of consent to allow you to deal with this matter and ask about what happened,

what evidence they have regarding theft and then state the facts regarding your mother's attack etc

 

 

ask them what protocols they have and what training their employees are given to identify people suffering a diabetic attack and bearing in mind how badly things have gone this time round

- how they intend to identify and cope with such problems again.

 

You should be seeking some kind of understanding about this incident and an assurance that your mother is not banned and that she will not face any sort of discrimination should she shop there again or risk the embarassment of a claim against them under the Equalities Act now that they know of her condition.

Carrot and stick, not just stick

[andydd]

Personally I'm not sure what you hope to gain out of all this?

[Old Cogger]

Personally there is a lot of personal satisfaction can be gained, Waitrose are doing a limitation exercise as they will/can get very bad publicity keep firing at them then they will think of some sort of explanation which a 2 year old probably could think of,

 

As far as stating daughter not being listened to then they are on a hiding there, in as much they are avoiding responsibility for the actions of an over zealous employee or whose employment by anybody else remains their responsibility. no police called says it all!

[caledfwlch]

Personally I'm not sure what you hope to gain out of all this?

 

The possibility that staff members have taken advantage of someone who was clearly ill, and until proof is provided, may not have even committed an offence is worth investigating!

 

For example, they may have seen she was unwell and decided to "fit her up" with shoplifting, get her details, send RLP etc on the case and hit targets, hope to make some cash.

[andydub64]

There is no evidence to suggest that your mum has done anything wrong.

 

It may be a starting point that you get from her GP medical evidence that the condition that she has could in anyway be linked with what Waitrose are alleging.

 

Whilst its not you or your mum to prove any innocence because lawfully she neither been questioned, or charge for that matter, if you have the medical evidence the roles of proven, will in event be reversed.

 

If your mum was unwell, the shop had an obligation and a duty i would have assumed to consider her medical state which would have probably been evident giving the state that you describe, and any allegations, if that was an issue, i would assume be secondary.

[andydd]

The possibility that staff members have taken advantage of someone who was clearly ill, and until proof is provided, may not have even committed an offence is worth investigating!

 

For example, they may have seen she was unwell and decided to "fit her up" with shoplifting, get her details, send RLP etc on the case and hit targets, hope to make some cash.

j doubt anyone has fitted up your mum with shoplifting, that's just being silly.

 

What is the outcome you require ?,

 

J

[caledfwlch]

j doubt anyone has fitted up your mum with shoplifting, that's just being silly.

 

What is the outcome you require ?,

 

J

 

Forcing someone who is clearly ill and not currently in the right mind to give information, possibly to have even taken it from her handbag, taking advantage of her condition, rather than calling an ambulance, and prioritising shoplifting or alledged shoplifting over her immediate health - if she was suffering from a massive blood sugar level drop, and it passed a certain level she would have collapsed, and the wait for an ambulance, being called from that point, rather than when staff realised she was unwell, could make a massive difference to the outcome of the crash.

 

If this is what happened, at the very least an investigation by the shop HQ into what happened, and potentially a written apology.

 

You say no staff would fit her up? I have seen plenty of threads on here where innocent people have been accused of shoplifting, forced to give their details, then received an RLP letter, so it's not like it doesn't happen.

[Ethel Street]

As far as stating daughter not being listened to then they are on a hiding there, in as much they are avoiding responsibility for the actions of an over zealous employee or whose employment by anybody else remains their responsibility. no police called says it all!

 

Daughter not being listened to says only that Waitrose are following the law on Data Protection. Waitrose are correct to say they cannot discuss the matter with daughter without her mother's written permission. It's not evidence of a cover up.

 

 

"no police called says it all!" Does it? What does it say? It says to me that Waitrose doesn't call the police for minor shoplifting (packet of lozenges) by elderly people, that's all. That's better than the opposite isn't it?

[andydub64]

Waitrose have not put themselves in a position as to rely on Data Protection?

 

And who said anyone has shoplifted, on a minor level, merely an allegation, that is all, the police weren't called because there was no proof.

 

There is no opposite that is better, merely an allegation, that is all, as is looking through someone's handbag, but that in the eyes of the law is by far a more serious crime as opposed to stealing a packet of lozenges, alleged.

[BazzaS]

Waitrose have not put themselves in a position as to rely on Data Protection?

 

And who said anyone has shoplifted, on a minor level, merely an allegation, that is all, the police weren't called because there was no proof.

 

There is no opposite that is better, merely an allegation, that is all, as is looking through someone's handbag, but that in the eyes of the law is by far a more serious crime as opposed to stealing a packet of lozenges, alleged.

 

"as is looking through someone's handbag, but that in the eyes of the law is by far a more serious crime as opposed to stealing a packet of lozenges, alleged."

 

Bearing in mind that from what the OP noted it is unclear if there was a theft. However, IF there was a theft.....

Stealing a packet of lozenges (Theft Act 1968)

I'm just not clear on what the more serious offence of "looking through someone's handbag" gets prosecuted under ......

[Ethel Street]

Waitrose have not put themselves in a position as to rely on Data Protection?

 

Data Protection Act applies whether Waitrose want it to or not. "putting themselves in a position to rely on it" doesn't come in to it.

[andydub64]

So and but for the allegation, they would not have been in anyway obliged to follow that protocol?

 

It is not Waitrose to imply the law if and when it suits them and their security staff.

 

In any event looking through a customers personal property for that individuals data is a clear and constructive breach of what you suggest is allowed.

 

If anyone could place any reliance of the Data Protection Act it would in this case not be the shop, unless that is, if they can pick and choose when to they want to rely on, so this does come into it.

[BazzaS]

In any event looking through a customers personal property for that individuals data is a clear and constructive breach of what you suggest is allowed.

 

It depends. If they were looking in her purse e.g. for a diabetic card ; when she was unwell, it would be entirely lawful. Mind you, they would then be admitting they knew she was unwell.....

 

However, you haven't answered what CRIMINAL offence you feel they would be committing in looking through her purse that would be more serious than theft ..... which you stated is the case when you posted "as is looking through someone's handbag, but that in the eyes of the law is by far a more serious crime as opposed to stealing a packet of lozenges"

[Ethel Street]

The Data Protection Act does not permit Waitrose to discuss OP's mother's personal information with OP without Op's mother's permission. Waitrose are correct to say they can discuss it with OP only if OP gets her mother's written permission (which presumably OP can get). The law is clear so of course Waitrose can place reliance on it. They are obliged to comply with it.

 

As it happens they didn't search through the handbag - OP says: "She remembers taking her purse out for them" - but even if they had it's got nothing to do with the Data Protection Act.