banned from store

Leilak

my friend was shopping in lidl last week and stupidly didn't pay for an item worth 89c she was stopped by security when she left store, was asked to go back, she was utterly ashamed and rightly so and after giving details was told she was banned from store question is does that include all lidls or just that one ?

racso1975

Probably impossible to ban from all lidls but given they are not franchises I would suspect it is meant to be all but as said near impossible to implement.

seamus

There's a good chance if she goes back in a month the security guard won't remember her.

munchkin_utd

if she only got banned from the store and not prosecuted for theft and end up with a criminal record, If I were her I'd grab that with both hands and take it as a lesson learned.

Chemical Byrne

It would not make any difference if it were just the one Lidl or every single Lidl shop on earth. Sure how on earth could they enforce such a barring? It's not as if they have a stack of mug shots of barred customers.

Is your friend just a normal, good respectable girl or would she have any trouble type vibes off her?

If the former the chances are after a few weeks the security will have completely forgotten anyway.

NUTLEY BOY

Leilak wrote: »

my friend was shopping in lidl last week and stupidly didn't pay for an item worth 89c she was stopped by security when she left store, was asked to go back, she was utterly ashamed and rightly so and after giving details was told she was banned from store question is does that include all lidls or just that one ?

Depends on the actual terms of the ban issued to her i.e. Branch X only or all branches. A verbal communication of the ban is problematical as they could say that it meant all branches or that they said that it did.

Might be worth her while trying to speak to someone at Lidl's head office to see if this can be sorted out. It is a very easy mistake to make and could be very embarrassing at a future date e.g. out with friends and that decide to buy something in Lidl's but she does not go in because she is banned !

Little CuChulainn

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It would not make any difference if it were just the one Lidl or every single Lidl shop on earth. Sure how on earth could they enforce such a barring? It's not as if they have a stack of mug shots of barred customers.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

aaakev

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It would not make any difference if it were just the one Lidl or every single Lidl shop on earth. Sure how on earth could they enforce such a barring? It's not as if they have a stack of mug shots of barred customers.

my brother in law works in a supermarket and they have had to put up a second notice board to deal with the photographs of the people who are barred for stealing

aujopimur

Those mirrors in Lidl aren't just for checking your hair.

Chemical Byrne

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Well I doubt it. Look at how much effort it would take.

Now, as the above poster says, there may be stores where there is quite a few barred persons that might require some sort of effort like this to keep out troublemakers but I would imagine that those would be stores in disadvantaged areas with lots of antisocial behaviour anyway.

aaakev

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Well I doubt it. Look at how much effort it would take.

Now, as the above poster says, there may be stores where there is quite a few barred persons that might require some sort of effort like this to keep out troublemakers but I would imagine that those would be stores in disadvantaged areas with lots of antisocial behaviour anyway.

i can assure you the store I am talking about is not in any sort of disadvantaged area and a fair percentage of people on the wall are not what you would consider trouble makers, they are normal people, the little old lady, the gym instructor, the mother with her small kid in the expensive buggy and a nice car parked outside are just a few examples. you would have to travel a fair distance by car to get to a disadvantaged are actually

Chemical Byrne

Really? What sort of stuff goes on? Why would normal people feel the need to shoplift?

What do they do? Do they stick up stills from CCTV or do they actually go and take pictures of suspects?

Is there not a huge risk of a defamation action if they pin someone up as shoplifter without having totally concrete proof?

seamus

aaakev wrote: »

my brother in law works in a supermarket and they have had to put up a second notice board to deal with the photographs of the people who are barred for stealing

Sounds pretty dodgy. These people have not been convicted of any crime, putting up their pictures on a list of "banned" people would be grounds for defamation.

endacl

seamus wrote: »

Sounds pretty dodgy. These people have not been convicted of any crime, putting up their pictures on a list of "banned" people would be grounds for defamation.

Not so sure. Management have the right to refuse admission. A notice board is just a simple way to keep staff up to date with those whom management are refusing admission to. It's not published, as in its not in the public domain. If a staff member was to take a picture of the notice board and pop it on their Facebook page, for example, then there'd potentially be trouble.

aaakev

they had security guards in the shop but they were still loosing alot of stock so they got rid of them and now have "secret shopper" type people in a few times a day who the staff don't even know until they catch someone. they started taking pictures of them about 7/8 weeks ago and the board filled up very fast! he showed me a picture and it was hard to believe that many people were stealing!

one example was recently a woman from our area in with her kid in the buggy doing a shop for a few days decided she liked the look of the steaks that were on special and stuck 2 packs of them in the bottom of the trolly, she had about €40 of other bits in her basket but was nicking the steaks! that woman lives in a 4 bed semi and drives a 2009 BMW 318D......

they gym instructor ( who works in our gym) was caught 6 weeks ago after sticking a €2 pack of pain killers into his pocket while buying €20 worth of beer :P

these people have all been caught on cctv and by security staff in the shop and the pictures are on a notice board in a staff only area in the shop so staff know who they are not allowed to serve

Chemical Byrne

I used to work in a Co-OP Superstores years ago and occasionally a few travellers or romanians or known shoplifters might come in. There was a sort of secret "morse code" that used to be broadcast over the shop PA system to alert the floor staff to the presence of potential shoplifters.
Basically whoever was at the customer service counter beside the door would lift the PA handset and tap on the mic a few times. On hearing it the floor staff would know to go on patrol and keep an eye on them. We had this really beefy fella who would follow suspects around the shop with an aggressive, big chested posture and make it totally obvious to them that we were on to them. Twas gas.

Kev W

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

travellers or romanians or known shoplifters

Classy.

seamus

endacl wrote: »

Not so sure. Management have the right to refuse admission. A notice board is just a simple way to keep staff up to date with those whom management are refusing admission to. It's not published, as in its not in the public domain. If a staff member was to take a picture of the notice board and pop it on their Facebook page, for example, then there'd potentially be trouble.

For defamation, that doesn't matter. If the manager was to say to anyone, privately or otherwise that a person was banned from the shop, that's potentially actionable.

Defamation doesn't require "public" publication, as it were. It simply requires that someone has seen it. It used to be the case that you could defame someone to their face (i.e. by calling them a liar, even if no-one else heard you), though I'm not sure if that's still the case.

In this case, it's taken that anyone with their picture on the noticeboard has been banned from the shop for theft. Therefore they are being defamed unless the shop can prove it's true. Very difficult to do without a conviction or even a complaint to the Gardai.

The shop that aaakev is talking about seems to be treading on very thin ice. Standard shop security training runs through a very specific set of things a security guard should look out for, before they make any accusation of theft - one of these is intent. I have in the past put items in pockets or other places because I couldn't fit them elsewhere. It would be very easy to forget about these when you go to pay, but to then accuse that person of theft is another matter altogether.

With the woman in the "4 bed semi and drives a 2009 BMW", all it would take is a neighbour to be working there and go around saying, "Mary in number 20 has her picture up on our noticeboard for stealing steaks from the shop", and she could absolutely clean the shop out for defamation.

aaakev

seamus wrote: »

For defamation, that doesn't matter. If the manager was to say to anyone, privately or otherwise that a person was banned from the shop, that's potentially actionable.

Defamation doesn't require "public" publication, as it were. It simply requires that someone has seen it. It used to be the case that you could defame someone to their face (i.e. by calling them a liar, even if no-one else heard you), though I'm not sure if that's still the case.

In this case, it's taken that anyone with their picture on the noticeboard has been banned from the shop for theft. Therefore they are being defamed unless the shop can prove it's true. Very difficult to do without a conviction or even a complaint to the Gardai.

The shop that aaakev is talking about seems to be treading on very thin ice. Standard shop security training runs through a very specific set of things a security guard should look out for, before they make any accusation of theft - one of these is intent. I have in the past put items in pockets or other places because I couldn't fit them elsewhere. It would be very easy to forget about these when you go to pay, but to then accuse that person of theft is another matter altogether.

With the woman in the "4 bed semi and drives a 2009 BMW", all it would take is a neighbour to be working there and go around saying, "Mary in number 20 has her picture up on our noticeboard for stealing steaks from the shop", and she could absolutely clean the shop out for defamation.

yeah i understand what your saying and it makes sense. now i don't know the ins and outs of the conversations they have with the customers, for all i know they could give them the option of going on the board and not coming in again or dealing with the guards. it would likely suit both parties to go the board route because prosecuting someone for €10 worth of steaks or €2 box of pain killers would be a waist of everyone's time

tricky D

seamus wrote: »

The shop that aaakev is talking about seems to be treading on very thin ice. Standard shop security training runs through a very specific set of things a security guard should look out for, before they make any accusation of theft - one of these is intent. I have in the past put items in pockets or other places because I couldn't fit them elsewhere. It would be very easy to forget about these when you go to pay, but to then accuse that person of theft is another matter altogether.

As well as intent the model for the 'specific set of things' is SCONE: Selection, Concealment, Observation, Non-Payment and Egress. If all those factors are not satisfied, security might be in dangerous territory. The security guard I know who works in a well known Henry St retailer says they let them go if the 5 boxes are not all ticked even if it's obvious they have taken something.

Chemical Byrne

Its a wonder aaakev's shop even do that for fear that a staff member and a friend might collude to clean out the shop on grounds of defamation along the lines of seamus' logic.

For example lets say John works in the shop and is aware of the noticeboard policy. John convinces his friend Mary to come to the shop and give the impression of shoplifting but without committing any crime, eg. she could bring in a product sold in the shop but purchased in another and with a reciept, and then expose and re-pocket it in view of security and try walk out of the shop. Mary gets her face on the wall. Then John puts out the word that Mary is a theiving shoplifter. Mary sues the shop and the two of them split the money.

Whatsmore, its even easier if the security stop and accuse her of theft as she attempts to leave the shop with her bought and paid for product from another shop!
However in the latter case, would a court rule it as defamation even if it was revealed that Mary had deliberately engineered the situation to provoke the accusation of theft? Or would it be struck out on account of it being essentially a scam?

Roquentin

aaakev wrote: »

they had security guards in the shop but they were still loosing alot of stock so they got rid of them and now have "secret shopper" type people in a few times a day who the staff don't even know until they catch someone. they started taking pictures of them about 7/8 weeks ago and the board filled up very fast! he showed me a picture and it was hard to believe that many people were stealing!

one example was recently a woman from our area in with her kid in the buggy doing a shop for a few days decided she liked the look of the steaks that were on special and stuck 2 packs of them in the bottom of the trolly, she had about €40 of other bits in her basket but was nicking the steaks! that woman lives in a 4 bed semi and drives a 2009 BMW 318D......

they gym instructor ( who works in our gym) was caught 6 weeks ago after sticking a €2 pack of pain killers into his pocket while buying €20 worth of beer :P

these people have all been caught on cctv and by security staff in the shop and the pictures are on a notice board in a staff only area in the shop so staff know who they are not allowed to serve

interesting. wouldnt have thought so many people were shop lifting

aaakev

Roquentin wrote: »

interesting. wouldnt have thought so many people were shop lifting

i was the same, didnt believe him so he took a pic and showed me

Roquentin

aaakev wrote: »

i was the same, didnt believe him so he took a pic and showed me

i remember thinking to myself alright when using the self service checkout i could just pass an item through without scanning it. Now i have never done it but id say some people have. it seems almost too easy to pass over, although i suspect security would be closely monitoring the self service checkout.

when it comes to robbing stuff or kleptomania people get a sense of high out of robbing stuff. they get a trill in taking stuff. it becomes an addiction.

Chemical Byrne

I've heard of a scam in Lidl/ALdi shop thats done during busy periods. Basically someone will go in and buy whichever item they want, get a receipt etc, all good.
Then come back in next day pick up the same item again and make their way to the tills, yesterdays receipt in hand, saying they want to return it for a refund!

The one way system in these shops where even a genuine cistomer making a return has to walk through the shop floor makes it very very difficult for a busy cashier to tell whether that customer came in the door with the item to be refunded or brazenly picked it up off the shelf.

Strictly speaking, I don't know if this could be considered theft as they are not leaving the premises with an unpaid for item. Perhaps it is more along the lines of fraud. If found out and pursued, what might a person be convicted of?

234

Roquentin wrote: »

interesting. wouldnt have thought so many people were shop lifting

Shop would get it struck out as an abuse of process, get all their costs and there would even be the possibility making an order restraining the plaintiff from bringing any other proceedings without the consent of the court (Issac Wunder order or an equivalent).

Chemical Byrne

234 wrote: »

Shop would get it struck out as an abuse of process, get all their costs and there would even be the possibility making an order restraining the plaintiff from bringing any other proceedings without the consent of the court (Issac Wunder order or an equivalent).

Wouldn't be extremely difficult for the shop to actually prove that Mary sought to abuse process? Especially so if she acted alone?

234

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

However in the latter case, would a court rule it as defamation even if it was revealed that Mary had deliberately engineered the situation to provoke the accusation of theft? Or would it be struck out on account of it being essentially a scam?

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Wouldn't be extremely difficult for the shop to actually prove that Mary sought to abuse process? Especially so if she acted alone?

Once you have the bolded statement I can't see many difficulties in showing abuse of process. Mary is acting in concert with another to manufacture a wrong for financial gain. Possible criminal/civil fraud too.

Stheno

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Well I doubt it. Look at how much effort it would take.

Now, as the above poster says, there may be stores where there is quite a few barred persons that might require some sort of effort like this to keep out troublemakers but I would imagine that those would be stores in disadvantaged areas with lots of antisocial behaviour anyway.

I'm fairly certain I saw a documentary some time ago about shoplifting and how "professional" shoplifters avoid disadvantaged areas as security tends to tighter there than more affluent areas

Dial Hard

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It would not make any difference if it were just the one Lidl or every single Lidl shop on earth. Sure how on earth could they enforce such a barring? It's not as if they have a stack of mug shots of barred customers.

aaakev wrote: »

my brother in law works in a supermarket and they have had to put up a second notice board to deal with the photographs of the people who are barred for stealing

Yeah, in that one shop. Nothing stopping them going to another branch where their photo isn't up on the wall.

Greenmachine

tricky D has already pinpointed the key requirement of proof. I have seen it myself in a store I worked, where, you won't stop a customer without the full evidence. Customer acting suspiciously then selecting and carrying around a high value small item, to a secluded part of the store. Customer customer is engaged with and makes his way towards where he selected the item. Another customer come in, and requests info on a product. First customer make a gesture of returning the product. Customer ended up walking out with the product.
To have followed the customer I would have needed to be absolutely certain that, he had not removed the product Once the product was out of my sight, I couldn't confirm where it was till I checked the camera.

Gatling

Dial Hard wrote: »

Yeah, in that one shop. Nothing stopping them going to another branch where their photo isn't up on the wall.

Speaking from somebody who's spent the last 15 years in retail security a lot of stores will send pictures to other branches depending on the situation something small and minor probably not but a lot does get shared from store to store

Chemical Byrne

234 wrote: »

Once you have the bolded statement I can't see many difficulties in showing abuse of process. Mary is acting in concert with another to manufacture a wrong for financial gain. Possible criminal/civil fraud too.

So basically Mary could readily get away with the defamation suit provided she managed to successfully fool somebody into making an accusation that is witnessed by a third party?

Leilak

so the question is can she go to the lidl 2 miles away?

Chemical Byrne

Yes she can.