Shops Asking To Check In Your Bags At Checkouts

[Waldo 96]

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

I think you mean deny access or ban rather than trespass.

Yeah, I think it's something like a 'notice of trespass', where a landowner legally notifies an individual that they're not allowed on a property and will be trespassing if they enter the property in future etc. Not sure if it's a US or a UK thing though. Whatever though, a store owner is perfectly entitled to ban you from their store, I wouldn't think they need any reason whatsoever to do so.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Waldo

[Dardandec 32]

Just politely refuse and leave the store. They have no powers and being "suspicious" is not a crime, they would have to have "reasonable grounds" and the only "reasonable grounds" in this situation would be if they actually see you steal something.  They don't even have a right to see your receipt. Detainment and searching without reasonable grounds would be illegal and you would be able to sue them through the civil courts. Public order offence? causing harassment alarm and distress? don't bend over for these bullies. 

[Waldo 96]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Doesn't matter if  the private premises in question are your house or Meadowhall. People using the private premises have to abide by the rules of the owner (unless the owners rules are illegal eg "no blacks") and the rules don't have to be explicit.

I'm not sure a person would be bound by T&C's he's not been made aware of! Surely a business has to make their T&C's known to their customers if they are to be bound by them?

 

It's like with private car parks. Where signage is inadequate, or not positioned such that a customer could easily notice; then at court people are not liable to pay parking invoices. I'd expect the same principle would apply with other places of business.

 

5 minutes ago, Dardandec said:

Just politely refuse and leave the store. They have no powers and being "suspicious" is not a crime, they would have to have "reasonable grounds" and the only "reasonable grounds" in this situation would be if they actually see you steal something.  They don't even have a right to see your receipt. Detainment and searching without reasonable grounds would be illegal and you would be able to sue them through the civil courts. Public order offence? causing harassment alarm and distress? don't bend over for these bullies. 

Yes, everything about your part in the interaction should be polite, assertive but not aggressive.

 

Also, I'd be curious as to what civil law recourse may be available to you, suspect it may be more trouble that it's worth (cost wise) though, what do you think?

Edited November 27, 2021 by Waldo

[Longcol 610]

27 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I'm not sure a person would be bound by T&C's he's not been made aware of! Surely a business has to make their T&C's known to their customers if they are to be bound by them?

 

 

Nope - not on private premises like a supermarket.

 

https://www.talkingretail.com/advice/business-advice/actionline/ban-someone-from-your-store-talking-retails-how-to-guide-30-04-2007/#:~:text=Your shop is private property,someone from entering the premises.&text=There does not have to,%2C disruption%2C drunkenness or drugs.

[Carbuncle 0]

27 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Also, I'd be curious as to what civil law recourse may be available to you, suspect it may be more trouble that it's worth (cost wise) though, what do you think?

I don't think the civil law would be much help. "Damages" are limited to the value of the damage (you can prove) you have suffered. The relevant branch of law is called tort law. For a start, take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort .

[redruby 280]

A lot of shops now ask if you want a receipt. I often say no but after reading this I think I’ll take one from now on! 
I worked in a supermarket in my student days and spot check bag searches were done on groups of staff leaving work for the day occasionally. I’ve never heard of it being done to customers though. 
I would agree that in principle it’s not unreasonable for shops to do this. In practice though, it is going to make some people feel uncomfortable and perhaps less inclined to go back to that store in future.  There’s a certain supermarket I only rarely go to as I’ve been aware of security staff in there watching me on several occasions even though I’ve done nothing wrong and wouldn’t shoplift.  It makes me feel uncomfortable, unwelcome and singled out as ‘suspicious’ so regardless of whether it’s justified or not, I choose to spend my money elsewhere wherever possible.  Right or wrong, that’s just how it is and many people feel the same in this situation.

 

[crookesey 635]

When I worked in retail, some 35 years ago,  store security were only allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter when they had left the premises.. This did have it’s problems in that many younger suspects appeared to have skills attributed to olympic sprinters. 
 

If they did manage to detain a suspect they were only allowed to ask them if they had goods on their person that they hadn’t paid for, most denied any culpability and the police were asked to attend. They hated these calls as the thieves were most often treat very lightly, I recall them calling these punishments ‘slappy wrists’.

 

Things may have changed in the intervening years, but I somehow suspect not in favour of the retailer or the police.

Edited November 28, 2021 by crookesey

[Waldo 96]

9 hours ago, Longcol said:

Nope - not on private premises like a supermarket.

 

https://www.talkingretail.com/advice/business-advice/actionline/ban-someone-from-your-store-talking-retails-how-to-guide-30-04-2007/#:~:text=Your shop is private property,someone from entering the premises.&text=There does not have to,%2C disruption%2C drunkenness or drugs.

That doesn’t state a customer is bound by T&C’s he has not been made aware of.

 

In fact, the linked article aligns more or less perfectly with what I’ve been saying.

[Waldo 96]

10 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

I don't think the civil law would be much help. "Damages" are limited to the value of the damage (you can prove) you have suffered. The relevant branch of law is called tort law. For a start, take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort .

Thanks Carbuncle, makes a lot of sense.

[PRESLEY 1,232]

After standing in ques, mask wearing, using hand sanitiser,  being asked to check bags wouldn't be no big deal. 

[Resident 1,195]

17 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

That is clearly not true- I would be as unobliging as I could and make things difficult for them.

Several other posters on this thread seem to feel the same.

Not just guilty people. And it is certainly not the case that only guilty people resist. 

Some innocent people resist- for the reasons given in this thread.

 

So you'd be confrontational & resistant. You know, that thing you say is "clearly not true"

 

I take it the onewheel is reference to being one wheel short of a full wagon..

 

[onewheeldave 22]

9 minutes ago, Resident said:

So you'd be confrontational & resistant. You know, that thing you say is "clearly not true"

 

I take it the onewheel is reference to being one wheel short of a full wagon..

 

Nope. I would be [look at the quote] 'as unobliging as I could and make things difficult for them.'

That would involve filming them- to ensure they're not going to try and 'plant' something in the bag; after all, I've done nothing wrong am they are saying I could be a thief, so, why should I not be concerned that they could be dishonest?

It would involve asking them questions they likely will not know the correct answers to e.g. 'am I being detained? Do you have the legal power to detain me? On what grounds do you suspect I've got something in my bag that I shouldn't have' etc, etc.