Duty of Care - do stores need to respect this in regard to customers?

louise_s_2

Do high street stores have a clear duty of care to their customers, while those customers are still in the store?

My grandmother was robbed of a substantial amount of cash in a Marks & Spencer store, having exchanged some currency at their own Bureau de Change.

There was no violence, but the money was taken from her handbag on M&S premises - their own CCTV confirms that the group watched her change the money at the Bureau de Change and then followed and distracted her.

M&S do not seem keen to take any responsibility at all: their security guard just shrugged his shoulders when my grandmother told him what had happened. It has since been reported to the police.

Do we have any redress with the store at all? Surely they are responsible for customers' wellbeing and safety within the store - including not allowing them to be effectively mugged within it.

Does anyone have any information on this?
Thanks.

Forwandert

What could the store have done to prevent this from happening? did she go to exchange the substantial amount of cash on her own?

Valli

Yes stores DO have a duty of care to customers in regard to safety.

Not, unfortunately, in protecting the customers from robbery of any type. Your Grandmother wasn't mugged, she was robbed. Purses are often snatched in stores but it's not the fault of the store.

louise_s_2

Forwandert: Unfortunately, yes, she did go on her own. Obviously, if anyone else in the family realised this was what she was going to do, one of us would definitely have gone with her.

It just seems odd that the store would have CCTV and security and then not use it to prevent this sort of thing (I've worked in an M&S store years ago, and know they have a staffed CCTV room). It sounds as though had violence been involved, it would be treated completely differently.

Thanks.

Forwandert

There's not much the store staff could of done, if violence had been involved staff would not have been able to help in the same way if the store was being robbed staff are trained to comply with the requests of the robbers and not put themselves in danger, all the staff could of possibly done is contact the police and made them aware it was happening/happened.

I think your garandmother has put herself in the situation but if it was a group and they had seen the amount of money being exchanged, chances are it has actually worked out better than if she had been accompanied, i know it won't feel like it but they would of probably taken the money one way or another..

louise_s_2

Forwandert: Unfortunately, yes, she did go on her own. Obviously, if anyone else in the family realised this was what she was going to do, one of us would definitely have gone with her.

It just seems odd that the store would have CCTV and security and then not use it to prevent this sort of thing (I've worked in an M&S store years ago, and know they have a staffed CCTV room). It sounds as though had violence been involved, it would be treated completely differently.

Thanks.

Antispam

How can the store be responsible they aren't to know who is a thief or not?

Of course if it was a violent attack she would be treated differently it would probably raise get noticed by someone else, a bag snatcher wouldn't they do it on sly

NeverInDebt

No. Why do you feel the need to ask. How can it be possible M&S fault to predict who may be a thief or watch everyone who comes into the store, they simple cant watch everyone.

Hope your grandma is okay but seriously it isnt M&S fault

louise_s wrote: »

Do we have any redress with the store at all? Surely they are responsible for customers' wellbeing and safety within the store - including not allowing them to be effectively mugged within it.

Does anyone have any information on this?
Thanks.

esuhl

louise_s wrote: »

It just seems odd that the store would have CCTV and security and then not use it to prevent this sort of thing (I've worked in an M&S store years ago, and know they have a staffed CCTV room). It sounds as though had violence been involved, it would be treated completely differently.

The CCTV would act as a deterrent by itself. It also makes it easier to identify known criminals and offer evidence to the courts if needed. It probably isn't cost-effective for M&S to have a security guard watching every single camera every minute, hence it's quite likely that some crime goes un-noticed.

Legally, M&S are only liable if they were negligent. So if the shop had employed a convicted pickpocket and let them wander the shop floor unsupervised, they might be seen to be negligent. But they could hardly be expected to identify every potential pickpocket who walks through their doors, or watch everyone to ensure they obey the law.

Imagine if you had a party for ten friends at your home. You have CCTV covering the rear patio. Whilst enjoying a barbecue on the patio, one of your friends pickpockets another. Would you accept liability? Why did your CCTV not prevent the theft?

Freddie_Snowbits

Sad though this tale of woe is, I am afraid the poor lass has lost her cash, but one hopes she is well though.

BargainGalore

Maybe its not just a thief but a M&S thief only joking

Hope your Grandma is okay, I am sure it must be dreadful experience for her and lets hope she is okay