Accused of shoplifting

susancs

Mojisola wrote: »

I've had the alarms go off when leaving a store and been quite happy for staff members to empty out my bag and check that I'd paid for everything. Why did you find it embarrassing - you hadn't stolen anything and anyone watching would have seen that and known the staff had apologised to you.

I have had that happen to me several times and it was usually one of those hidden tags that the till checkout person did not remove. I have just had my receipt and bags checked and the items taken back to the till to have the tag found and taken off.

Pollycat

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Good grief.

If only the OP had pointed out that the item was put into the bag by her autistic 18 yr old son, without her knowledge.

"Good grief' what?

The OP may well have pointed out that her autistic sone had put the item in the bag without her knowledge - she doesn't say whether she did or not.
Your suggestion deals with an alternative way to deal with the shop staff after she had been stopped.
The staff may not have believed her explanation anyway.

The fact remains - if the OP had used a basket she almost certainly would have noticed that the meal chosen by her son wasn't in the basket and asked him where it was before getting to the check-out - after all she only bought a 'few bits and pieces'.
That suggestion would have avoided the situation developing in the first place.
Surely a much better way to shop?

ThumbRemote

Pollycat wrote: »

"Good grief' what?

The OP may well have pointed out that her autistic sone had put the item in the bag without her knowledge - she doesn't say whether she did or not.
Your suggestion deals with an alternative way to deal with the shop staff after she had been stopped.
The staff may not have believed her explanation anyway.

The fact remains - if the OP had used a basket she almost certainly would have noticed that the meal chosen by her son wasn't in the basket and asked him where it was before getting to the check-out - after all she only bought a 'few bits and pieces'.
That suggestion would have avoided the situation developing in the first place.
Surely a much better way to shop?

Good grief, as in "good grief, do people even read posts before replying".

The OP pointed this out on here, to people who have supposedly read it. I wasn't suggesting she should have pointed it out in the supermarket.

My suggestion was that saying "Should have used a basket" was pointless and unhelpful. First off, the OP wasn't even asking for advice on how to prevent it happening again. Secondly the OP doesn't say they didn't use a basket or trolley - that's just a guess.

"if the OP had used a basket she almost certainly would have noticed that the meal chosen by her son wasn't in the basket" - but she DID notice it wasn't there, hence they paid for it.

"That suggestion would have avoided the situation developing in the first place." well no it wouldn't, because the customer saw the son put it into the bag when picked off the shelf.

Clearly there are numerous things they could have done to prevent this happening. But pointing out one thing, based on an assumption, that wouldn't actually have prevented it? Good grief sums that up perfectly!

philatio

When I worked in retail, a member of staff had to actually see you pocketing something before they were allowed to confront you. Taking another customers word for it was not good enough.
Surprised if this has changed now.

hollydays

On has to wonder why the staff didn't watch the op and son go through the checkout. If they had of done, they would have seen presumably that the carrier bag appeared empty and a meal was paid for.
If it genuinely was a member of the public who witnessed this , they would have known the item was paid for at the tills.
Lazy overzealous staff, need a rocket.

Who's to say the customer was right, if they even existed.

marliepanda

hollydays wrote: »

On has to wonder why the staff didn't watch the op and son go through the checkout. If they had of done, they would have seen presumably that the carrier bag appeared empty and a meal was paid for.
If it genuinely was a member of the public who witnessed this , they would have known the item was paid for at the tills.
Lazy overzealous staff, need a rocket.

Who's to say the customer was right, if they even existed.

Possibly exacerbated by the 'going back for a giftcard' element. Customer puts item in own bag, then faffs about somewhat to-ing and fro-ing from the till for additional items. Especially as the two customers came in together, put an item in a separate bag and then split up for seemingly no reason?

Its enough to warrant a check as obviously it was initially seen by somebody, a customer or a staff member, as it happened. They may have thought they were going back for the item or creating a confusing chain of events in order to evade the security staff.

Obviously the OP wasn't but thats exactly the type of tactics some thieves employ, confuse and faff about, come in together, then split up etc!

hollydays

It's not enough to warrant" a check" no such thing.
The management would go spare about this approach.

marliepanda

hollydays wrote: »

It's not enough to warrant" a check" no such thing.
The management would go spare about this approach.

Why such an overreaction to a non issue? I am sure no one is going spare about anything as there's really nothing to go spare over.

Item was placed into personal bag causing confusion and suspicion.

Suspicions averted.

The OP even joked with her son so knew how it 'may have looked' it would have been a good opportunity to just say 'look, this is what I meant, they think we've stolen your meal. Hahah, lets not do that again!'

hollydays

Staff are told never to act on third party information.
The management would " over react" if that's what you are calling it.
In this circumstance the staff haven't just asked to look in the bag they've Said he stolen an item-it makes no difference whether they infer it was seen by the third party or not. If a third party had seen it-presumably they got address?
Im answering the ops question about whether staff were right to act in this way-the answer is-no.

marliepanda

hollydays wrote: »

Staff are told never to act on third party information.
The management would " over react" if that's what you are calling it.
In this circumstance the staff haven't just asked to look in the bag they've Said he stolen an item-it makes no difference whether they infer it was seen by the third party or not. If a third party had seen it-presumably they got this address?

Slightly different situation, but I once saw three young adults go through the cinema barriers without a ticket (they snuck around a back pillar)

I told the security guard at the time, who had not seen it. Should he have just ignored what I said? And did I give my address, no? What requirement is there for someone to give over their details when saying 'hey they just did something dodgy.' Absolutely none.

I've worked retail before and I have never been told once to 'not act on third party information.' Considering the item WAS placed into a bag so the accuracy of the accusation isn't in question' the security guard/staff member may have just said that to make it seem less of a personal assumption from him, so as to not get the OP's back up by personally accusing them. Maybe the initial witnessing was by a customer, but then the security guard/staff followed this up, saw an item in a personal bag and then the subsequent splitting up and going through the till multiple times, both together and apart scenario.

The 'event' that was stated as causing suspicion DID happen by the OP's own admission. its seriously not a big issue at all.