Bank Locked Us In without consent False Imprisonment

[Deleted User]

What would you like?

£50 compensation?
Restaurant vouchers?
Attention?

What exactly are you hoping to gain posting here?

EssexExile

emilianozapata wrote: »

If you have anything useful to add to assist me, please do respond.

It's a forum, people respond, that's how forums work.

Terry_Towelling

Wrong place to air the subject but can you demonstrate that the bank's actions were made for the sole purpose of depriving freedom of movement? On this occasion, that appears not to be the case. The purpose was to carry out maintenance of a device and the locking of the doors was simply an associated security measure.

Yes the bank's failure to announce its intentions and allow individuals to leave (if indeed it did fail to do so) was a bit odd but it's intentions were not to imprison people, merely to carry out maintenance in a secure way.

You state people did not consent to the locking of the doors which does suggest they were given warning - or is that not how it happened.

How long was the 'imprisonment' and in what way are you able to say those restrained felt under threat of non-release?

RG2015

Should have contacted Alistair Darling.

He did a great job with the last bank bail out.

stripeyfox

emilianozapata wrote: »

Thank you for the response. The amount of time was not long though it felt it, but my understanding of the legislation is that that is only a consideration regarding mitigation, not defining any potential finding on criminal or civil transgressions. Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious matter at any time. A serious matter, not just the underlying principle which is there to stop abuse at a base level, also not least because you may be detaining someone unlawfully who may subsequently have serious health issues triggered by such things - such as PTSD. Or may simply be fired for being late back, or have their car towed.

My understanding is that Banks do not have the power to detain people without due cause or consent anymore than anyone else might. That's an important principle to defend.

So how long, roughly?

colsten

Faith177 wrote: »

How long were you locked in for?

Not long enough, it appears

gomer

emilianozapata wrote: »

Three things:

1. While I actually do respect your right to respond to any thread within a freely available forum, what benefit does it do you to respond to a clear set of questions by effectively telling me to 'go away?' and with a response the detail of which you don't know if I have or have not already pursued, but state as if you know I have not?

2. There is not, nor should there be any issue with discussing the >background< to an act a UK citizen believes to be criminal. I have not stated as fact there was a criminal act, only YOU have done that and I must stress I don't know for sure if there was. Only that the statute describing False Imprisonment appears to be clear and straightforward.

3. I have previously had need to communicate with 3 UK forces regarding their understanding of the Child Abduction Act 1984 at the most senior level (and with a number of senior officers) None of them understood the act. So your advice which infers that the only route to a resolution of my question would be to the Police is from actual evidence a false assertion.

If you have anything useful to add to assist me, please do respond.

I should add, my understanding as I see it is this might also fall within a breach of Civil Law.

The point is that by posting it on a public forum there's the potential any future case could be prejudiced, as has happened with things being discussed on social media many times that may get to court or be in court currently.

Perhaps focus more on that then in telling people what sort of replies they can post. I don't feel the tone of your response does you any favours.

twhitehousescat

!!! wrote: »

What would you like?

£50 compensation?
Restaurant vouchers?
Attention?

What exactly are you hoping to gain posting here?

and some food for the kittens as well

18cc

Well what I said was 'with respect 'which signalled that of course you have a right to post what you want anywhere

I was merely pointing out that an unlawful act of detention (which I did not state- you stated in your original post) is a criminal act for sure and as such criminal matters are probably not best discussed in budgeting and banking fora and that if you think of criminal act has been comitted then not only should you report it to the police but I think you are probably expected to

emilianozapata

Flobberchops wrote: »

That's hilarious. Which bank?


If any of you felt sufficiently aggrieved, why didn't you use one of the fire escapes?

I cannot actually address this without going into some detail about events which I don't think is appropriate, it also goes beyond discussing the principles of an act which are in their essence acts of abuse, which render victims fearful (oh, I'm not attacking the 'hilarious' comment here, I do see how a third party could find this amusing in its peculiarity).

Does your bank lock customers in without consent?