Bank Locked Us In without consent False Imprisonment

emilianozapata

18cc wrote: »

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

I've already had an interesting response from a bank staff member.
This is a national site, with a lot of 'switched on' consumers.
It is, on one level, a straightforward customer relations issue.

emilianozapata

Silver_Queen wrote: »

False imprisonment is a tort, it is a complex area of law and even if you did have a claim (can't say either way), you should seek legal advice as it is likely that someone with expertise will have to assess quantum, i.e. how much you should get by way of damages.

Otherwise you could try the forum legalbeagles who would probably be able to help more than a "budgeting and bank account" section of a money saving website!

Yes, I hear what you say. The reason I have posted here (as already coming back in response) is that it's a very lively site for people who work in banks and users of banks. This may have happened to someone else on this site. It's also clearly a 'consumer issue'.

Thank you so much for your response. I think the principles I have raised are useful for a banking-interest forum and will hopefully raise a few eyebrows in 21st century Britain.

(I've had some very good advice previously too posting on these forums around the edges of legal stuff).

The offence as I understand it is relatively straightforward
False imprisonment is an offence at common law. The offence states:-

"The unlawful and total restraint of the personal liberty of another, whether by constraining him or compelling him to go to a particular place or by confining him in a prison or police station or private place or by detaining him against his will in a public place."

But there is case-law which provides 'exceptions' so I wouldn't expect anyone to comment definitively. Thank you for the link to the other site I shall certainly follow that up.

Faith177

emilianozapata wrote: »

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?

TBH if I knew they were restocking the machines I would expect it as it's simple common sense the bank is it's most vunerable same as any business when the tills or machines are being uplifted

emilianozapata

BoGoF wrote: »

What has this got to do with 'Budgeting and Bank Accounts'?

The ranting board is down a bit.

1. It happened in a bank, whilst I was budgeting.

2. If you cannot see the potential issues coming out of it, also related to budgeting and bank accounts, I can't help you.

3. So feel free to drop down a bit. I don't think anyone will stop you.

emilianozapata

Faith177 wrote: »

If it wasnt that long I'd just move on tbh you'll waste more time and energy trying to fight it



They did have a valid reason to lock the doors as a money delivery or machine load would have to be done securely for the bank staff safety. It would problem take longer for them to turf everyone out and mess about than it does locking the doors for a couple of minutes. Trust me I've tried to get people out of shops when a fire alarm was going off and that took long enough :rotfl:


As for people being fired and having their cars towed surely they would be pushing their luck with queing in the bank anyway with out a small delay by being locked in

No, you are wrong.

"The unlawful and total restraint of the personal liberty of another, whether by constraining him or compelling him to go to a particular place or by confining him in a prison or police station or private place or by detaining him against his will in a public place."

And I would helpfully refer you to any quote on civil liberties, the mental capacities act, or any other wonderful quote involving those who allow erosions of rights and liberties hard won.

Only the police or individuals in position of especially designated authority, or highly exceptional circumstances can be used to mitigate/except the above.

Thanks for your input though. Always fascinating to see the views of those living in the free world.

emilianozapata

Faith177 wrote: »

TBH if I knew they were restocking the machines I would expect it as it's simple common sense the bank is it's most vunerable same as any business when the tills or machines are being uplifted

Yes, I understand that might be a common 'first thought'
However my response to this is that facts trump 'beliefs in ones head'.

The bank helpdesk were horrified, and had never heard such a thing.

When you reflect, you may find it more obvious (and even recall, as I can) situations where a bank will stand by the door, not let anyone in and apologise and close for a few minutes while these tasks are carried out.

For, yes, this is the normal, expected professional practice.
What I am reporting is lazy, bad practice solely for the convenience of the bank.

stripeyfox

emilianozapata wrote: »

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?

In order for people to adequately judge you need to provide a iittle more information. The amount of time is crucial here. If my bank locked the doors for some reason preventing me from leaving, I assume there would be a good reason for doing so. If it was 2 minutes or 10 minutes then I have been only slightly inconvenienced. If I was locked in all afternoon or overnight then that is a very different matter.

So since you are discussing this, then why not tell us how long the imprisonment lasted?

Faith177

emilianozapata wrote: »

Yes, I understand that might be a common 'first thought'
However my response to this is that facts trump 'beliefs in ones head'.

The bank helpdesk were horrified, and had never heard such a thing.

When you reflect, you may find it more obvious (and even recall, as I can) situations where a bank will stand by the door, not let anyone in and apologise and close for a few minutes while these tasks are carried out.

For, yes, this is the normal, expected professional practice.
What I am reporting is lazy, bad practice solely for the convenience of the bank.

No what you are doing is making a mountain out of an INCREDIBLY tini tiny molehill

EachPenny

emilianozapata wrote: »

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 'hilarous' comment here, I do see how a third party could find this amusing in its peculiarity).

If you are hoping to start a peasant's revolt then I fear you've picked the wrong cause. Furthermore, if the bank invite you to return to the branch to discuss the matter with the manager, be very wary that you aren't being double-crossed and lured to a bloody demise.

emilianozapata wrote: »

Does your bank lock customers in without consent?

Yes. The last time it happened (same kind of circumstances as you) I was short of time to get back to my car in a time-limited car park (£70 penalty). I calmly pointed this out to a staff member and asked whether they would reimburse me if I got fined (I'd already been delayed in the branch because their CS staff were useless). They invited me to follow them to a back door and quickly ushered me out.

I believe that if anyone approached a member of staff to indicate they felt 'abused' or were 'fearful' or 'concerned' in any way about their unexpected detention, then the staff member would quickly find a way of resolving the issue.

emilianozapata wrote: »

We have a lot of rights in this nation, it's a shame so few people exercise them.

Banks also have 'rights'. One of them is the ability to close the accounts of customers with whom they believe the banking relationship has 'broken down'. I would suggest that taking legal action against your bank for 'False imprisonment' would be a good indicator that the relationship had 'broken down'. You might want to reflect on whether this might be a problem for you. (E.g. Do you have alternative banking facilities already?)

emilianozapata

stripeyfox wrote: »

In order for people to adequately judge you need to provide a iittle more information. The amount of time is crucial here. If my bank locked the doors for some reason preventing me from leaving, I assume there would be a good reason for doing so. If it was 2 minutes or 10 minutes then I have been only slightly inconvenienced. If I was locked in all afternoon or overnight then that is a very different matter.

So since you are discussing this, then why not tell us how long the imprisonment lasted?

No, in law the amount of time is irrelevant. In logic the amount of time is a 'mitigating factor' only. This is logical, and can be illustrated by simple extrapolation. If you went to visit your neighbour, and then went to leave and they said 'you can't leave, the oven door is open and someone might steal my pies'
That would be insane.

Logically, the same applies to banks. They are not 'above you' people just allow authority figures to boss them around.
To deprive someone of their liberty, just for the convenience of the bank, is an act of abuse. If you dont see that, that's your right. A right hard won and maintained by people who fight for rights. Not those who support the erosion of rights.

Your argument is also a strict non-sequitur. You project what you think 'is OK for you' onto others you don't know, who may have 1001 reasons why being locked in suddenly could cause major issues, even if only for 1 minute. Which is why those powers are strictly controlled by law. (see what I did there)