Bank Locked Us In without consent False Imprisonment

stripeyfox

btw do any of your fellow "inmates" feel this way?

stripeyfox

emilianozapata wrote: »

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)

That may well be the case, but this is not a court nor a legal forum. It is a forum in which people may or may not want to have their say. And I think the length of time is relevant even if not from a legal point of view.

So are you going to tell us how long you were imprisoned for? Or not?

emilianozapata

EachPenny wrote: »

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.

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.

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?)

My concerns would not be with the 'entity' though, but with individuals at the branch, unless you think the police can arrest a high street bank?

I'm not going to address the specifics of any of the rest of your post, other than to say
1. this doesnt detract from the fact you may have been falsely imprisoned.
2. That it appears you were either on your own or not mindful to support your fellow citizens. Something I strongly believe in, and a cornerstone of our democracy.
3. Your beliefs are exactly that. I like facts, but I would fight to protect your rights to assert your beliefs as if they have the same standing.

emilianozapata

Faith177 wrote: »

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

This is not how the issue is considered in law. But thanks for your highly subjective input. I hope you are never locked in a room with a veteran who suffers PTSD.
*thinks*

Faith177

emilianozapata wrote: »

This is not how the issue is considered in law. But thanks for your highly subjective input. I hope you are never locked in a room with a veteran who suffers PTSD.
*thinks*

My husband has PTSD thank you along with several of my friends :kisses3:


Never assume my darling you might end up looking slightly silly

emilianozapata

gomer wrote: »

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.

No, there are no identifying features within my post. You're wrong.

emilianozapata

Faith177 wrote: »

My husband has PTSD thank you along with several of my friends :kisses3:


Never assume my darling you might end up looking slightly silly

I don't assume anything. I used the clearly understandable example of a >veteran< with PTSD. I have no idea if your husband served in the armed forces or not, however, regardless, the concept of a veteran with PTSD as generally used/understood is one who may become violent when triggered. Hence the risk factor of locking anyone in a room anywhere, without either consent or authority. I was making a simple, clearly understood generalisation, rather than listing every situation in which locking someone in a room without consent may be reckless.
Thanks again for the input though.

EachPenny

emilianozapata wrote: »

No, in law the amount of time is irrelevant.

Not so. The law also operates on the basis of the De minimis principle. Although you haven't yet stated the exact amount of time you were detained, it seems improbable that it was anything other than trivial.

You should also research the principle of vexatious litigation. If you decided to proceed with your action then I'd strongly suggest you should obtain professional legal advice, which should include an professional view on whether or not you were being reasonable in your claim.

emilianozapata wrote: »

That would be insane.

There are a great many things which could be similarly described.

emilianozapata wrote: »

My concerns would not be with the 'entity' though, but with individuals at the branch, unless you think the police can arrest a high street bank?

If you have a claim of any kind then it is likely to be a financial one against the bank as a result of any losses you have suffered as a result of their employees actions. You question in relation to whether or not the "police can arrest a high street bank" suggests you haven't started this thread for serious reasons.

emilianozapata wrote: »

I'm not going to address the specifics of any of the rest of your post, other than to say
1. this doesnt detract from the fact you may have been falsely imprisoned.
2. That it appears you were either on your own or not mindful to support your fellow citizens. Something I strongly believe in, and a cornerstone of our democracy.
3. Your beliefs are exactly that. I like facts, but I would fight to protect your rights to assert your beliefs as if they have the same standing.

Apparently not. You don't appear to pay any regard to the need to support the members of the bank staff (also your fellow citizens) in carrying out their job in safety. Nor do you appear to support your fellow citizens having access to a functional cash machine.

If the law was applied precisely in the manner you demand, then other citizen's rights and freedoms would be affected. Perhaps we need to have a vote on whose rights should take precedence?

Sea_Shell

OP you are incredibly lucky, if the worst thing you have to worry about in life is being locked in a bank for 5 mins (and I'm betting is was only that long and is why OP won't specify this).

There are more important fights to fight.

emilianozapata

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

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?

"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."

No, it doesn't, on it's face, suggest anything of the sort - and consequently I'm not going to respond further. Thank you for the input.