Bank Locked Us In without consent False Imprisonment

Silver_Queen

I think that you firstly need to think about what you want from them. If you're looking to sue them for damages, you absolutely need to speak to a solicitor first. I don't think you've answered the question of how long you were locked in for, which may make a difference when it comes to whether or not the claim would be considered frivolous.

If what you want is an apology and a bit of compo, I would just make a complaint to the bank.

I do think that it's a bit weird and uncomfortable for the bank to just lock you in without warning you first but whether or not that's worth the aggravation that you'd need to go through for a claim or complaint, that's your decision to make.

emilianozapata

Sea_Shell wrote: »

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.

I hope you are not a betting person and that you are aware that passive aggression raises blood pressure.

Thank you for the input, I shall not be responding further.

Silver_Queen

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?

Presumably the bank staff would simply be acting according to company policy and their training?

paddyandstumpy

Genuine question for the OP; if you were 'unlawfully detained' because the door locks had triggered because the bank was being held up, would you still complain that the doors were locked? Or, what do you think should happen here?

Faith177

emilianozapata wrote: »

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.

You are using an incredibly rare example to spin a situation to your way of thinking the same as when people say about children ect


Not all sufferers of PTSD become violent so again another rather poor assumption on your part.


Seriously you were probably in there for all of 5 minutes if that in what I would imagine was a large open plan building with windows and plenty of light the way you are carrying on you make it sound like they had you in a gulag in Siberia for 20+ years. You are making up a lot of over dramatics over a VERY minor inconvience



You want to talk about being held against your will spare a thought for poor Jayme Closs who really was held against her will not just shut in a bank for a couple of minutes and I'm sure if anyone was suffering in the way you make out they could have been a quite word with the staff would have sufficed

JuicyJesus

The reason they don't announce it is so that they're not announcing ahead of time that they're going to be carrying large sums of cash across a banking hall. They lock the doors because seeing large sums of cash being walked across a banking hall is attractive to thieves. They care far less about you being mildly inconvenienced for a couple of minutes than they do about the thought of them getting assaulted or worse. The idea of this being "false imprisonment" is laughable.

Honestly, truly, my advice is this: Get the f**k over it. Bank procedures like this are written in blood; every single one exists because someone, somewhere has been injured as a result of that procedure not being followed. If this traumatises you to such a significant extent then see a therapist.

jonesMUFCforever

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The reason they don't announce it is so that they're not announcing ahead of time that they're going to be carrying large sums of cash across a banking hall. They lock the doors because seeing large sums of cash being walked across a banking hall is attractive to thieves. They care far less about you being mildly inconvenienced for a couple of minutes than they do about the thought of them getting assaulted or worse. The idea of this being "false imprisonment" is laughable.

Honestly, truly, my advice is this: Get the f**k over it. Bank procedures like this are written in blood; every single one exists because someone, somewhere has been injured as a result of that procedure not being followed. If this traumatises you to such a significant extent then see a therapist.

I couldn't have put it better myself.:T:T

emilianozapata

EachPenny wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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?

Appearances are deceptive. Things unknown deemed apparent are still unknown. The seams fall of suppositions merely based on what you think they seem.

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense to me, either in context or standing alone.

Saying I demand anything, without quoting what I demand (because you cannot, because I did not) renders the following result:

Thanks for the input, I shall not be responding further.

BoGoF

If this ever gets to court (which it wont), please tell us where it is......would love to see you laughed out of court.

unforeseen

regardless, the concept of a veteran with PTSD as generally used/understood is one who may become violent when triggered

you really don't have a clue about PTSD and how it affects veterans if that is what you think or believe.