Bank Locked Us In without consent False Imprisonment

emilianozapata

Gers wrote: »

Blimey! :eek:

Weirdest post I have read here and that includes the dead dog one which was at least hilarious.

I was stuck in a traffic queue the other week as there had been a fatal crash ahead. Couldn't go forward, couldn't go back... was I being unlawfully confined? Who do I sue? :rotfl::rotfl:

I will only say this. If you can't find your car door, you shouldn't be driving.

I won't be responding further. I am sitting back now, and smiling.

stripeyfox

:money:Actually I wouldn't mind being locked in my bank. they have lovely comfy sofas, coffee machine and newspapers to read.

Gers

emilianozapata wrote: »

I will only say this. If you can't find your car door, you shouldn't be driving.

I won't be responding further. I am sitting back now, and smiling.

It was in a tunnel - no way out! Confined. No fresh air. And I'm claustrophobic. Tell me who to sue.

Now, do you promise to leave? Really Cross your heart, hope to die? Stick a needle in your eye?

Gers

stripeyfox wrote: »

:money:Actually I wouldn't mind being locked in my bank. they have lovely comfy sofas, coffee machine and newspapers to read.

Ah, forgot about that. My RBS has all of those, and very lovely coffee it is too. As for my being stuck in a tunnel, I didn't even have a half empty flask. Is that refused access to hydration and food?

EachPenny

emilianozapata wrote: »

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

In my opinion, your suggestion that a bank (or any other organisation) shouldn't be able to lock their doors for the briefest of time with customers on the inside - without being guilty of "unlawful detention" - amounts to a 'demand'.

If implemented it would impact on the ability of organisations to deliver services to the public and affect the safety of customers and staff alike.

emilianozapata wrote: »

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

If you continue at your current rate of progress you will soon run out of people to respond to.

emilianozapata

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

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?

You might want to think further on the question.

Do bank doors lock when a bank is being robbed and members of the public are inside?
Can you demonstrate this to us with a reference linking to this 'fact'?

emilianozapata

mgdavid wrote: »

You've said that four times now, but continue to respond. I suppose as much a hollow threat as taking this to court.
BTW - how long were you locked in for?

Those are responses to individuals.
RTFM.

Thank you for the input, I won't be responding further.
https://www.dictionary.com/

EachPenny

emilianozapata wrote: »

From my initial contacts with the customer support helpdesk, and their stunned silence/initial shock, I'm not so sure.

It is always unwise to make assumptions about the cause of "stunned silence/initial shock".

emilianozapata wrote: »

I stated in this now rather long and somewhat depressing (from a civil rights perspective) thread that previously I've experienced a staged lock out, where staff let people out and not in, 'shut' the bank, do the maintenance and reopen. This would appear from what people I have spoken to have also experienced as 'good practice' in anywhere where a cash matter had to be concluded.

This thread has nothing to do with 'civil rights'. You were inconvenienced whilst the bank staff carried out a necessary procedure. In your opinion it could have been done differently, but that does not amount to it being a case of "unlawful detention".

emilianozapata wrote: »

It appears to me that on that day, the manager was short-cutting policy for their own convenience. I would assert this was reckless.

Unless the bank have shared a copy of their branch procedures with you (unlikely, for security reasons) then you are making assumptions and potentially false allegations.

emilianozapata wrote: »

Without going into detail, a member of the public might also expect only one consistent official version of why this was being done in such a circumstance.

I would expect a member of the public to get a slightly different version depending on who they speak to. The procedures and circumstances will vary on a branch-by-branch and day-to-day basis. The lack of a 'consistent official version' in response to a general enquiry is not at all surprising. A specific customer asking 'officially' about the details of a specific event could expect an accurate (but limited) response. Which one applies in your case?

EachPenny

stripeyfox wrote: »

:money:Actually I wouldn't mind being locked in my bank. they have lovely comfy sofas, coffee machine and newspapers to read.

Virgin Money? My nearest one also does hot chocolate and biscuits... and don't forget about the free WiFi.

Gers

EachPenny wrote: »

Virgin Money? My nearest one also does hot chocolate and biscuits... and don't forget about the free WiFi.

And papers to while away the time. Glasgow one is brill!