Asda security searching my mam when she had paid!!

MattMattMattUK

The_Unready said:

Emmia said:

They are allowed to challenge you, and your Mam did not have the proof on her that she'd paid for those items. She also presumably handed over her bag or opened it for the guard to inspect.

It is unfortunately a fact that many people shoplift, including those with two walking sticks... Which is why security guards are employed.

I understand your Mam was upset and mortified by the incident, but I can't really see she's got grounds for complaint - fundamentally she had items in her bag, and no proof of purchase.

It's also true that many supermarkets now ask whether you want your receipt when you pay at a self-serve checkout. The intent is presumably to help save the planet by not printing them.

The only one near me that is still optional is Waitrose, the rest automatically print the receipt now and Sainsbury's have implemented a gate system that one needs the barcode from the receipt to get out of the till area, from people who I know in that sector Tesco also plan on rolling out a similar system and I would not be surprised if others follow. The main reason they stopped printing them is people would not take them, but with the gate/barrier system people will have to take them.

The_Unready said:

I rarely print receipts so would have no proof of purchase if challenged at the exit, so how would that work? Presumably I'd be marched back to the till where some poor soul would need to try and match my shopping to a recent purchase.

Potentially yes, although on the one occasion I could not find the receipt as I had stuffed it in a bag with other stuff and could not find it quickly the guard was totally happy with a Google Wallet receipt (which shows the location, store and amount, but not individual breakdown. Interestingly on that day there were about twenty security guards and they were checking everyone leaving the store, it was interesting to watch lots of people turning round and going back into the store when they could see what was happening, so it obviously worked as a shop lifting deterrent even if just for a short period of time.

The_Unready said:

However,  it's incumbent on security guards to have a justifiable reason for making a stop and search, and if the events panned out as described by the Op then there could not possibly have been a reason for her mum to have been stopped.

They are not conducting stop and search, they are asking a question, they cannot search without the customers permission, though they can detain until the police arrive and the police can conduct a search, but that is rare. I would say that in this instance, no receipt, small high value items placed in a handbag, that would sit in the suspicious category. 

The_Unready said:

Very poor from the guard!

He was doing his job, probably often abused, sometimes physically abused and regularly threatened, a thankless task.

I would say that it is an unfortunate situation, but one that given the circumstances described was far from unreasonable. 

flaneurs_lobster

If I were a security guard on minimum wage who's required to stop x number of punters a day to fill my quota I think I'd rather pick on little old ladies with walking aids than posses of feral youth, regardless of how many bottles of Smirnoff are sticking out of their North Faces.

user1977

teaselMay said:

It's perfectly reasonable to stop and ask for proof of purchase.

Also reasonable for customers to refuse to stop or exhibit their receipt. Security guards have no more rights than anybody else to carry out a citizen's arrest (or confiscate property), and (whether a civil or criminal complaint) the onus is on them (or the CPS) to prove that the customer has stolen anything.

flaneurs_lobster

user1977 said:

 Also reasonable for customers to refuse to stop or exhibit their receipt.

It may be perfectly legal to refuse to stop or show receipt, but "reasonable"? I'd say that if it were a reasonable request then a reasonable response would be a stop'n'show.

Alderbank

sheramber said:

I always take a reciept.

It is not just proof of paying but proof of purchase if you need to return anything.

Yes, it's important to remember that the widespread additional right to return shop-bought items within 30 days for change of mind almost always requires you to produce the till receipt, not just proof of purchase such as bank statement.

Okell

sheramber said:

I always take a reciept.

It is not just proof of paying but proof of purchase if you need to return anything.

This ^

I always ask for a receipt for even the smallest purchases so I always have proof of purchase if challenged.

At my local Sainsburys the own brand spirits don't have security tags on them that need to be removed, but the bottles are still tagged somehow and will often set off the alarm.  Easier to sort out with a receipt rather than without.

But not much point in getting a receipt if there are two of you and the one with the receipt splits up from the person with the goods...

Esty76 said:

I need email or something, but this can't go on!!
. 

If it will make you and your mum feel better make, a complaint as suggested by @MikeJXE, but they won't mean any apology and it won't change how their security people operate.  It'll be water off a duck's back.

Next time the person with the goods needs to have the receipt.  Sorry

Undervalued

MattMattMattUK said:

He was doing his job, probably often abused, sometimes physically abused and regularly threatened, a thankless task.

I would say that it is an unfortunate situation, but one that given the circumstances described was far from unreasonable. 

Ah, the Nuremberg defence! 

Whilst what you say its true, two wrongs never make a right!

Alderbank

Undervalued said:

MattMattMattUK said:

He was doing his job, probably often abused, sometimes physically abused and regularly threatened, a thankless task.

I would say that it is an unfortunate situation, but one that given the circumstances described was far from unreasonable. 

Ah, the Nuremberg defence! 

Whilst what you say its true, two wrongs never make a right!

In employment law, that Nuremberg defence (I was only obeying orders) is generally a valid defence. Your employer is considered to have vicarious liability.

It can even be a defence against the normally black and white charge of driving without insurance. That is usually an absolute offence but there is a defence if your employer told you to drive their vehicle and you obeyed their orders. 

MattMattMattUK

Undervalued said:

MattMattMattUK said:

He was doing his job, probably often abused, sometimes physically abused and regularly threatened, a thankless task.

I would say that it is an unfortunate situation, but one that given the circumstances described was far from unreasonable. 

Ah, the Nuremberg defence! 

Whilst what you say its true, two wrongs never make a right!

Seriously?
It was a perfectly reasonable request, in perfectly reasonable circumstances, and you bring up Nuremberg?

Alderbank

Godwin's law!