I was refused entry in a local B&M store today

A_Geordie

user1977 said:

It wouldn't be hearsay if it was based on the direct evidence of a member of staff who saw the incident.

Perhaps, but in a legal sense it would still be hearsay evidence until such time that member of staff put forward a witness statement to that effect in court. Still, if there's no actual evidence other than the word of a member of staff (who could have got the wrong person) is unlikely to be held up in court given the seriousness of the allegation being made. The absence of images of the OP carrying out the alleged theft except an image of them walking in the shop means absolutely nothing for the purposes of proving that the individual committed theft in the shop.

Therfore, it cannot be said that the image taken together with the description held about the OP is sufficiently accurate so as to call the OP a thief. A lack of evidence showing any attempt to stop the OP from leaving the shop, reporting it to police or other reasonable steps could reinforce the lack of accuracy. 

Okell

A_Geordie said:

nero33 said:

So what does an SAR actually mean? Provide all video/photographic/written evidence held on me?

The basis of your claim will be the accuracy of the description they hold on the system i.e. theft. The onus is on FaceWatch to prove that the information is accurate and if it is not, then it should be deleted. I would expect them to have evidence proving that you had actually committed theft but from what's been provided so far, I don't think they can...

For the reasons you've given isn't it extremly likely that there will be nothing to suggest that the OP is guilty of theft, but simply that they are suspected of theft - which presumably would be accurate?

If I were a store manager or owner I would want to refuse entry to anyone whom I suspected shoplifting

A_Geordie

Okell said:

For the reasons you've given isn't it extremly likely that there will be nothing to suggest that the OP is guilty of theft, but simply that they are suspected of theft - which presumably would be accurate?

But according to the OP, the description that FaceWatch has in their database says: put goods in a bag and then left the store with the unpaid goods.

That reads to me as a positive act of putting unpaid goods into their bag and leaving the store i.e. theft. If the description was altered slightly to say the OP was suspected of theft by putting unpaid goods into their bag and leaving then yes, that is potentially acceptable since it becomes more of an opinion than a factual statement.

However, playing devil's advocate, the other angle to this is even if those words were altered, it may still be possible for a court to find that the data continues to be inaccurate based on the image of the OP, especially if it is a still image of the OP in the shop and isn't carrying a shopping bag. The counter argument could be that the image itself is irrelevant since it is only used for the purpose of identifying the accused using FaceWatch's facial recognition software.

Ultimately the UK GDPR does not define what is accurate, but the Data Protection Act 2018 does say that something is inaccurate if it is "incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact." and that will be the key question to consider.

GingerTim

Face watch now being trialled by Sainsbury's.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/02/sainsburys-tests-facial-recognition-technology-in-effort-to-tackle-shoplifting

booneruk

Isn't this similar to credit files, in that the CRAs only store what has been reported to them, and the fix for incorrect data is to take it up with the supplying organisation, in this case B&M?

A_Geordie

booneruk said:

Isn't this similar to credit files, in that the CRAs only store what has been reported to them, and the fix for incorrect data is to take it up with the supplying organisation, in this case B&M?

Not quite, because Facewatch determines how that image should be used i.e. running it through their image software storing it on their database, setting up alerts for their business customers in relation to those who are flagged up etc. Pretty sure the ICO has already designated FaceWatch as a controller for the purposes of their processing and I don't think that is dispute by FaceWatch. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

GingerTim said:

Face watch now being trialled by Sainsbury's.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/02/sainsburys-tests-facial-recognition-technology-in-effort-to-tackle-shoplifting

Talking of privacy, if you visit the link remember to delete the 96 cookies the Guardian places on your browser if you opt to read for free. 

nero33

UPDATE

I have been in regular contact with Facewatch and I requested that they send me all evidence that was held on their system.

I was told they did not hold any CCTV/video of the alleged incident but would now involve B&M who held the evidence/footage.

Facewatch then contacted me same day to say:

"Following our recent communications, I escalated the incident to the Manager of Profit Protection for B&M Bargains on your behalf.

Unfortunately, there is no longer any CCTV footage available for this incident.

In light of this, and considering the information you have provided, I have resolved the matter by removing your record from the Facewatch system.

Your profile has now been permanently deleted, and  will no longer trigger any alerts going forward."

Clearly it is a huge weight off our shoulders and 4 months of stress took it's toll.

Facewatch were extremely professional and courteous throughout and I genuinely felt they were looking to help me from their first reply onwards.  I think they realised yesterday that someone at B&M may have made up an incident and didn't expect us to go through the processes involved in challenging their decision to ban.

It is highly unlikely that we'll ever set foot in a B&M store again.

Many thanks to all of you that took the time to read/reply/offer advice;

MattMattMattUK

nero33 said:

UPDATE

I have been in regular contact with Facewatch and I requested that they send me all evidence that was held on their system.

I was told they did not hold any CCTV/video of the alleged incident but would now involve B&M who held the evidence/footage.

Facewatch then contacted me same day to say:

"Following our recent communications, I escalated the incident to the Manager of Profit Protection for B&M Bargains on your behalf.

Unfortunately, there is no longer any CCTV footage available for this incident.

In light of this, and considering the information you have provided, I have resolved the matter by removing your record from the Facewatch system.

Your profile has now been permanently deleted, and  will no longer trigger any alerts going forward."

Clearly it is a huge weight off our shoulders and 4 months of stress took it's toll.

Facewatch were extremely professional and courteous throughout and I genuinely felt they were looking to help me from their first reply onwards.  I think they realised yesterday that someone at B&M may have made up an incident and didn't expect us to go through the processes involved in challenging their decision to ban.

It is highly unlikely that we'll ever set foot in a B&M store again.

Many thanks to all of you that took the time to read/reply/offer advice;

A really good result and good info for others in the future who have done nothing wrong. Well done on this!

Renfrewman

MattMattMattUK said:

nero33 said:

UPDATE

I have been in regular contact with Facewatch and I requested that they send me all evidence that was held on their system.

I was told they did not hold any CCTV/video of the alleged incident but would now involve B&M who held the evidence/footage.

Facewatch then contacted me same day to say:

"Following our recent communications, I escalated the incident to the Manager of Profit Protection for B&M Bargains on your behalf.

Unfortunately, there is no longer any CCTV footage available for this incident.

In light of this, and considering the information you have provided, I have resolved the matter by removing your record from the Facewatch system.

Your profile has now been permanently deleted, and  will no longer trigger any alerts going forward."

Clearly it is a huge weight off our shoulders and 4 months of stress took it's toll.

Facewatch were extremely professional and courteous throughout and I genuinely felt they were looking to help me from their first reply onwards.  I think they realised yesterday that someone at B&M may have made up an incident and didn't expect us to go through the processes involved in challenging their decision to ban.

It is highly unlikely that we'll ever set foot in a B&M store again.

Many thanks to all of you that took the time to read/reply/offer advice;

A really good result and good info for others in the future who have done nothing wrong. Well done on this!

Something similar happened to me in B&M.  I was stopped in the car park and asked to return to the store as a staff member thought they saw me shoplifting...was happy to do so! I was asked to empty my right hand jacket pocket...I did and it revealed six branded Tesco tattie scones...honestly you should have seen their faces! Did I get upset...not in the least especially as I got £50 of vouchers! Mistakes happen. OP fought for the right to shop in B&M and now that they can refuses to do so...a bit perverse I suggest?