Help! Tesco coupon policy? I've been banned!

Joto_2

Going back to the original thread by Igloo and just a thought. A lot of people when they take out car/home/building insurance also take out the legal protection offer, which usually offers 24 hr legal advice and if necessary will take up your case. I'm not certain of the individual offers and I presume that it would be different depending on who you get your insurance through but it certainly applies to any legal query not just related to the car/home etc. I've used this avenue on a couple of occasions just to get some advice or to clarify where I stand legally.

[Deleted User]

Fifer wrote:

That's debatable ... and almost certainly wrong.

Why?

What CRIMINAL offences are there? Based on what Igloo initially posted?

ben500

Deleted_User wrote:

Why?

What CRIMINAL offences are there? Based on what Igloo initially posted?

Unlawful arrest for one

[Deleted User]

She wasn't arrested.

esalan

I guess Ben meant 'unlawful detention'.

[Deleted User]

It wasn't unlawful either.

The shop have the right to reasonably ask a customer anything. It sounds to me like she was invitied into the office (rather than having the discussion at the tills) and she went willingly with no force used. Perhaps Igloo can confirm?

She did not have to go. Neither does anyone else.

She could have walked out the shop forcing them to make a decision as to whether to physically detain her. The shop then take the risk of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, defamation of character and assault.

From what Igloo has described - and she even quotes in her frst post 'I thought they were going to arrest me' - nothing CRIMINALLY unlawful or illegal has been committed by the shop based on what she has said.

The matter appears entirely civil over the issue of coupons.

esalan

But, if she was not allowed to leave when she wanted to, then that is detention -- and surely unlawful!

ben500

Deleted_User wrote:

It wasn't unlawful either.

The shop have the right to reasonably ask a customer anything. It sounds to me like she was invitied into the office (rather than having the discussion at the tills) and she went willingly with no force used. Perhaps Igloo can confirm?

She did not have to go. Neither does anyone else.

She could have walked out the shop forcing them to make a decision as to whether to physically detain her. The shop then take the risk of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, defamation of character and assault.

From what Igloo has described - and she even quotes in her frst post 'I thought they were going to arrest me' - nothing CRIMINALLY unlawful or illegal has been committed by the shop based on what she has said.


The matter appears entirely civil over the issue of coupons.

This has already been gone over several times if you would like to look back over the thread, you do not have to physically restrain someone in order to unlawfully detain, she asked to leave they refused to allow her that is enough!

What do you suppose a woman with two children in tow should do in such a situation she has children in her care and is not in a position to challenge two adult males just to see the outcome, I'm also pretty sure that at the time she may well not have been her usual rational self for example maybe in just a little panic perhaps, we are not all of the same constitution and what poses as a threat to some may not necessarily pose as a threat to another as a result of that, I know for a fact being a father that my reactions to a situation are greatly affected by the fact of whether or not I have any of my children with me at the time, as I have said before ask yourself at what point a female with two children in her care may have become intimidated or threatened in this situation, when they took her trolley and started wheeling it away with her shopping still in it ensuring she would have to follow? when they invited her into a closed room with two males? when they refused to allow her to leave? when they reinforced that refusal by standing and moving forward towards a sitting female? when stating that she would not be leaving without handing over the clubcard? it could have been at any one of these points that many women might feel in jeopardy either on their own behalf or that of the childrens, Yes they had every right to ask her to go to the office and she also had every right to leave when she was ready to and not a moment later!

wannasave_2

ben500 wrote:

This has already been gone over several times if you would like to look back over the thread, you do not have to physically restrain someone in order to unlawfully detain, she asked to leave they refused to allow her that is enough!

What do you suppose a woman with two children in tow should do in such a situation she has children in her care and is not in a position to challenge two adult males just to see the outcome, I'm also pretty sure that at the time she may well not have been her usual rational self for example maybe in just a little panic perhaps, we are not all of the same constitution and what poses as a threat to some may not necessarily pose as a threat to another as a result of that, I know for a fact being a father that my reactions to a situation are greatly affected by the fact of whether or not I have any of my children with me at the time, as I have said before ask yourself at what point a female with two children in her care may have become intimidated or threatened in this situation, when they took her trolley and started wheeling it away with her shopping still in it ensuring she would have to follow? when they invited her into a closed room with two males? when they refused to allow her to leave? when they reinforced that refusal by standing and moving forward towards a sitting female? when stating that she would not be leaving without handing over the clubcard? it could have been at any one of these points that many women might feel in jeopardy either on their own behalf or that of the childrens, Yes they had every right to ask her to go to the office and she also had every right to leave when she was ready to and not a moment later!

and if you look back at the original post by igloo and read it thoroughly you will find that it was not two males at all - the customer service manager was a WOMAN! So it was one female (CS manager) and one male (security). The over dramatisation that has become apparent in this whole sorry thread is getting ever worse, it's just like Chinese whispers :rolleyes:

For the avoidance of doubt, this from the OP:

igloo wrote:

About three weeks ago, while using a self-service checkout, I was approached by a customer service manager who told me that if I wasnt actually buying the product, I could use only one coupon. One coupon in total and not one per manufacturer. I told her I did not realise this because when you ask checkout people they all seem to say something different!

igloo wrote:

and a security man and the cs manager, who spoke to me a few weeks ago, came up to me and told me that I had to go into the office!

ben500

Two men, one man one woman it makes little difference to the fact that she was not permitted to leave when she asked to do so, it only makes difference to the threat factor involved which would still be substantial.