Barred from TK Maxx

Doc_Savage

My girlfriend had a hard day today and has been barred from Tk Maxx
It's her favorite shop and we'd like to know if anyone else has had something similar happen and what can be done about it?

My girlfriend was shopping there today with her friend. They both bought items separately but as they were leaving the store security guy stopped them and asked them to follow him. they did so without question. they were taken to the security offices and not allowed to make phone calls (i got half a message before the security guard shouted at her to put the phone away! that had me worried to say the least). it transpired that my girlfriends friend had accidentally taken a pair of socks worth €6. she had taken them to the cashier with the rest of her purchase but not paid for them. n honest mistake. My girlfriend was accused as an accomplice because she did nothing to stop her, i may add here that they paid at separate tills. the security guard was very intimidating to her and threatened to take her to the immigration office (she's chinese) the gardai were called and the guard was equally aggressive. they made it out that they were getting off easy with being banned from the store (and any other tk Maxx by the way). they were then free to go on their way.....

My girlfriend loves that shop, she and i have spent probably in the region of 2 - 3 thousand euro in that store in the last year, suits for me shoes for her! she's a loyal customer. her friend is unlucky to have been given such harsh treatment but i can see it is within the stores policy. however banning my girlfriend seems like way to much! She actually did nothing wrong!

she is going to the department of consumer affairs in the morning to see if the ban can be appealed or otherwise.

any other courses of action anyone could recommend?

krpc

Doc_Savage wrote: »

My girlfriend had a hard day today and has been barred from Tk Maxx
It's her favorite shop and we'd like to know if anyone else has had something similar happen and what can be done about it?

My girlfriend was shopping there today with her friend. They both bought items separately but as they were leaving the store security guy stopped them and asked them to follow him. they did so without question. they were taken to the security offices and not allowed to make phone calls (i got half a message before the security guard shouted at her to put the phone away! that had me worried to say the least). it transpired that my girlfriends friend had accidentally taken a pair of socks worth €6. she had taken them to the cashier with the rest of her purchase but not paid for them. n honest mistake. My girlfriend was accused as an accomplice because she did nothing to stop her, i may add here that they paid at separate tills. the security guard was very intimidating to her and threatened to take her to the immigration office (she's chinese) the gardai were called and the guard was equally aggressive. they made it out that they were getting off easy with being banned from the store (and any other tk Maxx by the way). they were then free to go on their way.....

My girlfriend loves that shop, she and i have spent probably in the region of 2 - 3 thousand euro in that store in the last year, suits for me shoes for her! she's a loyal customer. her friend is unlucky to have been given such harsh treatment but i can see it is within the stores policy. however banning my girlfriend seems like way to much! She actually did nothing wrong!

she is going to the department of consumer affairs in the morning to see if the ban can be appealed or otherwise.

any other courses of action anyone could recommend?

In terms of a ban, the management reserve the right to refuse admission.

However, if there was unfair treatment resulting in the ban, that is a different matter.

The Private Security Authority regulates activities within the private security industry. I assume securities employees within stores such as TK Maxx would be 3rd party private security contractors.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigates complaints of misconduct against members of An Garda Síochána.

I'd advise sending a letter to TK Maxx Head Office regarding the matter before taking any other action - let them investigate the conduct of the store employees and see what they have to say regarding the entire incident.

P. Breathnach

From the way you tell the story, it sounds as if TK Maxx got some things wrong, and I would think they should be challenged about treating her as a shoplifter when she had paid for all her purchases, about bullying her into termination a phone call, about threatening to take her to the immigration office (or anywhere else she might not want to go), and about determining that she was an accomplice to shoplifting.

But how can it still be her favourite shop?

PCPhoto

Get yourself to a solicitor and seek proper legal advice on this:

she could have a case for slander/libel .... I work down the courts as a photographer and see similar types of cases almost every week....if you need me to recommend a solicitor then drop me a PM.

Doc_Savage

i think the letter to the head office seems like the best port of call.... the issue is over a pair of socks.... a solicitor may be taking it too far (my opinion not the girlfriends) and it's still her favourite shop because the security guards don't have much or anything to do with the shop itself... well in most cases anyway!

91011

Doc_Savage wrote: »

i think the letter to the head office seems like the best port of call.... the issue is over a pair of socks.... a solicitor may be taking it too far (my opinion not the girlfriends) and it's still her favourite shop because the security guards don't have much or anything to do with the shop itself... well in most cases anyway!

The issue is about TK Maxx branding her as a shoplifter / associated with criminal activity. TK Maxx called the gardai. The gardai would have taken notes. TK maxx used bullying tactics. - If I was in that situation, I would have been in with a solictor within minutes to ensure my name was cleared and that the ignorant asshole of a security yoke was disciplined.

Doc_Savage

PCPhoto wrote: »

Get yourself to a solicitor and seek proper legal advice on this:

she could have a case for slander/libel .... I work down the courts as a photographer and see similar types of cases almost every week....if you need me to recommend a solicitor then drop me a PM.

hello i am the girl been barred from TKXX, thank can you send me some recommend solicitor. thank you for you help.......

soups05

hi doc/doc's girlfriend.

Frist off can i say how sorry i am for the upset you have had. i dont work for tkmaxx but i do work in retail. while i am sure that your girlfriend and her friend are perfectly innocent and i am not trying to say otherwise i feel its only fair to give you another point of view.
you admit that the other girl failed to pay for the socks in error. from the store point of view 90% of shoplifters cllaim it was a mistake,frist time it ever happened etc.
any store i've worked in is always reluctant to stop someone they suspect in case they get it wrong so its possible that the friend was a known shoplifter or looked like someone who is a known shoplifter and so they were watching her.

the details are a little vague as to how the staff knew she had the socks,did an alarm go off etc. in the end it makes very little differance, solictors will charge you for letters etc but in the end the facts are that the two ladies were together when one "stole" socks from the store.

they have the right to ban both of them and no one can change that. I hope i have not offended you both but sometimes it takes an outsiders eye to see what you cant.it may just be easier to go to another tkmaxx for a few months till they forget about you. its unlikely you would run into the same staff at a different branch.

P. Breathnach

Slow down, there! You cannot sue somebody for defamation unless they have actually defamed you, and most of the unpleasantness seems to have happened in a private office. It's difficult to defame somebody in a private interview. [Mind you, if they were later showily escorted out of the shop, that could be defamatory.]

I think rc_irl's suggestion is good: write to TK Maxx about it, and invite their views. A letter of that sort should be formal in tone, clear about the facts, and have a definite objective. OP's first objective seems to be getting the ban lifted, but if the facts are exactly as described, I would also expect an apology. If TK Maxx have a good customer relations policy, they might also offer a voucher as a goodwill gesture.

AlwaysAmber

There's 2 sides to every story and I'm not taking sides here but -
Shoplifting costs stores and ultimately you and I millions of Euro every year.
The security guard was doing his job - your friend didn't pay for the goods and was stopped and detained. The fact that they simply forgot to pay for them doesn't come into it really as the shop have no way of knowing that.
The security guard has no idea who you were calling. You might have been calling a gang of axe weilding maniacs to come and get you. He doesn't know, so he stopped you making a phone call.
If the security guard and Guard acted all nicey nicey to you, where's the deterrent in that? You were both caught shoplifting and part of their job is to scare the bejesus out of you so you're not tempted to do it again.
The fact your friend had the goods is also irrelevant, a lot of shoplifters work in pairs - the fact you went to different tills to pay would make it look worse.

Again, I'm not taking sides and it's not a very nice experience when you didn't intentionally steal the goods, but from the stores point of view you were caught stealing and they detained you... what do you expect a solicitor to do about that?

AlwaysAmber

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If TK Maxx have a good customer relations policy, they might also offer a voucher as a goodwill gesture.

So they catch someone stealing and offer them a voucher as a reward?

syklops

OP you have not been banned from every TK Maxx store, just the one where the incident took place. Just change stores. Ok, you were wrongly accused of stealing. I really dont think you need to get a solicitor involved. A letter to the store manager explaining your side of the story, printed out, nicely done will probably get you unbanned. I cant imagine too many shoplifters write to the store after they are caught, still pleading innocence.

P. Breathnach

AlwaysAmber wrote: »

... The security guard has no idea who you were calling. You might have been calling a gang of axe weilding maniacs to come and get you. He doesn't know, so he stopped you making a phone call...

OP's girlfriend and her friend were not under arrest (or should not have been). They voluntarily accompanied him to the office. The security guard had no right to prevent her from making a phone call.

If the security guard and Guard acted all nicey nicey to you, where's the deterrent in that? You were both caught shoplifting and part of their job is to scare the bejesus out of you so you're not tempted to do it again.

One person had goods that were not paid for. That is not a basis for determining that both were shoplifters. Further, scaring the bejeesus out of people is not a legitimate tactic if it is done by intimidation.

AlwaysAmber wrote: »

So they catch someone stealing and offer them a voucher as a reward?

No. When you treat somebody as a shoplifter when she is not one, then a compensatory gesture seems appropriate.

noodler

I think it is so difficult for the store on these situations - whilst I admit stealing socks seems unlikely the security propab;y have to put up with crap like that everyday and can't automatically accept "it was an accident".

If you feel you were treated differently due to race (although there are plenty of domestics that security guards would be on the lookout for in Irish shops too) then that is a different matter.

A letter to reverse the ban, maybe you could include photocopies of receipts for your purchases there over the years? To show them how good a customer you have been to the store.

Cabaal

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. When you treat somebody as a shoplifter when she is not one, then a compensatory gesture seems appropriate.

Should the two girls perhaps give a goodwill gesture to TK Maxx for wasting the security guards/stores time and wasting Gardai time, after all they should have just paid for the item.

P. Breathnach

Cabaal wrote: »

Should the two girls perhaps give a goodwill gesture to TK Maxx for wasting the security guards/stores time and wasting Gardai time, after all they should have just paid for the item.

"The two girls"? I am presuming that the story as told by OP is true and fairly accurate. One of them had something that had not been paid for. The other had nothing to do with that. You cannot deem somebody to be an accomplice to a crime just because she was in the proximity: she has to play some part in it.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Slow down, there! You cannot sue somebody for defamation unless they have actually defamed you, and most of the unpleasantness seems to have happened in a private office. It's difficult to defame somebody in a private interview. [Mind you, if they were later showily escorted out of the shop, that could be defamatory.]

Actually doesn't make a difference. Even if it was just the OP's girlfriend and the security guard in a sealed room, a defamation can take place. Defamation doesn't necessarily require anything to have been said in public nor to anyone else.

The security guard accused her of being party to a crime with zero evidence which was a very stupid mistake on his part.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

Actually doesn't make a difference. Even if it was just the OP's girlfriend and the security guard in a sealed room, a defamation can take place. Defamation doesn't necessarily require anything to have been said in public nor to anyone else.

The security guard accused her of being party to a crime with zero evidence which was a very stupid mistake on his part.

Huh? Try this:

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:
* it must be published,
* it must refer to the complainant and
* it must be false.

Source: http://indigo.ie/~kwood/defamation.htm

That particular piece is written for the guidance of journalists, so the emphasis on published might be slightly skewed: it might be better to say "public". The core issue is the damaging a person's reputation in the eyes of others. From the same source:

a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the eyes of right-thinking people.

It is in order to avoid the danger of defaming people that shop-lifting suspects are asked to go into a non-public space to be interviewed.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That particular piece is written for the guidance of journalists, so the emphasis on published might be slightly skewed: it might be better to say "public". The core issue is the damaging a person's reputation in the eyes of others.

Well, I can't say with any backup. I did too believe that it had to be published and said to someone else, but I was corrected on the matter previously on the legal discussion forum by people who's legal knowledge on the matter far exceeds mine.

This is a bit of a formality anyway - the OPs friend was in the room, which qualifies it as an actionable defamation.

amcalester

seamus wrote: »

Actually doesn't make a difference. Even if it was just the OP's girlfriend and the security guard in a sealed room, a defamation can take place. Defamation doesn't necessarily require anything to have been said in public nor to anyone else.

The security guard accused her of being party to a crime with zero evidence which was a very stupid mistake on his part.

Its a bit of a tricky 1 here because to defame someone the statement has to be "published" ie overheard by someone other than the person defamed. In this case the accusation was overheard but only by the other girl who had "stolen" the socks and as the definition of defamation is

a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the eyes of right-thinking people

In this case the other girl can not be seen as a right thinking person because she did (accidentally) steal the socks so no defamation could have taken place.

I am open to correction on this, it's been a few years since I studied defamation law in Ireland and at the time it was being looked at by the Law Reform Commission.


edit: didnt see the above comments before I posted.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... This is a bit of a formality anyway - the OPs friend was in the room, which qualifies it as an actionable defamation.

Also from the same source as I already cited:

a person cannot sue for having his reputation lowered in the eyes of, for example, other members of his criminal gang

DD67

Doc_Savage wrote: »

she had taken them to the cashier with the rest of her purchase but not paid for them.

Recently i went to boots and brought alot of baby items to the cashier, say four or five items layed them on the desk the cashier starts ringing them up i put them in my bag and head home. Later checking my change i find that the cashier didnt scan through one of the items the dearest one as it happens, who is at fault here.

Perhaps something similar happened to your friend

jimmycrackcorm

What I find strange is how the security guard was aware that the socks weren't paid for. After all some action must have triggered it. There's a subtle indication in the op that it was only €6 but shoplifting in total costs a huge amount of money so each incident, genuine or not is significant.

I'd suggest the ops girlfriend writes a letter to the shop manager pointing out that she had nothing to do with the incident, had paid for her own items at a separate till and that she has been a significant and regular shopper there.

She should also point out that, being innocent of any actual theft, that her treatment by the security guard was unwarranted and distressing especially by being told not to make a call on her own phone.

Grumpypants

How much stuff did the OP buy ? just curious if you sent a letter to the manager with the receipts. Explaining that it was an honest mistake and pointing out how insane a plan it is to get free socks.

As an example if you spent 200 euro each just to create a diversion to rob a pair of socks you would prob be the worst shop lifter ever!!

But at the same time your friend did leave without paying for some items so i think this is a case of both parties being at fault and it could be easily fixed without turning into a big deal.

Dyr

Unless the laws or the procedure for store security has changed over the years it's very odd that they pulled your sister back rather than just her friend. She had done absolutely nothing wrong, Personally I'd proceed on that basis.

seagull

I would imagine the fact that the gardai were called would move it into the realms of defamation.

Cabaal wrote: »

Should the two girls perhaps give a goodwill gesture to TK Maxx for wasting the security guards/stores time and wasting Gardai time, after all they should have just paid for the item.

It doesn't sound like they were given the option of paying for the item once the issue came to light. The OP doesn't indicate how the failure to pay occurred. It could have been a case of the teller not scanning them.

P. Breathnach

seagull wrote: »

I would imagine the fact that the gardai were called would move it into the realms of defamation.

Only if Gardaí are members of the set of right-thinking people.

More seriously, it might be that reporting the issue to the Gardaí would be considered a privileged conversation.

slowmoe

personally any store that treated me in the manner described would never be seeing my business again

seagull

It's probably too late now, but could she have made a complaint about unlawful detention by the security guard?

wmpdd3

It's a hard one to comment on, I have been witness to security officer led arrests of shop lifters in a variety of shops. The most recent ones had camera's in the interview rooms for obvious reasons.

For us to involve the police we would have, cctv footage of the person entering the shop, selection of the item, concealment, no effort made to pay for the item and exiting the store.

For issues at the register, it usually comes down to who packed the bag, if it was the operator, an investigation would probably take place with the member of staff before the customer would be contacted. Are you aware most registers would have atleast 3 cameras on them, fully zoom able, to the extent that you can often read the print on the notes being handed over?

In relation to the ban, the person with the socks may as well accept it, the other person could write to the store giving the details above and ask for it to be lifted.

In relation to a civil case for defamation etc, any well run store will have already sent all the details of the catch to their legal dept and you would have to engage a solicitor in order to dispute the companies findings.

OP one question, why do you think the guards sided with the security guards, usually when the guards arrive they ask for an overview of the situation, any cctv, evidence. If they are not happy with the evidence they will not be party to any form of ban or punishment.

Doc_Savage

syklops wrote: »

OP you have not been banned from every TK Maxx store, just the one where the incident took place.

the letter that she got from tkmaxx. says "our stores" and doesn't mention the stephens green address once.

syklops wrote: »

A letter to the store manager explaining your side of the story, printed out, nicely done will probably get you unbanned. I cant imagine too many shoplifters write to the store after they are caught, still pleading innocence.

this is the course of action that we are going to pursue, i feel that it is a diplomatic course of action and could clear her name with the least possible harm to all parties involved.

noodler wrote: »

I think it is so difficult for the store on these situations - whilst I admit stealing socks seems unlikely the security propab;y have to put up with crap like that everyday and can't automatically accept "it was an accident".

totally agree, but when you know you're innocent and don't want to be put in the same bracket as shoplifters then it's difficult not to came across as reactionary. this may have made them appear the same as shoplifters the situation in the view of the security guard. it would be virtually impossible for the security guard to differenciate in this situation!

noodler wrote: »

A letter to reverse the ban, maybe you could include photocopies of receipts for your purchases there over the years? To show them how good a customer you have been to the store.

we only have a few reciepts and they were low value ones stuck in wallets. we may have some bigger ones on laser and credit card.

DD67 wrote: »

Recently i went to boots and brought alot of baby items to the cashier, say four or five items layed them on the desk the cashier starts ringing them up i put them in my bag and head home. Later checking my change i find that the cashier didnt scan through one of the items the dearest one as it happens, who is at fault here.

Perhaps something similar happened to your friend

and if you were subsequently banned from all boots stores would you accept it? they could contest that you concealed it from the cashier. the message they have beside the till saying that you should check your reciept is correct before you leave.

Grumpypants wrote: »

How much stuff did the OP buy ? ...........
...........But at the same time your friend did leave without paying for some items so i think this is a case of both parties being at fault and it could be easily fixed without turning into a big deal.

my girlfriend bought a forty euro pair of shoes and her friend had about sixty euro worth of small items. your second point is admitted and my girlfriends friend is annoyed but it seems that she has accepted the charge.

Bambi wrote: »

Unless the laws or the procedure for store security has changed over the years it's very odd that they pulled your girlfriend back rather than just her friend. She had done absolutely nothing wrong, Personally I'd proceed on that basis.

fixed and it was her best friend, she's not the kind of person to abandon a friend she was concerned about. and that is indeed the basis we are proceeding on.

seagull wrote: »

It doesn't sound like they were given the option of paying for the item once the issue came to light.

seagull wrote: »

this option was never given.

The OP doesn't indicate how the failure to pay occurred. It could have been a case of the teller not scanning them.

a bit more on this....
my girlfriend(Lian) and her friend(Juan), were in the store shopping, Juan had had an arguement with her mother and then her fiance earlier in the day, she was distressed and Lian had taken her out for some retail therapy. the fact that she was distressed and they were continually talking and juan sounding aggitated may have attracted the attention of the store security guard. they were unaware of this. they shopped around the store and juan had her purchases across her handbag/arm. this may have looked like an effort to conceal. Lian had a pair of shoes in her hand. they went to the till and as two tills were empty they went to separate tills. lian paid and waited on juan. Juan went to the till and put her items and bag on the counter, handing all her items to the cashier. she paid and put her purchases into the bag at the till. Either the pair of socks was not scanned or they fell into her bag as she put the items on the counter, Juan admits she doesn't know what happened. not knowing what had transpired the pair left the store and were stopped by the guard after they left. both were stopped and both went without resistance not knowing what they were accused of!

slowmoe wrote: »

personally any store that treated me in the manner described would never be seeing my business again

it's more about clearing her name

wmpdd3 wrote: »

OP one question, why do you think the guards sided with the security guards, usually when the guards arrive they ask for an overview of the situation, any cctv, evidence. If they are not happy with the evidence they will not be party to any form of ban or punishment.

it was the end of the day for both.... that's probably why they sided together!